Anyway, war with Iran it is. They’ve had it coming.
In which case it would be a good idea to try to avoid civilian casualties as much as possible because the people of Iran are not generally supportive of the regime and they're our best hope of a successful outcome.
Anyway, war with Iran it is. They’ve had it coming.
In which case it would be a good idea to try to avoid civilian casualties as much as possible because the people of Iran are not generally supportive of the regime and they're our best hope of a successful outcome.
Indeed. Quite apart from the geographical and military obstacles in the way of changing the Iranian regime. They’re going to have to do it themselves.
Yemen though. Western countries are already heavily implicated from supplying weapons to the hideous Saudi regime. Perhaps this, like with the Palestine conflict, is an opportunity actually to try for a long term diplomatic solution. Just because Houthis are shooting at US ships doesn’t mean their opponents are in any sense “good”.
Not the chilly spells with a dusting of light snow that we get these days.
(BBC documentary for Cliff Michelmore fans)
I remember it well. I had just turned 8. An era before most had central heating. Most of my memories of ice inside windows, in solid middle class London, come from that winter of early 1963. And it was an extraordinary start to what proved to be something of an epoch making and marking year. For Larkin it was the annus mirabilis, though not without irony.
So life was never better than In nineteen sixty-three (Though just too late for me) - Between the end of the Chatterley ban And the Beatles' first LP.
A further footnote is that at the time older folks said, and still say, it was no match for the winter of 1947.
Ditto. I was also 8. We had an outside loo. Chilly.
I am convinced that I remember us getting back to Worthy Down, outside Winchester, in 1963 and the snow being up to our second floor windows because of drift. I also remember my dad taking me into work about that time because the computers the RAPC , which were the size of a gym hall and had less computing power than this phone, generated so much heat the building was way warmer than our house. The problem is that at that time I was 2 years, 3-4 months. Can anyone really remember back that far or have I created the memories from what I was told?
FWIW I think you can.
I have long had a crystal clear memory of a scene in a tv series where a character called Mrs Tolley is found dead lying on a sofa with her eyes fully open. It disturbed me greatly, stayed in my head my whole life. The woman on the sofa, dead, the eyes. I figured I'd have been quite small when I watched it. Maybe about 9 or 10.
A couple of years ago I decided to research it. Turns out the series was A Man Called Harry Brent, written by Francis Durbridge, shown on the BBC in 1965. So I was either 4 or 5. That amazed me. The clarity of the memory is greater than the last tv drama I watched which was last week. And the impact was a hundredfold. It brought home to me how very early childhood can punch above its weight.
No kidding. I'm sure many can share the experience of being able to quote tv shows and movies they've not seen in decades, and may not have even particularly liked, for example. Or remember a dressing down they were given at school 40 years later.
Reminds me of Inside Out, and its talk about Core Memories that form our personalities.
Can anyone explain why there's a question mark over whether or not Die Hard is a Christmas movie?
Because the internet likes to argue about things.
But that's based on whether a 'Christmas Movie' is something more than a film which just happens to take place at Christmas. Set it on any other holiday and would it still work, that is, is the inclusion of Christmas in it completely incidental? Is a 'Christmas Movie' more about a style and theme, like the traditional Hallmark Christmas Movie, and if so what elements make up that style?
Obviously it doesn't matter in the slightest, like certain Bromeliaceae on bread if people enjoy it then its fine.
Anyway, war with Iran it is. They’ve had it coming.
In which case it would be a good idea to try to avoid civilian casualties as much as possible because the people of Iran are not generally supportive of the regime and they're our best hope of a successful outcome.
Indeed. Quite apart from the geographical and military obstacles in the way of changing the Iranian regime. They’re going to have to do it themselves.
Yemen though. Western countries are already heavily implicated from supplying weapons to the hideous Saudi regime. Perhaps this, like with the Palestine conflict, is an opportunity actually to try for a long term diplomatic solution. Just because Houthis are shooting at US ships doesn’t mean their opponents are in any sense “good”.
The enemy of my enemy often remains a complete shit, and sometimes we have to work with them, sometimes not.
Anyway, war with Iran it is. They’ve had it coming.
In which case it would be a good idea to try to avoid civilian casualties as much as possible because the people of Iran are not generally supportive of the regime and they're our best hope of a successful outcome.
I presume any action would be focused specifically on military targets like the IRGC.
Can anyone explain why there's a question mark over whether or not Die Hard is a Christmas movie?
Because the internet likes to argue about things.
But that's based on whether a 'Christmas Movie' is something more than a film which just happens to take place at Christmas. Set it on any other holiday and would it still work, that is, is the inclusion of Christmas in it completely incidental? Is a 'Christmas Movie' more about a style and theme, like the traditional Hallmark Christmas Movie, and if so what elements make up that style?
Obviously it doesn't matter in the slightest, like certain Bromeliaceae on bread if people enjoy it then its fine.
For additional proof, De Souza suggests looking at the film’s source; a book called Nothing Lasts Forever by Roderick Thorp. The novel takes place on December 24 — Christmas Eve — and is told through John McClane’s perspective.
“He’s thinking of all the Christmases he wasn’t with his family because of being a cop and before that, being in the army,” de Souza said.
Anyway, war with Iran it is. They’ve had it coming.
In which case it would be a good idea to try to avoid civilian casualties as much as possible because the people of Iran are not generally supportive of the regime and they're our best hope of a successful outcome.
I presume any action would be focused specifically on military targets like the IRGC.
Only if you're prepared for a 1970's style oil price shock
Anyway, war with Iran it is. They’ve had it coming.
In which case it would be a good idea to try to avoid civilian casualties as much as possible because the people of Iran are not generally supportive of the regime and they're our best hope of a successful outcome.
I presume any action would be focused specifically on military targets like the IRGC.
Only if you're prepared for a 1970's style oil price shock
Why would we be looking at a 70s style oil shock? Genuine question.
Can anyone explain why there's a question mark over whether or not Die Hard is a Christmas movie?
Because the internet likes to argue about things.
But that's based on whether a 'Christmas Movie' is something more than a film which just happens to take place at Christmas. Set it on any other holiday and would it still work, that is, is the inclusion of Christmas in it completely incidental? Is a 'Christmas Movie' more about a style and theme, like the traditional Hallmark Christmas Movie, and if so what elements make up that style?
Obviously it doesn't matter in the slightest, like certain Bromeliaceae on bread if people enjoy it then its fine.
For additional proof, De Souza suggests looking at the film’s source; a book called Nothing Lasts Forever by Roderick Thorp. The novel takes place on December 24 — Christmas Eve — and is told through John McClane’s perspective.
“He’s thinking of all the Christmases he wasn’t with his family because of being a cop and before that, being in the army,” de Souza said.
That sounds like an argument that the book is a Christmas book, since a film is its own entity. I'm fine with people pointing to the script of the film for justifications of being a Christmas movie, but a book which may contain all sorts of elements and internal monologues etc which are not on screen is meaningless. Any number of films are 'based' on books and yet may even totally contradict it in some ways, so they cannot be used of proof of what the film is saying. Dumbledore also wasn't established as gay until it was included in an actual work set in the Potterverse, etc.
My favourite Christmas film is On Her Majesty's Secret Service
It’s a good Bond movie but the apex is Moonraker.
Quotes for miles "See that some harm comes to him." "The tedious inevitability of an unloved season" "You missed, Mr Bond! Did I?" "Even in death, my munificence is boundless." "you defy all my attempts to plan an amusing death for you." "At least I shall have the pleasure of putting you out of my misery"
and, inevitably - "I think he's attempting re-entry sir."
Anyway, war with Iran it is. They’ve had it coming.
In which case it would be a good idea to try to avoid civilian casualties as much as possible because the people of Iran are not generally supportive of the regime and they're our best hope of a successful outcome.
I presume any action would be focused specifically on military targets like the IRGC.
Only if you're prepared for a 1970's style oil price shock
Why would we be looking at a 70s style oil shock? Genuine question.
I don’t think we would. Quite apart from Middle Eastern politics, the world’s biggest oil producer by a factor of 2 these days is the USA. Followed by a declining Russia, and then Saudi some way below, but which would presumably be delighted to open the taps of Iran’s being attacked.
My favourite Christmas film is On Her Majesty's Secret Service
It’s a good Bond movie but the apex is Moonraker.
Quotes for miles "See that some harm comes to him." "The tedious inevitability of an unloved season" "You missed, Mr Bond! Did I?" "Even in death, my munificence is boundless." "you defy all my attempts to plan an amusing death for you." "At least I shall have the pleasure of putting you out of my misery"
and, inevitably - "I think he's attempting re-entry sir."
The laser fight was pish. Matching lasers (not different colours for the opposing sides). I just can't get into Moonraker. It's not as bad as Diamonds Are Forever but it ain't far off.
The entire premise of the picture is that it’s Christmas Eve and therefore there is nobody in the building bar a Japanese bank that doesn’t really celebrate Christmas and as such is the only company in LA that holds its works Christmas party on 24 Dec.
It’s a pretty thin premise admittedly (even Japanese banks don’t insist their staff attend a Christmas party on Christmas Eve IRL). But, nevertheless, it’s clearly a Christmas film, given that the fact that it is Christmas is absolutely central to the plot.
My favourite Christmas film is On Her Majesty's Secret Service
It’s a good Bond movie but the apex is Moonraker.
Quotes for miles "See that some harm comes to him." "The tedious inevitability of an unloved season" "You missed, Mr Bond! Did I?" "Even in death, my munificence is boundless." "you defy all my attempts to plan an amusing death for you." "At least I shall have the pleasure of putting you out of my misery"
and, inevitably - "I think he's attempting re-entry sir."
The laser fight was pish. Matching lasers (not different colours for the opposing sides). I just can't get into Moonraker. It's not as bad as Diamonds Are Forever but it ain't far off.
Interestingly, you're not the first person to say the lasers should have been different colours
Anyway, war with Iran it is. They’ve had it coming.
In which case it would be a good idea to try to avoid civilian casualties as much as possible because the people of Iran are not generally supportive of the regime and they're our best hope of a successful outcome.
