Best Of

@tnewtondunn

I was in Washington DC when Peter Mandelson was appointed as ambassador. There was serious dismay in the British embassy about it - not specifically because of his Epstein links, but because everyone knew he was trouble and it always ends in tears with him. Plus, Karen Pierce was a brilliant ambassador who had a great relationship with Trump’s team, and wanted to extend. It was just awful judgement by Keir Starmer and his No10 from the very get go.

https://x.com/tnewtondunn/status/2018994223022801298?s=20

It’s because Starmer thought Mandelson could sell the stupid Chagos deal. That was Mandy’s job

When the history of this bizarrely tragic government is written, a little tropic archipelago near nowhere will be oddly prominent

Why are you saying it was about Chagos in particular rather than the general perception (of SKS) that Mandelson's peculiar talents would suit working with a peculiar White House?

Because that's what DC insiders are saying

I'd have thought the people with the best scoop on *why* he was appointed would be Starmer insiders.

My opinion? The Trump White House was thought more susceptible to the oily/polished charms and highly developed Machiavellian instincts of the dark lord than to more traditional diplomacy. Chagos would have been one of the things he was asked to focus on.

For me this is an example (from SKS) of being 'too clever by half' and as a consequence making a bad call. He got swept up in claustrophobic bubble thinking and missed the bigger (ethical) picture. As so often, being ultra cynical is actually being naive. Horseshoe applies.

@tnewtondunn

I was in Washington DC when Peter Mandelson was appointed as ambassador. There was serious dismay in the British embassy about it - not specifically because of his Epstein links, but because everyone knew he was trouble and it always ends in tears with him. Plus, Karen Pierce was a brilliant ambassador who had a great relationship with Trump’s team, and wanted to extend. It was just awful judgement by Keir Starmer and his No10 from the very get go.

https://x.com/tnewtondunn/status/2018994223022801298?s=20

It’s because Starmer thought Mandelson could sell the stupid Chagos deal. That was Mandy’s job

When the history of this bizarrely tragic government is written, a little tropic archipelago near nowhere will be oddly prominent

Why are you saying it was about Chagos in particular rather than the general perception (of SKS) that Mandelson's peculiar talents would suit working with a peculiar White House?

Because that's what DC insiders are saying

Ultimately the CEO of any organisation faced with this extraordinary level of opprobrium would resign

Why is it different for Starmer ?

You don’t understand this politics malarkey do you?

CEO's who resign typically head off to become CEO's elsewhere... PM's who resign have nowhere good to go.

Ultimately the CEO of any organisation faced with this extraordinary level of opprobrium would resign

Why is it different for Starmer ?

You don’t understand this politics malarkey do you?

CEO's who resign typically head off to become CEO's elsewhere... PM's who resign have nowhere good to go.

The PMs who resign are reduced to becoming millionaires through “consultancy”, non-executive roles and giving speeches.

Former Prime Minister	Years in Office	Estimated Cost per Speech
Tony Blair	1997–2007	£150,000 – £200,000+
Boris Johnson	2019–2022	£100,000 – £250,000+
Theresa May	2016–2019	£80,000 – £120,000
Gordon Brown	2007–2010	£50,000 – £75,000
John Major	1990–1997	£30,000 – £60,000

It’s a hard, hard life.

@tnewtondunn

I was in Washington DC when Peter Mandelson was appointed as ambassador. There was serious dismay in the British embassy about it - not specifically because of his Epstein links, but because everyone knew he was trouble and it always ends in tears with him. Plus, Karen Pierce was a brilliant ambassador who had a great relationship with Trump’s team, and wanted to extend. It was just awful judgement by Keir Starmer and his No10 from the very get go.

https://x.com/tnewtondunn/status/2018994223022801298?s=20

It’s because Starmer thought Mandelson could sell the stupid Chagos deal. That was Mandy’s job

When the history of this bizarrely tragic government is written, a little tropic archipelago near nowhere will be oddly prominent

Why are you saying it was about Chagos in particular rather than the general perception (of SKS) that Mandelson's peculiar talents would suit working with a peculiar White House?

Because that's what DC insiders are saying

A more mundane (and likely) suggestion is Tony Blair put in a word for his old mucker.

Blair will be keeping his head down for a while...

Simon Sebag Montefiore is one of the good guys. He just tweeted this. I make no apologies for its length. Everyone in the world should read it


The images emerging now from Iran of young people, older people, boys and girls, who were murdered in the last few weeks by the Iranian Islamic dictator, the Islamic Corps of Revolutionary Guards, Basij militia and imported killers from Iraq, are heartbreaking but also enraging.

