Best Of

Iran without 90% of its oil income is a solid negotiating chip.

It leaves Iran with nowhere to go except sink every ship they possibly can, which I am sure is exactly the outcome Donny boy was aiming for...

Something they're already doing.

Cut their oil revenue and choke their finances.

Bankruptcy is a plausible route to regime change. Grunts want to be paid.

I don't buy that at all. I don't think terrorists demand the National Living Wage. They are in it for the "love of the game", as my Gen Z colleagues say all the time.

Who said terrorists? You mock, but soldiers absolutely expect to be paid.

The regime is hated, but they have the military.

Several regime collapses have been in no small part due to the inability to pay the military properly, which undercuts their survival.

Ceaușescu ran out of money and could not pay his soldiers properly. When protests occured and soldiers decided not to shoot them, the result was regime change.

There are plenty of other authoritarian regimes that have changed because they could no longer pay the military, so the military turned against them.

If the IRGC is the kind of outfit we think it is (and I think their slaughter of tens of thousands of protestors is incontrevtible proof of that), they aren't going waiver in the face of a little financial hardship.

A revolution would be absolutely disastrous for them because ordinary Iranians will do them like the Italians did Mussolini. There is no circumstance in which they will simply give up.

That may be true for the upper leadership, who may be pressured to flee the country if they lose their grasp.

For the grunts who are expected to pull the trigger on any protestors?

Precedent is widespread that failing to pay them collapses the options for regime survival.

We shall see. I just think the example of a country like Ukraine, living though unimaginable hardship this winter and with tens of thousands dead and maimed, would suggest this isn't as simple as you might think.

Iran without 90% of its oil income is a solid negotiating chip.

It leaves Iran with nowhere to go except sink every ship they possibly can, which I am sure is exactly the outcome Donny boy was aiming for...

Something they're already doing.

Cut their oil revenue and choke their finances.

Bankruptcy is a plausible route to regime change. Grunts want to be paid.

I don't buy that at all. I don't think terrorists demand the National Living Wage. They are in it for the "love of the game", as my Gen Z colleagues say all the time.

Who said terrorists? You mock, but soldiers absolutely expect to be paid.

The regime is hated, but they have the military.

Several regime collapses have been in no small part due to the inability to pay the military properly, which undercuts their survival.

Ceaușescu ran out of money and could not pay his soldiers properly. When protests occured and soldiers decided not to shoot them, the result was regime change.

There are plenty of other authoritarian regimes that have changed because they could no longer pay the military, so the military turned against them.

If the IRGC is the kind of outfit we think it is (and I think their slaughter of tens of thousands of protestors is incontrevtible proof of that), they aren't going waiver in the face of a little financial hardship.

A revolution would be absolutely disastrous for them because ordinary Iranians will do them like the Italians did Mussolini. There is no circumstance in which they will simply give up.

That may be true for the upper leadership, who may be pressured to flee the country if they lose their grasp.

For the grunts who are expected to pull the trigger on any protestors?

Precedent is widespread that failing to pay them collapses the options for regime survival.

We shall see. I just think the example of a country like Ukraine, living though unimaginable hardship this winter and with tens of thousands dead and maimed, would suggest this isn't as simple as you might think.

Who said simple?

The difference is the Ukrainian public is behind the Ukrainian government and wants Ukraine to survive.

The Iranian public hates its own regime and it only survives because the military is willing to kill its own people.

Pete Hegseth's Pastor on the country he wants to see, on the Jesse Dollemore podcast. If I have him right, Dollemore is a Republican secularist where the state is concerned, who is not a Trump fan:

Deep link: https://youtu.be/icUK_P5GWj8?t=171

Hegseth is even being called out by one of the main Newsmax hosts who served in Iraq - he has made the point that all the shit-talking and taunting Iran by Hegseth is fine until you are a pilot who gets shot down and captured and so Negseth needs to stop that stupid behaviour.

If they are losing Newsmax people then they are really in a mess.

It’s a real problem to have a military campaign led by people who think winning wars is all about being hard men, and that using your brain is a form of mutiny.

A Fukker government is going to need to appoint a lot of peers very quickly. They obviously can't all come from the ranks of the Third Positionists, petty criminals, terminally unemployed and mentally ill that form the bulk of the Fukker membership. In those circumstances I could see a Fukker peerage being attractive to Lord Johnson of Uccle and Henly. Ditto other disgusting tory relicts like Chopey, Shappsie and IDS.

Morning all. I was reflecting on this over the last few days. Not Boris going fukker (though joining a party which describes his primary hobby would be fun), the need for Reform to have capable people.