I presume any action would be focused specifically on military targets like the IRGC.
Only if you're prepared for a 1970's style oil price shock
Why would we be looking at a 70s style oil shock? Genuine question.
1. Where are Iran and their proxies? 2. Now look at Iranian drone/ballistic missile technology 3. Now see what one attack did to Saudi production 4. Now imagine the Iranians are pissed off and actually go for oil/LNG production 5. Now look at Iranian anti-ship missiles (1000km+ range) 6. Now imagine you need to pilot an oil/LNG tanker past Iran and Iranian proxies
Clearly I'm not expert but if the Iranians only closed their strait this would immediately remove ~20%* of current oil and LNG production.
Anyway, war with Iran it is. They’ve had it coming.
In which case it would be a good idea to try to avoid civilian casualties as much as possible because the people of Iran are not generally supportive of the regime and they're our best hope of a successful outcome.
I presume any action would be focused specifically on military targets like the IRGC.
Only if you're prepared for a 1970's style oil price shock
Why would we be looking at a 70s style oil shock? Genuine question.
1. Where are Iran and their proxies? 2. Now look at Iranian drone/ballistic missile technology 3. Now see what one attack did to Saudi production 4. Now imagine the Iranians are pissed off and actually go for oil/LNG production 5. Now look at Iranian anti-ship missiles (1000km+ range) 6. Now imagine you need to pilot an oil/LNG tanker past Iran and Iranian proxies
Clearly I'm not expert but if the Iranians only closed their strait this would immediately remove ~20%* of current oil and LNG production.
Possibly what the world really needs now, when the global temperature is already in excess of 1.5C above pre-industrial levels, is a little oil shock. We remain far less efficient in our use of energy than we could be. “We” being in particular the USA.
Can anyone explain why there's a question mark over whether or not Die Hard is a Christmas movie?
Because the internet likes to argue about things.
But that's based on whether a 'Christmas Movie' is something more than a film which just happens to take place at Christmas. Set it on any other holiday and would it still work, that is, is the inclusion of Christmas in it completely incidental? Is a 'Christmas Movie' more about a style and theme, like the traditional Hallmark Christmas Movie, and if so what elements make up that style?
Obviously it doesn't matter in the slightest, like certain Bromeliaceae on bread if people enjoy it then its fine.
For additional proof, De Souza suggests looking at the film’s source; a book called Nothing Lasts Forever by Roderick Thorp. The novel takes place on December 24 — Christmas Eve — and is told through John McClane’s perspective.
“He’s thinking of all the Christmases he wasn’t with his family because of being a cop and before that, being in the army,” de Souza said.
That sounds like an argument that the book is a Christmas book, since a film is its own entity. I'm fine with people pointing to the script of the film for justifications of being a Christmas movie, but a book which may contain all sorts of elements and internal monologues etc which are not on screen is meaningless. Any number of films are 'based' on books and yet may even totally contradict it in some ways, so they cannot be used of proof of what the film is saying. Dumbledore also wasn't established as gay until it was included in an actual work set in the Potterverse, etc.
Last line in the film, spoken by the limo driver Argyle:
"If this is their idea of Christmas, I gotta be here for New Year's!"
Anyway, war with Iran it is. They’ve had it coming.
In which case it would be a good idea to try to avoid civilian casualties as much as possible because the people of Iran are not generally supportive of the regime and they're our best hope of a successful outcome.
I presume any action would be focused specifically on military targets like the IRGC.
Only if you're prepared for a 1970's style oil price shock
Why would we be looking at a 70s style oil shock? Genuine question.
1. Where are Iran and their proxies? 2. Now look at Iranian drone/ballistic missile technology 3. Now see what one attack did to Saudi production 4. Now imagine the Iranians are pissed off and actually go for oil/LNG production 5. Now look at Iranian anti-ship missiles (1000km+ range) 6. Now imagine you need to pilot an oil/LNG tanker past Iran and Iranian proxies
Clearly I'm not expert but if the Iranians only closed their strait this would immediately remove ~20%* of current oil and LNG production.
If they go after other countries' oil and gas production facilities couldn't they expect the same treatment in return? They have as much to lose as anyone else and their regime has been creaking. For all the sanctions imposed on them they do seem to act with impunity.
Anyway, war with Iran it is. They’ve had it coming.
In which case it would be a good idea to try to avoid civilian casualties as much as possible because the people of Iran are not generally supportive of the regime and they're our best hope of a successful outcome.
I presume any action would be focused specifically on military targets like the IRGC.
Only if you're prepared for a 1970's style oil price shock
Why would we be looking at a 70s style oil shock? Genuine question.
1. Where are Iran and their proxies? 2. Now look at Iranian drone/ballistic missile technology 3. Now see what one attack did to Saudi production 4. Now imagine the Iranians are pissed off and actually go for oil/LNG production 5. Now look at Iranian anti-ship missiles (1000km+ range) 6. Now imagine you need to pilot an oil/LNG tanker past Iran and Iranian proxies
Clearly I'm not expert but if the Iranians only closed their strait this would immediately remove ~20%* of current oil and LNG production.
If they go after other countries' oil and gas production facilities couldn't they expect the same treatment in return? They have as much to lose as anyone else and their regime has been creaking. For all the sanctions imposed on them they do seem to act with impunity.
My favourite Christmas film is On Her Majesty's Secret Service
It’s a good Bond movie but the apex is Moonraker.
Quotes for miles "See that some harm comes to him." "The tedious inevitability of an unloved season" "You missed, Mr Bond! Did I?" "Even in death, my munificence is boundless." "you defy all my attempts to plan an amusing death for you." "At least I shall have the pleasure of putting you out of my misery"
and, inevitably - "I think he's attempting re-entry sir."
The laser fight was pish. Matching lasers (not different colours for the opposing sides). I just can't get into Moonraker. It's not as bad as Diamonds Are Forever but it ain't far off.
Always loved it as a Bond movie. Great soundtrack,,great cast, cracking theme, wonderful open titles sequence and just as camp as a row of tents.
Spy Who Loved Me rocked but this just is one step better.
Anyway, war with Iran it is. They’ve had it coming.
In which case it would be a good idea to try to avoid civilian casualties as much as possible because the people of Iran are not generally supportive of the regime and they're our best hope of a successful outcome.
I presume any action would be focused specifically on military targets like the IRGC.
Only if you're prepared for a 1970's style oil price shock
Why would we be looking at a 70s style oil shock? Genuine question.
1. Where are Iran and their proxies? 2. Now look at Iranian drone/ballistic missile technology 3. Now see what one attack did to Saudi production 4. Now imagine the Iranians are pissed off and actually go for oil/LNG production 5. Now look at Iranian anti-ship missiles (1000km+ range) 6. Now imagine you need to pilot an oil/LNG tanker past Iran and Iranian proxies
Clearly I'm not expert but if the Iranians only closed their strait this would immediately remove ~20%* of current oil and LNG production.
Possibly what the world really needs now, when the global temperature is already in excess of 1.5C above pre-industrial levels, is a little oil shock. We remain far less efficient in our use of energy than we could be. “We” being in particular the USA.
Anyway, war with Iran it is. They’ve had it coming.
In which case it would be a good idea to try to avoid civilian casualties as much as possible because the people of Iran are not generally supportive of the regime and they're our best hope of a successful outcome.
I presume any action would be focused specifically on military targets like the IRGC.
Only if you're prepared for a 1970's style oil price shock
Why would we be looking at a 70s style oil shock? Genuine question.
1. Where are Iran and their proxies? 2. Now look at Iranian drone/ballistic missile technology 3. Now see what one attack did to Saudi production 4. Now imagine the Iranians are pissed off and actually go for oil/LNG production 5. Now look at Iranian anti-ship missiles (1000km+ range) 6. Now imagine you need to pilot an oil/LNG tanker past Iran and Iranian proxies
Clearly I'm not expert but if the Iranians only closed their strait this would immediately remove ~20%* of current oil and LNG production.
If they go after other countries' oil and gas production facilities couldn't they expect the same treatment in return? They have as much to lose as anyone else and their regime has been creaking. For all the sanctions imposed on them they do seem to act with impunity.
They have little to gain by doing this and everything to lose. As bad as they are you’d think they aren’t stupid.
Anyway, war with Iran it is. They’ve had it coming.
In which case it would be a good idea to try to avoid civilian casualties as much as possible because the people of Iran are not generally supportive of the regime and they're our best hope of a successful outcome.
I presume any action would be focused specifically on military targets like the IRGC.
Only if you're prepared for a 1970's style oil price shock
Why would we be looking at a 70s style oil shock? Genuine question.
1. Where are Iran and their proxies? 2. Now look at Iranian drone/ballistic missile technology 3. Now see what one attack did to Saudi production 4. Now imagine the Iranians are pissed off and actually go for oil/LNG production 5. Now look at Iranian anti-ship missiles (1000km+ range) 6. Now imagine you need to pilot an oil/LNG tanker past Iran and Iranian proxies
Clearly I'm not expert but if the Iranians only closed their strait this would immediately remove ~20%* of current oil and LNG production.
Possibly what the world really needs now, when the global temperature is already in excess of 1.5C above pre-industrial levels, is a little oil shock. We remain far less efficient in our use of energy than we could be. “We” being in particular the USA.
So assuming the hypothetical increase in efficiency unless you maintain the high cost, total energy consumption may not change.
Yes I’ve seen that one. But greater output for the same energy input at a time everyone’s moving to more renewable sources of energy anyway seems like an ok risk to take.
Anyway, war with Iran it is. They’ve had it coming.
In which case it would be a good idea to try to avoid civilian casualties as much as possible because the people of Iran are not generally supportive of the regime and they're our best hope of a successful outcome.
I presume any action would be focused specifically on military targets like the IRGC.
Only if you're prepared for a 1970's style oil price shock
Why would we be looking at a 70s style oil shock? Genuine question.
1. Where are Iran and their proxies? 2. Now look at Iranian drone/ballistic missile technology 3. Now see what one attack did to Saudi production 4. Now imagine the Iranians are pissed off and actually go for oil/LNG production 5. Now look at Iranian anti-ship missiles (1000km+ range) 6. Now imagine you need to pilot an oil/LNG tanker past Iran and Iranian proxies
Clearly I'm not expert but if the Iranians only closed their strait this would immediately remove ~20%* of current oil and LNG production.
