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.
I'm a middle of the road Bond fan - I'm not too keen on the 'gritty and real' Bonds, or the jumping the shark with the spoofy camp ones. Goldeneye is my favourite of the series for that reason I think.
Is that the one with Sean Bean ? I’ve not really seen many of the later ones. I don’t consider myself a Bond fan but I do like the camp style of the Roger Moore stuff. I like it when it doesn’t take itself too seriously.
It is. It's now one of the older ones! But Pierce Brosnan joined after a fairly long interval following the last Timothy Dalton film, reviving the franchise. He's not my favourite Bond actor, that's Moore, but Goldeneye just has all the elements.
For years, I have believed that we should understand that Iran is in a low-scale war, fought mostly by proxies, with the US (and the UK). And, of course, Israel.
And has been, since 1979.
The US has not been particularly good at such wars in the last century. One great handicap in such wars is our preference for quick solutions. (Early in the Vietnam War, when American voters were asked, in an open-ended question, what we should do, many said "win or get out", rather than giving a dove or hawk response.)
The arm chair generals and admirals here can probably think of strategies for that low-scale war, but it is, in my opinion, difficult to find a strategy that will keep the support of the American people for the years required, as divided as we are.
No names, no pack drill, but the Telegraph has been told to expect more announcements after the Christmas break.
Being an opposition MP must be one of the most boring and pointless things in the world. And the Tories are facing at least 10 years of it.
Well Labour MPs have already done 13 years of it.
However it is an important job, holding the government to account and dealing with constituency casework. How the economy performs under a Labour government will also effect how long Tory MPs have to do it
I can fully understand and sympathise as to why some of the more able Tories will think that they have better things to do for the next decade. You can't really hold a government with a decent majority to account, they simply vote you down time after time. If the limits of your aspirations are being an overpaid under qualified social worker then fair enough but I suspect most of the more ambitious actually want to run something.
Yes some of the most ambitious and arrogant Tory MPs, most of whom will have been Ministers at some point too, will prefer to join a City firm board or well paid lobbyist job or media role or return to the Bar or their old law firm than the hard slog of Opposition. However others will be more motivated by public service and see an MP's role as important both for representing their constituency and scrutinising policy and legislation in parliament without being mocked as an 'overpaid under qualified social worker' which disrespects both them and social workers
The precedent of 1997 isn't a cheerful one for soon to be ex Conservative MPs. A large chunk of their current value is their contacts book, and that is very probably about to be very obsolete.
Some will slip elegantly back into their old roles, some will reinvent themselves. But the supply of ex Conservative MPs (would it be a shock if it was around 200?) is going to massively exceed the demand.
And whilst the next Conservative Prime Minister might be about to enter Paraliament without anyone really noticing (though recent history suggests that might not happen until 2028 and we should be looking for people putting up a decent showing somewhere hopeless this time round), pretty much anyone currently in Cabinet can expect to be out by next time the pendulum swings.
It's a good test of character, leading an organisation when you know that failure is odds-on. I wonder what was going through Starmer's head in 2020?
Just think, in a parallel universe, Ed Balls is staring down the barrel of a landslide loss, having taken over from Ed Milliband following the 2019 election win that built on Labour’s first four year term. Milliband’s time was cut short by Covid and Boris Johnson, leader of the opposition, is now measuring up the Number 10 curtains and finalising plans for a referendum on leaving the EU.
For years, I have believed that we should understand that Iran is in a low-scale war, fought mostly by proxies, with the US (and the UK). And, of course, Israel.
And has been, since 1979.
The US has not been particularly good at such wars in the last century. One great handicap in such wars is our preference for quick solutions. (Early in the Vietnam War, when American voters were asked, in an open-ended question, what we should do, many said "win or get out", rather than giving a dove or hawk response.)
The arm chair generals and admirals here can probably think of strategies for that low-scale war, but it is, in my opinion, difficult to find a strategy that will keep the support of the American people for the years required, as divided as we are.
Remove dependence on oil. Then Iran becomes a small country with an interesting history. The current leadership are unable to create anything beyond a resource extraction economy. So economic collapse will end up with them being turfed out.
Have preached Death To The West for decades, that will become an unpopular pose.
For years, I have believed that we should understand that Iran is in a low-scale war, fought mostly by proxies, with the US (and the UK). And, of course, Israel.
And has been, since 1979.