So far they seem to attract the mad, bad and dispossessed. We have seen in Reform councils how these people come a cropper when the rhetoric of "all the money is wasted on woke" splats against reality. They have no ideas other than bad ones based on fantasy, so actually turning things around becomes difficult.

Who are the people being lined up as fukker candidates for Westminster? The mad, bad and dispossessed. Should we be unlucky enough to have these fukkers in government, the only ones capable of doing anything are the ones who have already proven themselves to be unfit and incapable.

Which leaves the Lords. So far we have a former handmaid leading the party in Scotland as the highest profile. Is the intention to attract people from industry? Lets be honest, they'll be spivs won't they?

So back to Boris. Why on earth would he want to join that?

The appeal of populism, of whatever flavour, is that it claims to offer easy solutions. "Your life sucks, but there's one easy trick that to turn it round, but THEY don't want to do it."

That's fine at a campaign rally, but hardly ever works in government. There's nearly always a very good reason for not doing the one eady trick; either it doesn't work or it comes with horrible consequences. That's when it gets... "interesting".

Populism is partly right. By and large, people in power in Western democracies don’t care for, or about, the people they govern. Their empathy (assuming they have any at all), is restricted to their peers.

But, populists rarely have good solutions.

That's a fair point, but it's one of communication and empathy, not so much of policy. In terms of "how to run the economy to best deliver a good life to people", the answer has settled a while back- a moderately open, moderately mixed economy. Everything else in the parameter space ends up worse.

The much harder question is how far the state should take from those who win in the lottery of life to support the losers. And we all have grimly predictable views on that, mostly predictable on the basis of whether we see ourselves as winners or losers.

Yet it is part of policy.

The Optimates of our political class tend to ideas such as "If a small business goes under because of increased taxes or regulation, it was a zombie business". And then are surprised at the lack of enthusiasm among the small business owners at the Circus Maximus on race day.

Between the dreary love of Process as a God and the psychosis of DOGE - you get a few wittering about John Lewis style service and government. But what we need is a radically *moderate* approach to reforming government so as to be a *service for people*

When Sir Johnny Ives came up with a design for a phone that didn't need a small but thick book (printed in a font too tiny to read) to operate, he sparked a revolution. And government is still stuck in the "Another 10,000 pages of rules will do it".

A Fukker government is going to need to appoint a lot of peers very quickly. They obviously can't all come from the ranks of the Third Positionists, petty criminals, terminally unemployed and mentally ill that form the bulk of the Fukker membership. In those circumstances I could see a Fukker peerage being attractive to Lord Johnson of Uccle and Henly. Ditto other disgusting tory relicts like Chopey, Shappsie and IDS.

Morning all. I was reflecting on this over the last few days. Not Boris going fukker (though joining a party which describes his primary hobby would be fun), the need for Reform to have capable people.

So far they seem to attract the mad, bad and dispossessed. We have seen in Reform councils how these people come a cropper when the rhetoric of "all the money is wasted on woke" splats against reality. They have no ideas other than bad ones based on fantasy, so actually turning things around becomes difficult.

Who are the people being lined up as fukker candidates for Westminster? The mad, bad and dispossessed. Should we be unlucky enough to have these fukkers in government, the only ones capable of doing anything are the ones who have already proven themselves to be unfit and incapable.

Which leaves the Lords. So far we have a former handmaid leading the party in Scotland as the highest profile. Is the intention to attract people from industry? Lets be honest, they'll be spivs won't they?

So back to Boris. Why on earth would he want to join that?

The appeal of populism, of whatever flavour, is that it claims to offer easy solutions. "Your life sucks, but there's one easy trick that to turn it round, but THEY don't want to do it."

That's fine at a campaign rally, but hardly ever works in government. There's nearly always a very good reason for not doing the one eady trick; either it doesn't work or it comes with horrible consequences. That's when it gets... "interesting".

Populism is partly right. By and large, people in power in Western democracies don’t care for, or about, the people they govern. Their empathy (assuming they have any at all), is restricted to their peers.

But, populists rarely have good solutions.

That's a fair point, but it's one of communication and empathy, not so much of policy. In terms of "how to run the economy to best deliver a good life to people", the answer has settled a while back- a moderately open, moderately mixed economy. Everything else in the parameter space ends up worse.

The much harder question is how far the state should take from those who win in the lottery of life to support the losers. And we all have grimly predictable views on that, mostly predictable on the basis of whether we see ourselves as winners or losers.

Yet it is part of policy.