Possibly what the world really needs now, when the global temperature is already in excess of 1.5C above pre-industrial levels, is a little oil shock. We remain far less efficient in our use of energy than we could be. “We” being in particular the USA.
Oil doesn’t just provide fuel, oil based products are pretty essential to many of the things we take for granted in life. They are also essential for the products that are made, and will continue to be made, to aid the transition to net zero. Heat pumps are full of components that are oil based.
We could also have an impact on inflation which, at the current time, is not really what we need as the battle has yet to,be won.
The only winners with an oil price shock would be financial speculators.
Anyway, war with Iran it is. They’ve had it coming.
In which case it would be a good idea to try to avoid civilian casualties as much as possible because the people of Iran are not generally supportive of the regime and they're our best hope of a successful outcome.
I presume any action would be focused specifically on military targets like the IRGC.
Only if you're prepared for a 1970's style oil price shock
Why would we be looking at a 70s style oil shock? Genuine question.
1. Where are Iran and their proxies? 2. Now look at Iranian drone/ballistic missile technology 3. Now see what one attack did to Saudi production 4. Now imagine the Iranians are pissed off and actually go for oil/LNG production 5. Now look at Iranian anti-ship missiles (1000km+ range) 6. Now imagine you need to pilot an oil/LNG tanker past Iran and Iranian proxies
Clearly I'm not expert but if the Iranians only closed their strait this would immediately remove ~20%* of current oil and LNG production.
If they go after other countries' oil and gas production facilities couldn't they expect the same treatment in return? They have as much to lose as anyone else and their regime has been creaking. For all the sanctions imposed on them they do seem to act with impunity.
Sure, but aren't we attacking Iran today? I'd imagine if the UK was involved the Iranian's would consider the war existential.
Anyway, war with Iran it is. They’ve had it coming.
In which case it would be a good idea to try to avoid civilian casualties as much as possible because the people of Iran are not generally supportive of the regime and they're our best hope of a successful outcome.
I presume any action would be focused specifically on military targets like the IRGC.
Only if you're prepared for a 1970's style oil price shock
Why would we be looking at a 70s style oil shock? Genuine question.
1. Where are Iran and their proxies? 2. Now look at Iranian drone/ballistic missile technology 3. Now see what one attack did to Saudi production 4. Now imagine the Iranians are pissed off and actually go for oil/LNG production 5. Now look at Iranian anti-ship missiles (1000km+ range) 6. Now imagine you need to pilot an oil/LNG tanker past Iran and Iranian proxies
Clearly I'm not expert but if the Iranians only closed their strait this would immediately remove ~20%* of current oil and LNG production.
If they go after other countries' oil and gas production facilities couldn't they expect the same treatment in return? They have as much to lose as anyone else and their regime has been creaking. For all the sanctions imposed on them they do seem to act with impunity.
Sure, but aren't we attacking Iran today? I'd imagine if the UK was involved the Iranian's would consider the war existential.
PB’s armchair general brigade is ready to swing into action.
Anyway, war with Iran it is. They’ve had it coming.
In which case it would be a good idea to try to avoid civilian casualties as much as possible because the people of Iran are not generally supportive of the regime and they're our best hope of a successful outcome.
I presume any action would be focused specifically on military targets like the IRGC.
Only if you're prepared for a 1970's style oil price shock
Why would we be looking at a 70s style oil shock? Genuine question.
1. Where are Iran and their proxies? 2. Now look at Iranian drone/ballistic missile technology 3. Now see what one attack did to Saudi production 4. Now imagine the Iranians are pissed off and actually go for oil/LNG production 5. Now look at Iranian anti-ship missiles (1000km+ range) 6. Now imagine you need to pilot an oil/LNG tanker past Iran and Iranian proxies
Clearly I'm not expert but if the Iranians only closed their strait this would immediately remove ~20%* of current oil and LNG production.
If they go after other countries' oil and gas production facilities couldn't they expect the same treatment in return? They have as much to lose as anyone else and their regime has been creaking. For all the sanctions imposed on them they do seem to act with impunity.
Sure, but aren't we attacking Iran today? I'd imagine if the UK was involved the Iranian's would consider the war existential.
The British Empire lives on in their heads, as in Russia.
Anyway, war with Iran it is. They’ve had it coming.
In which case it would be a good idea to try to avoid civilian casualties as much as possible because the people of Iran are not generally supportive of the regime and they're our best hope of a successful outcome.
I presume any action would be focused specifically on military targets like the IRGC.
Only if you're prepared for a 1970's style oil price shock
Why would we be looking at a 70s style oil shock? Genuine question.
1. Where are Iran and their proxies? 2. Now look at Iranian drone/ballistic missile technology 3. Now see what one attack did to Saudi production 4. Now imagine the Iranians are pissed off and actually go for oil/LNG production 5. Now look at Iranian anti-ship missiles (1000km+ range) 6. Now imagine you need to pilot an oil/LNG tanker past Iran and Iranian proxies
Clearly I'm not expert but if the Iranians only closed their strait this would immediately remove ~20%* of current oil and LNG production.
If they go after other countries' oil and gas production facilities couldn't they expect the same treatment in return? They have as much to lose as anyone else and their regime has been creaking. For all the sanctions imposed on them they do seem to act with impunity.
Sure, but aren't we attacking Iran today? I'd imagine if the UK was involved the Iranian's would consider the war existential.
PB’s armchair general brigade is ready to swing into action.
Anyway, war with Iran it is. They’ve had it coming.
In which case it would be a good idea to try to avoid civilian casualties as much as possible because the people of Iran are not generally supportive of the regime and they're our best hope of a successful outcome.
I presume any action would be focused specifically on military targets like the IRGC.
Only if you're prepared for a 1970's style oil price shock
Why would we be looking at a 70s style oil shock? Genuine question.
1. Where are Iran and their proxies? 2. Now look at Iranian drone/ballistic missile technology 3. Now see what one attack did to Saudi production 4. Now imagine the Iranians are pissed off and actually go for oil/LNG production 5. Now look at Iranian anti-ship missiles (1000km+ range) 6. Now imagine you need to pilot an oil/LNG tanker past Iran and Iranian proxies
Clearly I'm not expert but if the Iranians only closed their strait this would immediately remove ~20%* of current oil and LNG production.
If they go after other countries' oil and gas production facilities couldn't they expect the same treatment in return? They have as much to lose as anyone else and their regime has been creaking. For all the sanctions imposed on them they do seem to act with impunity.
Sure, but aren't we attacking Iran today? I'd imagine if the UK was involved the Iranian's would consider the war existential.
PB’s armchair general brigade is ready to swing into action.
Nobody’s ready to swing into action. But there is a tendency for people to reach for doom at the first opportunity. They’re already evoking Iranian oil price blackmail before a shot’s fired (or at least before a shot’s fired back).
James Cleverly also falls from first to 11th from bottom.
Badenoch now tops the survey, Mordaunt second, Mercer third
What's Cleverly done to annoy everyone so much so quickly? Is it his "Rwanda might not be all that important" talk?
Bodes ill for a 2025 leadership election if so.
The membership probably believes he's imperilled the Red Wall after what he said about Stockton. The party is either Continuation Boris and Levelling Up or it is nothing.
Anyway, war with Iran it is. They’ve had it coming.
In which case it would be a good idea to try to avoid civilian casualties as much as possible because the people of Iran are not generally supportive of the regime and they're our best hope of a successful outcome.
I presume any action would be focused specifically on military targets like the IRGC.
Only if you're prepared for a 1970's style oil price shock
Why would we be looking at a 70s style oil shock? Genuine question.
1. Where are Iran and their proxies? 2. Now look at Iranian drone/ballistic missile technology 3. Now see what one attack did to Saudi production 4. Now imagine the Iranians are pissed off and actually go for oil/LNG production 5. Now look at Iranian anti-ship missiles (1000km+ range) 6. Now imagine you need to pilot an oil/LNG tanker past Iran and Iranian proxies
Clearly I'm not expert but if the Iranians only closed their strait this would immediately remove ~20%* of current oil and LNG production.
If they go after other countries' oil and gas production facilities couldn't they expect the same treatment in return? They have as much to lose as anyone else and their regime has been creaking. For all the sanctions imposed on them they do seem to act with impunity.
Sure, but aren't we attacking Iran today? I'd imagine if the UK was involved the Iranian's would consider the war existential.
PB’s armchair general brigade is ready to swing into action.
Anyway, war with Iran it is. They’ve had it coming.
In which case it would be a good idea to try to avoid civilian casualties as much as possible because the people of Iran are not generally supportive of the regime and they're our best hope of a successful outcome.
I presume any action would be focused specifically on military targets like the IRGC.
Only if you're prepared for a 1970's style oil price shock
Why would we be looking at a 70s style oil shock? Genuine question.
1. Where are Iran and their proxies? 2. Now look at Iranian drone/ballistic missile technology 3. Now see what one attack did to Saudi production 4. Now imagine the Iranians are pissed off and actually go for oil/LNG production 5. Now look at Iranian anti-ship missiles (1000km+ range) 6. Now imagine you need to pilot an oil/LNG tanker past Iran and Iranian proxies
Clearly I'm not expert but if the Iranians only closed their strait this would immediately remove ~20%* of current oil and LNG production.
If they go after other countries' oil and gas production facilities couldn't they expect the same treatment in return? They have as much to lose as anyone else and their regime has been creaking. For all the sanctions imposed on them they do seem to act with impunity.
Sure, but aren't we attacking Iran today? I'd imagine if the UK was involved the Iranian's would consider the war existential.
PB’s armchair general brigade is ready to swing into action.
Anyway, war with Iran it is. They’ve had it coming.
In which case it would be a good idea to try to avoid civilian casualties as much as possible because the people of Iran are not generally supportive of the regime and they're our best hope of a successful outcome.
I presume any action would be focused specifically on military targets like the IRGC.