Some depict beautiful people at play, at the gym, dancing, on motorbikes; some makeshift morgues full of bodies; some streetscenes where killers shoot down unarmed protesters; and many show families opening bodybags to find their dead children shot in the head; others discover bodies of protesters wounded then executed in hospital beds and particularly women with uteruses removed or other horrors to conceal brutal rapes... Many are not young but it looks like the slaughter of the best and brightest of Iran Gen Z. Ive tried to repost these here.

I have been contacted by people in Iran (who weirdly read my books in pirated Farsi editions) who manage to come online in various ways and they beg me to keep posting these images and faces and keep talking about them. Embarrassingly they thank me just for doing this! That is why i am writing this now. We must keep going and keep doing so.

The numbers killed are astonishing: based on sources within the murderous dictatorship, it may be as many as 36000 were murdered just in the first days of the terror 8/9 January and more later - making it likely that 40,000 is a horribly plausible estimate.

This makes this event the most greatest massacre in modern Iranian history by far, the greatest single event slaughter in modern MIddle Eastern history since 1900 - along with the Assad's liquidation of an entire town, site of Islamist insurgents, Hama, in 1982 when around 30,000 were killed. Both of them not taking place in wars but in cold blood - and this Iranian atrocity being far more terrible since none of the protesters were armed.

We live in a time of egregious comparisons to the Holocaust when the Holocaust is repellently abused and minimized by cynical cretins - radiohosts, podders, politicians- to criticize anything from vaccination to ICE raids. But here is a comparison that stands in its scale and horror: in size and horror this does resemble the two days of Babi Yar near Kiev in Sept 1941 where 33,000 Jews were killed. It is also worth pointing out that an entire progressive movement arose against the autocracy of the Shah.

And his was an autocracy. But in his forty year one reign, only around 3000 people were killed, mainly in the last year before his downfall.

It is very striking that the UN has barely commented on thiis…

https://x.com/simonmontefiore/status/2018630202482397222?s=46

He goes on in that vein. Excoriating the “progressives”

The UN Security Council is subject to Chinese and Russian vetoes on any serious action.
https://unwatch.org/after-security-council-meeting-balks-on-iran-30-ngos-demand-unhrc-urgent-session/

Those two countries are not exactly progressives.

There's only one country with the power to intervene against the murderous Iranian regime, and it's currently sending Witkoff and Kushner to negotiate with them.

But Monteviore is essentially correct; it is not hyperbole to compare the Iranian regime with that of Stalin at Katyn for example.
(The Holocaust comparison is problematic, since it was different in kind.)

Regardless there is close to a 50% chance Trump massively bombs Iran in the next few weeks if these reports are true or if he doesn't Netanyahu might

If that were to lead to regime change in Iran with minimal loss of life, that would be great. I doubt that it would though. Has regime change ever been achieved by bombing alone?

As far as outside actors are concerned? Yes. Lybia for instance.

There are people on the ground willing to liberate themselves, the problem is they are seriously outgunned. Bombing can help level the playing field.

Billie Eilish might have lost the mid-terms for the Democrats.

https://x.com/cspan/status/2018801306731749705

.@SenTedCruz: "Are we right now on stolen land?"

Netflix co-CEO Ted Sarandos: "I have no idea of the history of this land."

Warner Bros. Discovery exec Bruce Campbell: "Nor do I."

Cruz: "That speaks volumes...that neither of you are willing to say 'hell, no.'"

All land has been stolen several times over. I think there's a difference between countries where there has been some sort of process of land justice/redistribution - as in Ireland - and countries where the theft of land has never been confronted - as in Britain.

The US is in some ways a bit anomalous, because some of the land stolen from Native Americans was then shared out relatively equitably between settlers, to create the Jeffersonian ideal of an American democracy supported by small landholders. Normally theft of land led to a concentration of land ownership, rather than a distribution.

Was listening to a presentation on Irish Penal Laws 1500-1920. Basic idea is to apply the Process State.

* Group A can buy land but Group B can't
* Group A can vote but Group B can't
* You can worship your god here, but not there.
* If you own certain means of gathering wealth (in the example it was a horse) then it can't be over more than £x value
* If you break the rules, then will be a fine or prison etc

So over a period of time, there was a transference of wealth and power from one group to another simply by rule setting a.k.a we are a nation of laws. in time land ownership by the native Irish went from 80% to 20%. It's a playbook you see elsewhere where laws rather than force is the methodology. Summed up by Desmond Tutu

When the missionaries came to Africa they had the Bible and we had the land. They said 'Let us pray.' We closed our eyes. When we opened them we had the Bible and they had the land.