The Optima's of our political tend to ideas such as "If a small business goes under because of increased taxes or regulation, it was a zombie business". And then are surprised at the lack of enthusiasm among the small business owners at the Circus Maximus on race day.

Between the dreary love of Process as a God and the psychosis of DOGE - you get a few wittering about John Lewis style service and government. But what we need is a radically *moderate* approach to reforming government so as to be a *service for people*

When Sir Johnny Ives came up with a design for a phone that didn't need a small but thick book (printed in a font too tiny to read) to operate, he sparked a revolution. And government is still stuck in the "Another 10,000 pages of rules will do it".

I do not think it is possible for a solicitors’ firm (other than the very largest, who in turn, run the risk that they are so large that employees can go rogue), not to be in breach of some the absolute cascade of regulations to which they are now subject. And, I’m sure that goes for any number of businesses.

There is a belief that society can be perfected through regulations.

It is basically impossible, in domestic small building (think loft conversion scale) to not be massively in breach of regulations. Because paying double for paperwork is simply not pssoible Mr & Mrs Miggin of No 32. Who just want to do a loft conversion so their son can have a proper room.

I had mine house done safely and to the intent of regs - insulation etc. The paperwork - no.

Two doors down, they've just had a nice cheap job done. It's will burn well, I think, when the electrics they've had bodged go.

But bad drives out good.

We are constantly told that it is not good enough to comply with the regulations. You must record and document your compliance, and establish a paper trail which can be audited.

It’s debatable whether one would have any time left to practise law, if one did so.

This, I think, is what will kill off small charities reliant on volunteer leadership.

yeah hmrc are forcing them all to register for vat / corporation tax too at which point I'd be noping out

A Fukker government is going to need to appoint a lot of peers very quickly. They obviously can't all come from the ranks of the Third Positionists, petty criminals, terminally unemployed and mentally ill that form the bulk of the Fukker membership. In those circumstances I could see a Fukker peerage being attractive to Lord Johnson of Uccle and Henly. Ditto other disgusting tory relicts like Chopey, Shappsie and IDS.

Morning all. I was reflecting on this over the last few days. Not Boris going fukker (though joining a party which describes his primary hobby would be fun), the need for Reform to have capable people.

So far they seem to attract the mad, bad and dispossessed. We have seen in Reform councils how these people come a cropper when the rhetoric of "all the money is wasted on woke" splats against reality. They have no ideas other than bad ones based on fantasy, so actually turning things around becomes difficult.

Who are the people being lined up as fukker candidates for Westminster? The mad, bad and dispossessed. Should we be unlucky enough to have these fukkers in government, the only ones capable of doing anything are the ones who have already proven themselves to be unfit and incapable.

Which leaves the Lords. So far we have a former handmaid leading the party in Scotland as the highest profile. Is the intention to attract people from industry? Lets be honest, they'll be spivs won't they?

So back to Boris. Why on earth would he want to join that?

The appeal of populism, of whatever flavour, is that it claims to offer easy solutions. "Your life sucks, but there's one easy trick that to turn it round, but THEY don't want to do it."

That's fine at a campaign rally, but hardly ever works in government. There's nearly always a very good reason for not doing the one eady trick; either it doesn't work or it comes with horrible consequences. That's when it gets... "interesting".

Reforms policy is just deport loads of people and that will solve everything. A section of the public who swallow this seem to be the same ones who decided Brexit was the answer to all of the UKs problems .

And still the penny doesn't drop that it would be a good idea for 'decent' parties to take the concerns of those voters seriously.

Lol politics has been doing nothing but dancing to these numpties' tune for the last decade. Other voters are available.

That must be why immigration is now fixed.

Good morning

Interesting SNP offer

BBC News - Swinney pledges £10,000 deposit to support first-time buyers
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx2jz1gvz7no

And on Boris - no

It's a no brainer of an offer if it means what it says, but Swinney's bank account will soon run out. I think it means that Swinney has promised £10,000 of someone else's money to a third party.

... all to chase a fixed and inadequate supply. So prices overall go up, making housing less affordable for everybody else.

Really I can't help but feel that this country's legislatures are homes for the economically illiterate.

The really worrying bit is when you talk to many such politicians.

They aren’t just playing economic illiteracy to get votes. They really believe that stuff like the above works.

Yes and it's not just economics. The inability to think anything through and grasp the most basic second order consequences of policy decisions is a hallmark of our political class. Also the desire to do something, no matter how gimmicky and rubbish, just to get headlines that day, which obviously predisposes to ineffective and expensive action.

Having spent years working in government I'm perhaps more conscious of this than many. It can be truly frightening when you see it up close.