Only if you're prepared for a 1970's style oil price shock
Why would we be looking at a 70s style oil shock? Genuine question.
1. Where are Iran and their proxies? 2. Now look at Iranian drone/ballistic missile technology 3. Now see what one attack did to Saudi production 4. Now imagine the Iranians are pissed off and actually go for oil/LNG production 5. Now look at Iranian anti-ship missiles (1000km+ range) 6. Now imagine you need to pilot an oil/LNG tanker past Iran and Iranian proxies
Clearly I'm not expert but if the Iranians only closed their strait this would immediately remove ~20%* of current oil and LNG production.
If they go after other countries' oil and gas production facilities couldn't they expect the same treatment in return? They have as much to lose as anyone else and their regime has been creaking. For all the sanctions imposed on them they do seem to act with impunity.
Sure, but aren't we attacking Iran today? I'd imagine if the UK was involved the Iranian's would consider the war existential.
PB’s armchair general brigade is ready to swing into action.
Nobody’s ready to swing into action. But there is a tendency for people to reach for doom at the first opportunity. They’re already evoking Iranian oil price blackmail before a shot’s fired (or at least before a shot’s fired back).
Yes, there is a doom laden element, Or as some say ‘brace’.
Still if you expect the worst you can only be pleasantly surprised.
Anyway, war with Iran it is. They’ve had it coming.
In which case it would be a good idea to try to avoid civilian casualties as much as possible because the people of Iran are not generally supportive of the regime and they're our best hope of a successful outcome.
I presume any action would be focused specifically on military targets like the IRGC.
Only if you're prepared for a 1970's style oil price shock
Why would we be looking at a 70s style oil shock? Genuine question.
1. Where are Iran and their proxies? 2. Now look at Iranian drone/ballistic missile technology 3. Now see what one attack did to Saudi production 4. Now imagine the Iranians are pissed off and actually go for oil/LNG production 5. Now look at Iranian anti-ship missiles (1000km+ range) 6. Now imagine you need to pilot an oil/LNG tanker past Iran and Iranian proxies
Clearly I'm not expert but if the Iranians only closed their strait this would immediately remove ~20%* of current oil and LNG production.
If they go after other countries' oil and gas production facilities couldn't they expect the same treatment in return? They have as much to lose as anyone else and their regime has been creaking. For all the sanctions imposed on them they do seem to act with impunity.
Sure, but aren't we attacking Iran today? I'd imagine if the UK was involved the Iranian's would consider the war existential.
PB’s armchair general brigade is ready to swing into action.
I'd plead guilty to being an armchair general though I'm rather more circumspect than the cliche suggests. The question is can Iran continue to act with impunity. It does seem as if the consequence of trying to avoid escalation at all costs is escalation itself - from the other side.
Anyway, war with Iran it is. They’ve had it coming.
In which case it would be a good idea to try to avoid civilian casualties as much as possible because the people of Iran are not generally supportive of the regime and they're our best hope of a successful outcome.
I presume any action would be focused specifically on military targets like the IRGC.
Only if you're prepared for a 1970's style oil price shock
Why would we be looking at a 70s style oil shock? Genuine question.
1. Where are Iran and their proxies? 2. Now look at Iranian drone/ballistic missile technology 3. Now see what one attack did to Saudi production 4. Now imagine the Iranians are pissed off and actually go for oil/LNG production 5. Now look at Iranian anti-ship missiles (1000km+ range) 6. Now imagine you need to pilot an oil/LNG tanker past Iran and Iranian proxies
Clearly I'm not expert but if the Iranians only closed their strait this would immediately remove ~20%* of current oil and LNG production.
If they go after other countries' oil and gas production facilities couldn't they expect the same treatment in return? They have as much to lose as anyone else and their regime has been creaking. For all the sanctions imposed on them they do seem to act with impunity.
Sure, but aren't we attacking Iran today? I'd imagine if the UK was involved the Iranian's would consider the war existential.
PB’s armchair general brigade is ready to swing into action.
Anyway, war with Iran it is. They’ve had it coming.
In which case it would be a good idea to try to avoid civilian casualties as much as possible because the people of Iran are not generally supportive of the regime and they're our best hope of a successful outcome.
I presume any action would be focused specifically on military targets like the IRGC.
Only if you're prepared for a 1970's style oil price shock
Why would we be looking at a 70s style oil shock? Genuine question.
1. Where are Iran and their proxies? 2. Now look at Iranian drone/ballistic missile technology 3. Now see what one attack did to Saudi production 4. Now imagine the Iranians are pissed off and actually go for oil/LNG production 5. Now look at Iranian anti-ship missiles (1000km+ range) 6. Now imagine you need to pilot an oil/LNG tanker past Iran and Iranian proxies
Clearly I'm not expert but if the Iranians only closed their strait this would immediately remove ~20%* of current oil and LNG production.
If they go after other countries' oil and gas production facilities couldn't they expect the same treatment in return? They have as much to lose as anyone else and their regime has been creaking. For all the sanctions imposed on them they do seem to act with impunity.
Sure, but aren't we attacking Iran today? I'd imagine if the UK was involved the Iranian's would consider the war existential.
PB’s armchair general brigade is ready to swing into action.
Admiral please.
Admiral-General Haffaz Aladeen!
I'm more interested in the equipment than the personnel.
Are we talking IKEA, DFS or Stressless, and how fast can Dura_Ace get an armchair to go?
I see Russia's heavy hand in all of this. Yes, I know I'll get the usual snark, but Russia *really* needs the west's attention to be places other than Ukraine. And Venezuela (Guyana) and Iran (everyone around them) are both Russian client/friendly states. I think the same about the Israeli/Hamas conflict as well.
It's too much of a coincidence.
Also: there might be (another) flareup between Eritrea and Ethiopia - Ethiopia covets sea access. But the world won't give a **** about that... ;(
(The question is whether the world should care, given the Eritrean government is worse than even North Korea.)
Anyway, war with Iran it is. They’ve had it coming.
In which case it would be a good idea to try to avoid civilian casualties as much as possible because the people of Iran are not generally supportive of the regime and they're our best hope of a successful outcome.
I presume any action would be focused specifically on military targets like the IRGC.
Only if you're prepared for a 1970's style oil price shock
Why would we be looking at a 70s style oil shock? Genuine question.
1. Where are Iran and their proxies? 2. Now look at Iranian drone/ballistic missile technology 3. Now see what one attack did to Saudi production 4. Now imagine the Iranians are pissed off and actually go for oil/LNG production 5. Now look at Iranian anti-ship missiles (1000km+ range) 6. Now imagine you need to pilot an oil/LNG tanker past Iran and Iranian proxies
Clearly I'm not expert but if the Iranians only closed their strait this would immediately remove ~20%* of current oil and LNG production.
If they go after other countries' oil and gas production facilities couldn't they expect the same treatment in return? They have as much to lose as anyone else and their regime has been creaking. For all the sanctions imposed on them they do seem to act with impunity.
Sure, but aren't we attacking Iran today? I'd imagine if the UK was involved the Iranian's would consider the war existential.
PB’s armchair general brigade is ready to swing into action.
I'd plead guilty to being an armchair general though I'm rather more circumspect than the cliche suggests. The question is can Iran continue to act with impunity. It does seem as if the consequence of trying to avoid escalation at all costs is escalation itself - from the other side.
Anyway, war with Iran it is. They’ve had it coming.
In which case it would be a good idea to try to avoid civilian casualties as much as possible because the people of Iran are not generally supportive of the regime and they're our best hope of a successful outcome.
I presume any action would be focused specifically on military targets like the IRGC.
Only if you're prepared for a 1970's style oil price shock
Why would we be looking at a 70s style oil shock? Genuine question.
1. Where are Iran and their proxies? 2. Now look at Iranian drone/ballistic missile technology 3. Now see what one attack did to Saudi production 4. Now imagine the Iranians are pissed off and actually go for oil/LNG production 5. Now look at Iranian anti-ship missiles (1000km+ range) 6. Now imagine you need to pilot an oil/LNG tanker past Iran and Iranian proxies
Clearly I'm not expert but if the Iranians only closed their strait this would immediately remove ~20%* of current oil and LNG production.
If they go after other countries' oil and gas production facilities couldn't they expect the same treatment in return? They have as much to lose as anyone else and their regime has been creaking. For all the sanctions imposed on them they do seem to act with impunity.
Sure, but aren't we attacking Iran today? I'd imagine if the UK was involved the Iranian's would consider the war existential.
PB’s armchair general brigade is ready to swing into action.
Anyway, war with Iran it is. They’ve had it coming.
In which case it would be a good idea to try to avoid civilian casualties as much as possible because the people of Iran are not generally supportive of the regime and they're our best hope of a successful outcome.
I presume any action would be focused specifically on military targets like the IRGC.
Only if you're prepared for a 1970's style oil price shock
Why would we be looking at a 70s style oil shock? Genuine question.
1. Where are Iran and their proxies? 2. Now look at Iranian drone/ballistic missile technology 3. Now see what one attack did to Saudi production 4. Now imagine the Iranians are pissed off and actually go for oil/LNG production 5. Now look at Iranian anti-ship missiles (1000km+ range) 6. Now imagine you need to pilot an oil/LNG tanker past Iran and Iranian proxies
Clearly I'm not expert but if the Iranians only closed their strait this would immediately remove ~20%* of current oil and LNG production.
If they go after other countries' oil and gas production facilities couldn't they expect the same treatment in return? They have as much to lose as anyone else and their regime has been creaking. For all the sanctions imposed on them they do seem to act with impunity.
Sure, but aren't we attacking Iran today? I'd imagine if the UK was involved the Iranian's would consider the war existential.
PB’s armchair general brigade is ready to swing into action.
I'd plead guilty to being an armchair general though I'm rather more circumspect than the cliche suggests. The question is can Iran continue to act with impunity. It does seem as if the consequence of trying to avoid escalation at all costs is escalation itself - from the other side.
Anyway, war with Iran it is. They’ve had it coming.
In which case it would be a good idea to try to avoid civilian casualties as much as possible because the people of Iran are not generally supportive of the regime and they're our best hope of a successful outcome.
I presume any action would be focused specifically on military targets like the IRGC.
Only if you're prepared for a 1970's style oil price shock
Why would we be looking at a 70s style oil shock? Genuine question.
1. Where are Iran and their proxies? 2. Now look at Iranian drone/ballistic missile technology 3. Now see what one attack did to Saudi production 4. Now imagine the Iranians are pissed off and actually go for oil/LNG production 5. Now look at Iranian anti-ship missiles (1000km+ range) 6. Now imagine you need to pilot an oil/LNG tanker past Iran and Iranian proxies
Clearly I'm not expert but if the Iranians only closed their strait this would immediately remove ~20%* of current oil and LNG production.
If they go after other countries' oil and gas production facilities couldn't they expect the same treatment in return? They have as much to lose as anyone else and their regime has been creaking. For all the sanctions imposed on them they do seem to act with impunity.
Sure, but aren't we attacking Iran today? I'd imagine if the UK was involved the Iranian's would consider the war existential.
PB’s armchair general brigade is ready to swing into action.
Anyway, war with Iran it is. They’ve had it coming.
In which case it would be a good idea to try to avoid civilian casualties as much as possible because the people of Iran are not generally supportive of the regime and they're our best hope of a successful outcome.
I presume any action would be focused specifically on military targets like the IRGC.
Only if you're prepared for a 1970's style oil price shock
Why would we be looking at a 70s style oil shock? Genuine question.
1. Where are Iran and their proxies? 2. Now look at Iranian drone/ballistic missile technology 3. Now see what one attack did to Saudi production 4. Now imagine the Iranians are pissed off and actually go for oil/LNG production 5. Now look at Iranian anti-ship missiles (1000km+ range) 6. Now imagine you need to pilot an oil/LNG tanker past Iran and Iranian proxies
Clearly I'm not expert but if the Iranians only closed their strait this would immediately remove ~20%* of current oil and LNG production.
If they go after other countries' oil and gas production facilities couldn't they expect the same treatment in return? They have as much to lose as anyone else and their regime has been creaking. For all the sanctions imposed on them they do seem to act with impunity.
Sure, but aren't we attacking Iran today? I'd imagine if the UK was involved the Iranian's would consider the war existential.
PB’s armchair general brigade is ready to swing into action.
I'd plead guilty to being an armchair general though I'm rather more circumspect than the cliche suggests. The question is can Iran continue to act with impunity. It does seem as if the consequence of trying to avoid escalation at all costs is escalation itself - from the other side.
Israel's also acting with impunity.
Israel might be getting it wrong but their goal is clearly eradicating a hideous terrorist entity. I have sympathy with that. What is Iran's goal? Destroying Israel, dominating the middle east region and being the world's number one state sponsor of terrorism with its fingerprints all over the endless atrocities in Syria and Yemen. Got its proxies occupying the south of Lebanon too. Never mind the treatment of their own population especially women. So I don't see any moral equivalence.
Anyway, war with Iran it is. They’ve had it coming.
In which case it would be a good idea to try to avoid civilian casualties as much as possible because the people of Iran are not generally supportive of the regime and they're our best hope of a successful outcome.
I presume any action would be focused specifically on military targets like the IRGC.
Only if you're prepared for a 1970's style oil price shock
Why would we be looking at a 70s style oil shock? Genuine question.
1. Where are Iran and their proxies? 2. Now look at Iranian drone/ballistic missile technology 3. Now see what one attack did to Saudi production 4. Now imagine the Iranians are pissed off and actually go for oil/LNG production 5. Now look at Iranian anti-ship missiles (1000km+ range) 6. Now imagine you need to pilot an oil/LNG tanker past Iran and Iranian proxies
Clearly I'm not expert but if the Iranians only closed their strait this would immediately remove ~20%* of current oil and LNG production.
If they go after other countries' oil and gas production facilities couldn't they expect the same treatment in return? They have as much to lose as anyone else and their regime has been creaking. For all the sanctions imposed on them they do seem to act with impunity.
Sure, but aren't we attacking Iran today? I'd imagine if the UK was involved the Iranian's would consider the war existential.
PB’s armchair general brigade is ready to swing into action.
I'd plead guilty to being an armchair general though I'm rather more circumspect than the cliche suggests. The question is can Iran continue to act with impunity. It does seem as if the consequence of trying to avoid escalation at all costs is escalation itself - from the other side.
Israel's also acting with impunity.
But they’re allies so that’s okay 👍
Hardly impunity when their country is being shelled daily, over a thousand civilians were killed by Hamas on 7th October after invading the country, and Houthis are sinking their ships. Iran on the other hand really is getting zero comeback for anything it does through its proxies.
Anyway, war with Iran it is. They’ve had it coming.
In which case it would be a good idea to try to avoid civilian casualties as much as possible because the people of Iran are not generally supportive of the regime and they're our best hope of a successful outcome.
I presume any action would be focused specifically on military targets like the IRGC.
Only if you're prepared for a 1970's style oil price shock
Why would we be looking at a 70s style oil shock? Genuine question.
1. Where are Iran and their proxies? 2. Now look at Iranian drone/ballistic missile technology 3. Now see what one attack did to Saudi production 4. Now imagine the Iranians are pissed off and actually go for oil/LNG production 5. Now look at Iranian anti-ship missiles (1000km+ range) 6. Now imagine you need to pilot an oil/LNG tanker past Iran and Iranian proxies
Clearly I'm not expert but if the Iranians only closed their strait this would immediately remove ~20%* of current oil and LNG production.
If they go after other countries' oil and gas production facilities couldn't they expect the same treatment in return? They have as much to lose as anyone else and their regime has been creaking. For all the sanctions imposed on them they do seem to act with impunity.
Sure, but aren't we attacking Iran today? I'd imagine if the UK was involved the Iranian's would consider the war existential.
PB’s armchair general brigade is ready to swing into action.
I'd plead guilty to being an armchair general though I'm rather more circumspect than the cliche suggests. The question is can Iran continue to act with impunity. It does seem as if the consequence of trying to avoid escalation at all costs is escalation itself - from the other side.
Israel's also acting with impunity.
Israel might be getting it wrong but their goal is clearly eradicating a hideous terrorist entity. I have sympathy with that. What is Iran's goal? Destroying Israel, dominating the middle east region and being the world's number one state sponsor of terrorism with its fingerprints all over the endless atrocities in Syria and Yemen. Got its proxies occupying the south of Lebanon too. Never mind the treatment of their own population especially women. So I don't see any moral equivalence.
Israel seems to be murdering thousands of Palestinians for the sheer hell of it. Or maybe it's bloodlust?
James Cleverly also falls from first to 11th from bottom.
Badenoch now tops the survey, Mordaunt second, Mercer third
The more important point is just how split the membership is over Braverman
In the same poll 54% think it was right to dismiss her, 43% it was wrong
Sunak seems disinterested and certainly is making unenforced errors, not least over the Elgin marbles
The country is crying out for a GE and the sooner the better, as the conservative party needs to go into opposition and decide what it stands for
I fear it will follow the moves across Europe, in NZ, and elsewhere to the right as immigration and the cost of achieving net zero rocket up the agenda over the next few years
Personally, I have accepted PM Starmer as inevitable but I am far from convinced he can overcome the tsunami of problems heading our way but my recent encounter with potentially serious health issues has confirmed that for me, my family is all that matters and I do not have the band width for protracted arguments over politics
And as a side issue my wife and I really enjoyed Llandudno RNLI carol concert at the boathouse this afternoon with the Welsh Male voice choir and the Minister, who is an active member of the shore crew, welcoming the packed boathouse and reminding us that if the crew's pagers do go off during the concert, the crews will go to their stations and both the Shannon AWB and the inshore boat were outside on the apron ready for any call no matter when
@trussliz · 9h This week I will present a Private Members' Bill to Parliament. The Bill would protect single-sex spaces in law. It would also protect children and teenagers from making irreversible decisions about their bodies https://x.com/trussliz/status/1731259826972274898?s=20
Anyway, war with Iran it is. They’ve had it coming.
In which case it would be a good idea to try to avoid civilian casualties as much as possible because the people of Iran are not generally supportive of the regime and they're our best hope of a successful outcome.
I presume any action would be focused specifically on military targets like the IRGC.
Only if you're prepared for a 1970's style oil price shock
Why would we be looking at a 70s style oil shock? Genuine question.
1. Where are Iran and their proxies? 2. Now look at Iranian drone/ballistic missile technology 3. Now see what one attack did to Saudi production 4. Now imagine the Iranians are pissed off and actually go for oil/LNG production 5. Now look at Iranian anti-ship missiles (1000km+ range) 6. Now imagine you need to pilot an oil/LNG tanker past Iran and Iranian proxies
Clearly I'm not expert but if the Iranians only closed their strait this would immediately remove ~20%* of current oil and LNG production.
If they go after other countries' oil and gas production facilities couldn't they expect the same treatment in return? They have as much to lose as anyone else and their regime has been creaking. For all the sanctions imposed on them they do seem to act with impunity.
Sure, but aren't we attacking Iran today? I'd imagine if the UK was involved the Iranian's would consider the war existential.
PB’s armchair general brigade is ready to swing into action.
I'd plead guilty to being an armchair general though I'm rather more circumspect than the cliche suggests. The question is can Iran continue to act with impunity. It does seem as if the consequence of trying to avoid escalation at all costs is escalation itself - from the other side.
Israel's also acting with impunity.
But they’re allies so that’s okay 👍
Hardly impunity when their country is being shelled daily, over a thousand civilians were killed by Hamas on 7th October after invading the country, and Houthis are sinking their ships. Iran on the other hand really is getting zero comeback for anything it does through its proxies.
859 civilians in fact, rest were IDF.
Since 7/10, Israel has killed well over 15,000 Palestinians.
Anyway, war with Iran it is. They’ve had it coming.
In which case it would be a good idea to try to avoid civilian casualties as much as possible because the people of Iran are not generally supportive of the regime and they're our best hope of a successful outcome.
I presume any action would be focused specifically on military targets like the IRGC.
Only if you're prepared for a 1970's style oil price shock
Why would we be looking at a 70s style oil shock? Genuine question.
1. Where are Iran and their proxies? 2. Now look at Iranian drone/ballistic missile technology 3. Now see what one attack did to Saudi production 4. Now imagine the Iranians are pissed off and actually go for oil/LNG production 5. Now look at Iranian anti-ship missiles (1000km+ range) 6. Now imagine you need to pilot an oil/LNG tanker past Iran and Iranian proxies
Clearly I'm not expert but if the Iranians only closed their strait this would immediately remove ~20%* of current oil and LNG production.
If they go after other countries' oil and gas production facilities couldn't they expect the same treatment in return? They have as much to lose as anyone else and their regime has been creaking. For all the sanctions imposed on them they do seem to act with impunity.
Sure, but aren't we attacking Iran today? I'd imagine if the UK was involved the Iranian's would consider the war existential.
PB’s armchair general brigade is ready to swing into action.
I'd plead guilty to being an armchair general though I'm rather more circumspect than the cliche suggests. The question is can Iran continue to act with impunity. It does seem as if the consequence of trying to avoid escalation at all costs is escalation itself - from the other side.
Israel's also acting with impunity.
But they’re allies so that’s okay 👍
Hardly impunity when their country is being shelled daily, over a thousand civilians were killed by Hamas on 7th October after invading the country, and Houthis are sinking their ships. Iran on the other hand really is getting zero comeback for anything it does through its proxies.
859 civilians in fact, rest were IDF.
Since 7/10, Israel has killed well over 15,000 Palestinians.
"Since 7/10, Israel has killed well over 15,000 Palestinians."
Anyway, war with Iran it is. They’ve had it coming.
In which case it would be a good idea to try to avoid civilian casualties as much as possible because the people of Iran are not generally supportive of the regime and they're our best hope of a successful outcome.
I presume any action would be focused specifically on military targets like the IRGC.
Only if you're prepared for a 1970's style oil price shock
Why would we be looking at a 70s style oil shock? Genuine question.
1. Where are Iran and their proxies? 2. Now look at Iranian drone/ballistic missile technology 3. Now see what one attack did to Saudi production 4. Now imagine the Iranians are pissed off and actually go for oil/LNG production 5. Now look at Iranian anti-ship missiles (1000km+ range) 6. Now imagine you need to pilot an oil/LNG tanker past Iran and Iranian proxies
Clearly I'm not expert but if the Iranians only closed their strait this would immediately remove ~20%* of current oil and LNG production.
If they go after other countries' oil and gas production facilities couldn't they expect the same treatment in return? They have as much to lose as anyone else and their regime has been creaking. For all the sanctions imposed on them they do seem to act with impunity.
Sure, but aren't we attacking Iran today? I'd imagine if the UK was involved the Iranian's would consider the war existential.
PB’s armchair general brigade is ready to swing into action.
I'd plead guilty to being an armchair general though I'm rather more circumspect than the cliche suggests. The question is can Iran continue to act with impunity. It does seem as if the consequence of trying to avoid escalation at all costs is escalation itself - from the other side.
Israel's also acting with impunity.
But they’re allies so that’s okay 👍
Hardly impunity when their country is being shelled daily, over a thousand civilians were killed by Hamas on 7th October after invading the country, and Houthis are sinking their ships. Iran on the other hand really is getting zero comeback for anything it does through its proxies.
859 civilians in fact, rest were IDF.
Since 7/10, Israel has killed well over 15,000 Palestinians.
I know the source for the second line will be Hamas, but what is your source for the first?
Anyway, war with Iran it is. They’ve had it coming.
In which case it would be a good idea to try to avoid civilian casualties as much as possible because the people of Iran are not generally supportive of the regime and they're our best hope of a successful outcome.
I presume any action would be focused specifically on military targets like the IRGC.
Only if you're prepared for a 1970's style oil price shock
Why would we be looking at a 70s style oil shock? Genuine question.
I don’t think we would. Quite apart from Middle Eastern politics, the world’s biggest oil producer by a factor of 2 these days is the USA. Followed by a declining Russia, and then Saudi some way below, but which would presumably be delighted to open the taps of Iran’s being attacked.
Taking the other side of this argument: oil demand is relatively price inelastic. Whether the price of oil is $50/barrel or $200/barrel, you still need to get from a to b, and your car - unless it's electric - runs on petrol.
If you removed 5 million barrels of Middle Eastern exports, through Iranian oil completely leaving the market, and some disruption in the Straits of Hormuz (through which most Middle Eastern oil flows), then I think it is entirely possible that oil prices could end up near $200.
Of course, in the medium to long term, that would result in greater investment in US tight oil, and more electrification (and therefore lower demand for oil). But in the short term, prices could go through the roof, and that would almost certainly result in a fairly miserable time for energy importers like... errr... us.
(It would, of course, be great news for Russia, which still exports lots of oil.)
Anyway, war with Iran it is. They’ve had it coming.
In which case it would be a good idea to try to avoid civilian casualties as much as possible because the people of Iran are not generally supportive of the regime and they're our best hope of a successful outcome.
I presume any action would be focused specifically on military targets like the IRGC.
Only if you're prepared for a 1970's style oil price shock
Why would we be looking at a 70s style oil shock? Genuine question.
1. Where are Iran and their proxies? 2. Now look at Iranian drone/ballistic missile technology 3. Now see what one attack did to Saudi production 4. Now imagine the Iranians are pissed off and actually go for oil/LNG production 5. Now look at Iranian anti-ship missiles (1000km+ range) 6. Now imagine you need to pilot an oil/LNG tanker past Iran and Iranian proxies
Clearly I'm not expert but if the Iranians only closed their strait this would immediately remove ~20%* of current oil and LNG production.
If they go after other countries' oil and gas production facilities couldn't they expect the same treatment in return? They have as much to lose as anyone else and their regime has been creaking. For all the sanctions imposed on them they do seem to act with impunity.
Sure, but aren't we attacking Iran today? I'd imagine if the UK was involved the Iranian's would consider the war existential.
PB’s armchair general brigade is ready to swing into action.
I'd plead guilty to being an armchair general though I'm rather more circumspect than the cliche suggests. The question is can Iran continue to act with impunity. It does seem as if the consequence of trying to avoid escalation at all costs is escalation itself - from the other side.
Israel's also acting with impunity.
But they’re allies so that’s okay 👍
Hardly impunity when their country is being shelled daily, over a thousand civilians were killed by Hamas on 7th October after invading the country, and Houthis are sinking their ships. Iran on the other hand really is getting zero comeback for anything it does through its proxies.
859 civilians in fact, rest were IDF.
Since 7/10, Israel has killed well over 15,000 Palestinians.
Anyway, war with Iran it is. They’ve had it coming.
In which case it would be a good idea to try to avoid civilian casualties as much as possible because the people of Iran are not generally supportive of the regime and they're our best hope of a successful outcome.
I presume any action would be focused specifically on military targets like the IRGC.
Only if you're prepared for a 1970's style oil price shock
Why would we be looking at a 70s style oil shock? Genuine question.
1. Where are Iran and their proxies? 2. Now look at Iranian drone/ballistic missile technology 3. Now see what one attack did to Saudi production 4. Now imagine the Iranians are pissed off and actually go for oil/LNG production 5. Now look at Iranian anti-ship missiles (1000km+ range) 6. Now imagine you need to pilot an oil/LNG tanker past Iran and Iranian proxies
Clearly I'm not expert but if the Iranians only closed their strait this would immediately remove ~20%* of current oil and LNG production.
Possibly what the world really needs now, when the global temperature is already in excess of 1.5C above pre-industrial levels, is a little oil shock. We remain far less efficient in our use of energy than we could be. “We” being in particular the USA.
But I need to light up my massive lawn (which I mow with a petrol mower) with 80,000 incandescent bulbs spelling out "IT IS CHRISTMAS". Otherwise the communists have basically won.
The bad communists even. Not like that nice Mr.Putin.
Anyway, war with Iran it is. They’ve had it coming.
In which case it would be a good idea to try to avoid civilian casualties as much as possible because the people of Iran are not generally supportive of the regime and they're our best hope of a successful outcome.
I presume any action would be focused specifically on military targets like the IRGC.
Only if you're prepared for a 1970's style oil price shock
Why would we be looking at a 70s style oil shock? Genuine question.
1. Where are Iran and their proxies? 2. Now look at Iranian drone/ballistic missile technology 3. Now see what one attack did to Saudi production 4. Now imagine the Iranians are pissed off and actually go for oil/LNG production 5. Now look at Iranian anti-ship missiles (1000km+ range) 6. Now imagine you need to pilot an oil/LNG tanker past Iran and Iranian proxies
Clearly I'm not expert but if the Iranians only closed their strait this would immediately remove ~20%* of current oil and LNG production.
If they go after other countries' oil and gas production facilities couldn't they expect the same treatment in return? They have as much to lose as anyone else and their regime has been creaking. For all the sanctions imposed on them they do seem to act with impunity.
Sure, but aren't we attacking Iran today? I'd imagine if the UK was involved the Iranian's would consider the war existential.
PB’s armchair general brigade is ready to swing into action.
I'd plead guilty to being an armchair general though I'm rather more circumspect than the cliche suggests. The question is can Iran continue to act with impunity. It does seem as if the consequence of trying to avoid escalation at all costs is escalation itself - from the other side.
Israel's also acting with impunity.
But they’re allies so that’s okay 👍
Hardly impunity when their country is being shelled daily, over a thousand civilians were killed by Hamas on 7th October after invading the country, and Houthis are sinking their ships. Iran on the other hand really is getting zero comeback for anything it does through its proxies.
859 civilians in fact, rest were IDF.
Since 7/10, Israel has killed well over 15,000 Palestinians.
I know the source for the second line will be Hamas, but what is your source for the first?
Anyway, war with Iran it is. They’ve had it coming.
In which case it would be a good idea to try to avoid civilian casualties as much as possible because the people of Iran are not generally supportive of the regime and they're our best hope of a successful outcome.
I presume any action would be focused specifically on military targets like the IRGC.
Only if you're prepared for a 1970's style oil price shock
Why would we be looking at a 70s style oil shock? Genuine question.
1. Where are Iran and their proxies? 2. Now look at Iranian drone/ballistic missile technology 3. Now see what one attack did to Saudi production 4. Now imagine the Iranians are pissed off and actually go for oil/LNG production 5. Now look at Iranian anti-ship missiles (1000km+ range) 6. Now imagine you need to pilot an oil/LNG tanker past Iran and Iranian proxies
Clearly I'm not expert but if the Iranians only closed their strait this would immediately remove ~20%* of current oil and LNG production.
If they go after other countries' oil and gas production facilities couldn't they expect the same treatment in return? They have as much to lose as anyone else and their regime has been creaking. For all the sanctions imposed on them they do seem to act with impunity.
Sure, but aren't we attacking Iran today? I'd imagine if the UK was involved the Iranian's would consider the war existential.
PB’s armchair general brigade is ready to swing into action.
I'd plead guilty to being an armchair general though I'm rather more circumspect than the cliche suggests. The question is can Iran continue to act with impunity. It does seem as if the consequence of trying to avoid escalation at all costs is escalation itself - from the other side.
Israel's also acting with impunity.
But they’re allies so that’s okay 👍
Hardly impunity when their country is being shelled daily, over a thousand civilians were killed by Hamas on 7th October after invading the country, and Houthis are sinking their ships. Iran on the other hand really is getting zero comeback for anything it does through its proxies.
859 civilians in fact, rest were IDF.
Since 7/10, Israel has killed well over 15,000 Palestinians.
And how many from the Iranian regime? None. So they are acting with impunity.
James Cleverly also falls from first to 11th from bottom.
Badenoch now tops the survey, Mordaunt second, Mercer third
The more important point is just how split the membership is over Braverman
In the same poll 54% think it was right to dismiss her, 43% it was wrong
Sunak seems disinterested and certainly is making unenforced errors, not least over the Elgin marbles
The country is crying out for a GE and the sooner the better, as the conservative party needs to go into opposition and decide what it stands for
I fear it will follow the moves across Europe, in NZ, and elsewhere to the right as immigration and the cost of achieving net zero rocket up the agenda over the next few years
Personally, I have accepted PM Starmer as inevitable but I am far from convinced he can overcome the tsunami of problems heading our way but my recent encounter with potentially serious health issues has confirmed that for me, my family is all that matters and I do not have the band width for protracted arguments over politics
And as a side issue my wife and I really enjoyed Llandudno RNLI carol concert at the boathouse this afternoon with the Welsh Male voice choir and the Minister, who is an active member of the shore crew, welcoming the packed boathouse and reminding us that if the crew's pagers do go off during the concert, the crews will go to their stations and both the Shannon AWB and the inshore boat were outside on the apron ready for any call no matter when
No, 54% think Sunak was wrong to dismiss Braverman, 43% right in the ConHome panel survey
Anyway, war with Iran it is. They’ve had it coming.
In which case it would be a good idea to try to avoid civilian casualties as much as possible because the people of Iran are not generally supportive of the regime and they're our best hope of a successful outcome.
I presume any action would be focused specifically on military targets like the IRGC.
Only if you're prepared for a 1970's style oil price shock
Why would we be looking at a 70s style oil shock? Genuine question.
1. Where are Iran and their proxies? 2. Now look at Iranian drone/ballistic missile technology 3. Now see what one attack did to Saudi production 4. Now imagine the Iranians are pissed off and actually go for oil/LNG production 5. Now look at Iranian anti-ship missiles (1000km+ range) 6. Now imagine you need to pilot an oil/LNG tanker past Iran and Iranian proxies
Clearly I'm not expert but if the Iranians only closed their strait this would immediately remove ~20%* of current oil and LNG production.
If they go after other countries' oil and gas production facilities couldn't they expect the same treatment in return? They have as much to lose as anyone else and their regime has been creaking. For all the sanctions imposed on them they do seem to act with impunity.
Sure, but aren't we attacking Iran today? I'd imagine if the UK was involved the Iranian's would consider the war existential.
PB’s armchair general brigade is ready to swing into action.
I'd plead guilty to being an armchair general though I'm rather more circumspect than the cliche suggests. The question is can Iran continue to act with impunity. It does seem as if the consequence of trying to avoid escalation at all costs is escalation itself - from the other side.
Israel's also acting with impunity.
But they’re allies so that’s okay 👍
Hardly impunity when their country is being shelled daily, over a thousand civilians were killed by Hamas on 7th October after invading the country, and Houthis are sinking their ships. Iran on the other hand really is getting zero comeback for anything it does through its proxies.
859 civilians in fact, rest were IDF.
Since 7/10, Israel has killed well over 15,000 Palestinians.
"Since 7/10, Israel has killed well over 15,000 Palestinians."
According to the Hamas-run Health Ministry.
I keep telling you guys in the "My Israel Right Or Wrong" brigade, if you have a better source, I'm all ears.
James Cleverly also falls from first to 11th from bottom.
Badenoch now tops the survey, Mordaunt second, Mercer third
The more important point is just how split the membership is over Braverman
In the same poll 54% think it was right to dismiss her, 43% it was wrong
Sunak seems disinterested and certainly is making unenforced errors, not least over the Elgin marbles
The country is crying out for a GE and the sooner the better, as the conservative party needs to go into opposition and decide what it stands for
I fear it will follow the moves across Europe, in NZ, and elsewhere to the right as immigration and the cost of achieving net zero rocket up the agenda over the next few years
Personally, I have accepted PM Starmer as inevitable but I am far from convinced he can overcome the tsunami of problems heading our way but my recent encounter with potentially serious health issues has confirmed that for me, my family is all that matters and I do not have the band width for protracted arguments over politics
And as a side issue my wife and I really enjoyed Llandudno RNLI carol concert at the boathouse this afternoon with the Welsh Male voice choir and the Minister, who is an active member of the shore crew, welcoming the packed boathouse and reminding us that if the crew's pagers do go off during the concert, the crews will go to their stations and both the Shannon AWB and the inshore boat were outside on the apron ready for any call no matter when
No, 54% think Sunak was wrong to dismiss Braverman, 43% right in the ConHome panel survey
Anyway, war with Iran it is. They’ve had it coming.
In which case it would be a good idea to try to avoid civilian casualties as much as possible because the people of Iran are not generally supportive of the regime and they're our best hope of a successful outcome.
I presume any action would be focused specifically on military targets like the IRGC.
Only if you're prepared for a 1970's style oil price shock
Why would we be looking at a 70s style oil shock? Genuine question.
I don’t think we would. Quite apart from Middle Eastern politics, the world’s biggest oil producer by a factor of 2 these days is the USA. Followed by a declining Russia, and then Saudi some way below, but which would presumably be delighted to open the taps of Iran’s being attacked.
Taking the other side of this argument: oil demand is relatively price inelastic. Whether the price of oil is $50/barrel or $200/barrel, you still need to get from a to b, and your car - unless it's electric - runs on petrol.
If you removed 5 million barrels of Middle Eastern exports, through Iranian oil completely leaving the market, and some disruption in the Straits of Hormuz (through which most Middle Eastern oil flows), then I think it is entirely possible that oil prices could end up near $200.
Of course, in the medium to long term, that would result in greater investment in US tight oil, and more electrification (and therefore lower demand for oil). But in the short term, prices could go through the roof, and that would almost certainly result in a fairly miserable time for energy importers like... errr... us.
(It would, of course, be great news for Russia, which still exports lots of oil.)
Put it like that and it couldn’t be any clearer it’s an unhealthy addiction which needs to be broken. Rather than us dabbling around watering down decarbonisation plans. But the 70s shocks paved the way for the 90s oil price depression. Something has to give. Enough blackmail.
Anyway, war with Iran it is. They’ve had it coming.
In which case it would be a good idea to try to avoid civilian casualties as much as possible because the people of Iran are not generally supportive of the regime and they're our best hope of a successful outcome.
I presume any action would be focused specifically on military targets like the IRGC.
Only if you're prepared for a 1970's style oil price shock
Why would we be looking at a 70s style oil shock? Genuine question.
1. Where are Iran and their proxies? 2. Now look at Iranian drone/ballistic missile technology 3. Now see what one attack did to Saudi production 4. Now imagine the Iranians are pissed off and actually go for oil/LNG production 5. Now look at Iranian anti-ship missiles (1000km+ range) 6. Now imagine you need to pilot an oil/LNG tanker past Iran and Iranian proxies
Clearly I'm not expert but if the Iranians only closed their strait this would immediately remove ~20%* of current oil and LNG production.
If they go after other countries' oil and gas production facilities couldn't they expect the same treatment in return? They have as much to lose as anyone else and their regime has been creaking. For all the sanctions imposed on them they do seem to act with impunity.
Sure, but aren't we attacking Iran today? I'd imagine if the UK was involved the Iranian's would consider the war existential.
PB’s armchair general brigade is ready to swing into action.
I'd plead guilty to being an armchair general though I'm rather more circumspect than the cliche suggests. The question is can Iran continue to act with impunity. It does seem as if the consequence of trying to avoid escalation at all costs is escalation itself - from the other side.
Israel's also acting with impunity.
But they’re allies so that’s okay 👍
Hardly impunity when their country is being shelled daily, over a thousand civilians were killed by Hamas on 7th October after invading the country, and Houthis are sinking their ships. Iran on the other hand really is getting zero comeback for anything it does through its proxies.
859 civilians in fact, rest were IDF.
Since 7/10, Israel has killed well over 15,000 Palestinians.
And how many from the Iranian regime? None. So they are acting with impunity.
@trussliz · 9h This week I will present a Private Members' Bill to Parliament. The Bill would protect single-sex spaces in law. It would also protect children and teenagers from making irreversible decisions about their bodies https://x.com/trussliz/status/1731259826972274898?s=20
James Cleverly also falls from first to 11th from bottom.
Badenoch now tops the survey, Mordaunt second, Mercer third
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 1m Like I wrote today, Rishi Sunak is in serious internal trouble.
Who would now want the job before an election?
Certainly not Badenoch or Braverman, both are waiting for Sunak and Hunt to lead the Tories to general election defeat, then they can blame them for the loss of power and launch their bids for Leader of the Opposition
James Cleverly also falls from first to 11th from bottom.
Badenoch now tops the survey, Mordaunt second, Mercer third
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 1m Like I wrote today, Rishi Sunak is in serious internal trouble.
Who would now want the job before an election?
Certainly not Badenoch or Braverman, both are waiting for Sunak and Hunt to lead the Tories to general election defeat, then they can blame them for the loss of power and launch their bids for Leader of the Opposition
@trussliz · 9h This week I will present a Private Members' Bill to Parliament. The Bill would protect single-sex spaces in law. It would also protect children and teenagers from making irreversible decisions about their bodies https://x.com/trussliz/status/1731259826972274898?s=20
Liz Truss on manoeuvres? To what end? Kingmaker? Leadership of the right? (Love the Orwellian nature of protecting children and teenagers, btw).
James Cleverly also falls from first to 11th from bottom.
Badenoch now tops the survey, Mordaunt second, Mercer third
The more important point is just how split the membership is over Braverman
In the same poll 54% think it was right to dismiss her, 43% it was wrong
Sunak seems disinterested and certainly is making unenforced errors, not least over the Elgin marbles
The country is crying out for a GE and the sooner the better, as the conservative party needs to go into opposition and decide what it stands for
I fear it will follow the moves across Europe, in NZ, and elsewhere to the right as immigration and the cost of achieving net zero rocket up the agenda over the next few years
Personally, I have accepted PM Starmer as inevitable but I am far from convinced he can overcome the tsunami of problems heading our way but my recent encounter with potentially serious health issues has confirmed that for me, my family is all that matters and I do not have the band width for protracted arguments over politics
And as a side issue my wife and I really enjoyed Llandudno RNLI carol concert at the boathouse this afternoon with the Welsh Male voice choir and the Minister, who is an active member of the shore crew, welcoming the packed boathouse and reminding us that if the crew's pagers do go off during the concert, the crews will go to their stations and both the Shannon AWB and the inshore boat were outside on the apron ready for any call no matter when
No, 54% think Sunak was wrong to dismiss Braverman, 43% right in the ConHome panel survey
Comments
https://apnews.com/article/red-sea-houthi-yemen-ships-attack-israel-hamas-war-gaza-strip-716770f0a780160e9abed98d3c48fbde
But that’s casus belli enough, surely. Time to march on Tehran.
(Not really, but still. These Ayatollahs are bloody cheeky. And they’re not even liked by their own population.)
Was covered by Propellerheads: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7O1_0hikl-A as part of the David Arnold James Bond Project: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SKTser9R_9s
Yemen though. Western countries are already heavily implicated from supplying weapons to the hideous Saudi regime. Perhaps this, like with the Palestine conflict, is an opportunity actually to try for a long term diplomatic solution. Just because Houthis are shooting at US ships doesn’t mean their opponents are in any sense “good”.
Reminds me of Inside Out, and its talk about Core Memories that form our personalities.
My favourite Bond theme tune.
But that's based on whether a 'Christmas Movie' is something more than a film which just happens to take place at Christmas. Set it on any other holiday and would it still work, that is, is the inclusion of Christmas in it completely incidental? Is a 'Christmas Movie' more about a style and theme, like the traditional Hallmark Christmas Movie, and if so what elements make up that style?
Obviously it doesn't matter in the slightest, like certain Bromeliaceae on bread if people enjoy it then its fine.
“He’s thinking of all the Christmases he wasn’t with his family because of being a cop and before that, being in the army,” de Souza said.
https://conservativehome.com/2023/12/03/our-cabinet-league-table-sunak-in-record-negative-ratings/
He absolutely loved it. And his verdict:
It is a Christmas film.
The expert has spoken!
"See that some harm comes to him."
"The tedious inevitability of an unloved season"
"You missed, Mr Bond! Did I?"
"Even in death, my munificence is boundless."
"you defy all my attempts to plan an amusing death for you."
"At least I shall have the pleasure of putting you out of my misery"
and, inevitably - "I think he's attempting re-entry sir."
Brilliant soundtrack
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0IKahbz75xo
Effects
The peak of British old-school in-camera miniatures Derek Meddings special effects. Same year as Alien (and ST:TMP, but that was American)
Space Laser Battle: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uVzvlu2IsvU
Moonraker 6 launch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_VVs9t3gVyg
Research
I did the research when writing an alt-hist for alternatehistory.com. It contains this passage
"We used to be great. We built cars, ships, planes, spacecraft, starships and made them fly and spin. We lit them, painted them and filmed them, on rolling roads and shining wires. We built objects of great beauty and persuaded the world they were real. We created images that looked like nothing before or since, and they were utterly, utterly wonderful. We gave the world beauty...and now we don't. I want us to be what we used to be. I want, I want it all back the way that it was. Does that answer your question?"
The entire premise of the picture is that it’s Christmas Eve and therefore there is nobody in the building bar a Japanese bank that doesn’t really celebrate Christmas and as such is the only company in LA that holds its works Christmas party on 24 Dec.
It’s a pretty thin premise admittedly (even Japanese banks don’t insist their staff attend a Christmas party on Christmas Eve IRL). But, nevertheless, it’s clearly a Christmas film, given that the fact that it is Christmas is absolutely central to the plot.
2. Now look at Iranian drone/ballistic missile technology
3. Now see what one attack did to Saudi production
4. Now imagine the Iranians are pissed off and actually go for oil/LNG production
5. Now look at Iranian anti-ship missiles (1000km+ range)
6. Now imagine you need to pilot an oil/LNG tanker past Iran and Iranian proxies
Clearly I'm not expert but if the Iranians only closed their strait this would immediately remove ~20%* of current oil and LNG production.
*https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/strait-hormuz-worlds-most-important-oil-artery-2023-10-20/
Badenoch now tops the survey, Mordaunt second, Mercer third
"If this is their idea of Christmas, I gotta be here for New Year's!"
Die Hard on Amazon. Purchase successful. Start playing.
Not as frightening a prospect as Leon watching Threads but still. Wish me luck.
Spy Who Loved Me rocked but this just is one step better.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox
So assuming the hypothetical increase in efficiency unless you maintain the high cost, total energy consumption may not change.
Bodes ill for a 2025 leadership election if so.
Also interesting to witness the Hollywood rending of the peak of Japanese power, before the long decades of decline.
We could also have an impact on inflation which, at the current time, is not really what we need as the battle has yet to,be won.
The only winners with an oil price shock would be financial speculators.
The chap who wrote Trainspotting being one.
https://x.com/irvinewelsh/status/1731300524274704676?s=61&t=s0ae0IFncdLS1Dc7J0P_TQ
Still if you expect the worst you can only be pleasantly surprised.
Are we talking IKEA, DFS or Stressless, and how fast can Dura_Ace get an armchair to go?
It's too much of a coincidence.
Also: there might be (another) flareup between Eritrea and Ethiopia - Ethiopia covets sea access. But the world won't give a **** about that... ;(
(The question is whether the world should care, given the Eritrean government is worse than even North Korea.)
https://freedomhouse.org/country/eritrea/freedom-world/2022
https://foreignpolicy.com/2023/11/07/ethiopia-eritrea-war-tplf/
1) Six
2) GIven out LBW but overturned on DRS
3) Caught on the boundary
A film set at Christmas doesn't mean it is a Christmas film.
In the same poll 54% think it was right to dismiss her, 43% it was wrong
Sunak seems disinterested and certainly is making unenforced errors, not least over the Elgin marbles
The country is crying out for a GE and the sooner the better, as the conservative party needs to go into opposition and decide what it stands for
I fear it will follow the moves across Europe, in NZ, and elsewhere to the right as immigration and the cost of achieving net zero rocket up the agenda over the next few years
Personally, I have accepted PM Starmer as inevitable but I am far from convinced he can overcome the tsunami of problems heading our way but my recent encounter with potentially serious health issues has confirmed that for me, my family is all that matters and I do not have the band width for protracted arguments over politics
And as a side issue my wife and I really enjoyed Llandudno RNLI carol concert at the boathouse this afternoon with the Welsh Male voice choir and the Minister, who is an active member of the shore crew, welcoming the packed boathouse and reminding us that if the crew's pagers do go off during the concert, the crews will go to their stations and both the Shannon AWB and the inshore boat were outside on the apron ready for any call no matter when
·
9h
This week I will present a Private Members' Bill to Parliament. The Bill would protect single-sex spaces in law. It would also protect children and teenagers from making irreversible decisions about their bodies
https://x.com/trussliz/status/1731259826972274898?s=20
Since 7/10, Israel has killed well over 15,000 Palestinians.
(((Dan Hodges)))
@DPJHodges
·
1m
Like I wrote today, Rishi Sunak is in serious internal trouble.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OR07r0ZMFb8
According to the Hamas-run Health Ministry.
If you removed 5 million barrels of Middle Eastern exports, through Iranian oil completely leaving the market, and some disruption in the Straits of Hormuz (through which most Middle Eastern oil flows), then I think it is entirely possible that oil prices could end up near $200.
Of course, in the medium to long term, that would result in greater investment in US tight oil, and more electrification (and therefore lower demand for oil). But in the short term, prices could go through the roof, and that would almost certainly result in a fairly miserable time for energy importers like... errr... us.
(It would, of course, be great news for Russia, which still exports lots of oil.)
https://x.com/ianbremmer/status/1731405406654918784?s=61&t=s0ae0IFncdLS1Dc7J0P_TQ
The bad communists even. Not like that nice Mr.Putin.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Hamas-led_attack_on_Israel
https://conservativehome.com/2023/12/02/our-survey-half-our-panel-thinks-sunak-was-wrong-to-fire-braverman-two-fifths-think-he-was-right-to-do-so/
Glad you had a good RNLI concert
However the party is irrevocable split
depression. Something has to give. Enough blackmail.
Then again, the adage doesn't go "revolutions make it easy for their children to live in peace and contentment, free from the fear of being devoured".