The US has not been particularly good at such wars in the last century. One great handicap in such wars is our preference for quick solutions. (Early in the Vietnam War, when American voters were asked, in an open-ended question, what we should do, many said "win or get out", rather than giving a dove or hawk response.)
The arm chair generals and admirals here can probably think of strategies for that low-scale war, but it is, in my opinion, difficult to find a strategy that will keep the support of the American people for the years required, as divided as we are.
Remove dependence on oil. Then Iran becomes a small country with an interesting history. The current leadership are unable to create anything beyond a resource extraction economy. So economic collapse will end up with them being turfed out.
Have preached Death To The West for decades, that will become an unpopular pose.
Just buy an electric car and wait.
A small country? Iran is larger than Britain by area, population and oil and gas reserves.
David Quantick @quantick · 3h BREAKING: On Christmas Day, the remixed MAGICAL MYSTERY TOUR will be shown on BBC2. The new Peter Jackson-helmed restoration reveals a well-structured plot with narrative development, while Giles Martin has remixed the music, replacing old songs with new ones where needed.
No names, no pack drill, but the Telegraph has been told to expect more announcements after the Christmas break.
Being an opposition MP must be one of the most boring and pointless things in the world. And the Tories are facing at least 10 years of it.
They'll keep themselves amused by bitter in-fighting, factionalism and Farage-curious fights. What could be more exciting? Running the country is much less fun. People expect you to do things, you know? Most unreasonable of them.
Plus, if you can't get a £100k plus a year job if you leave Parliament, you get subsidised accomodation in London, meals and bar in a Palace, access to an excellent library, staff costs, 'fact finding' trips overseas etc.
If you hang around long enough you might get a knighthood or damehood or even get a peerage and go up to the House of Lords with even grander restaurants and bars and no need to ask the voters what they think of your record to stay there
No names, no pack drill, but the Telegraph has been told to expect more announcements after the Christmas break.
Being an opposition MP must be one of the most boring and pointless things in the world. And the Tories are facing at least 10 years of it.
Well Labour MPs have already done 13 years of it.
However it is an important job, holding the government to account and dealing with constituency casework. How the economy performs under a Labour government will also effect how long Tory MPs have to do it
I can fully understand and sympathise as to why some of the more able Tories will think that they have better things to do for the next decade. You can't really hold a government with a decent majority to account, they simply vote you down time after time. If the limits of your aspirations are being an overpaid under qualified social worker then fair enough but I suspect most of the more ambitious actually want to run something.
Yes some of the most ambitious and arrogant Tory MPs, most of whom will have been Ministers at some point too, will prefer to join a City firm board or well paid lobbyist job or media role or return to the Bar or their old law firm than the hard slog of Opposition. However others will be more motivated by public service and see an MP's role as important both for representing their constituency and scrutinising policy and legislation in parliament without being mocked as an 'overpaid under qualified social worker' which disrespects both them and social workers
The precedent of 1997 isn't a cheerful one for soon to be ex Conservative MPs. A large chunk of their current value is their contacts book, and that is very probably about to be very obsolete.
Some will slip elegantly back into their old roles, some will reinvent themselves. But the supply of ex Conservative MPs (would it be a shock if it was around 200?) is going to massively exceed the demand.
And whilst the next Conservative Prime Minister might be about to enter Paraliament without anyone really noticing (though recent history suggests that might not happen until 2028 and we should be looking for people putting up a decent showing somewhere hopeless this time round), pretty much anyone currently in Cabinet can expect to be out by next time the pendulum swings.
It's a good test of character, leading an organisation when you know that failure is odds-on. I wonder what was going through Starmer's head in 2020?
Starmer at least had the incentive of saving the Labour Party from the hard left and bringing it back to its senses. Lots had him down as Kinnock Mark II initially - and would've counted it as a success to win the internal battles and get the Tories' majority down to an easily erased figure. The fact he's exceeded that (partly through being so lucky in his opponents, admittedly) must be a bonus.
Not sure what the Tories' equivalent is though. As the Tory moderates have lost their war several times over.
For years, I have believed that we should understand that Iran is in a low-scale war, fought mostly by proxies, with the US (and the UK). And, of course, Israel.
And has been, since 1979.
The US has not been particularly good at such wars in the last century. One great handicap in such wars is our preference for quick solutions. (Early in the Vietnam War, when American voters were asked, in an open-ended question, what we should do, many said "win or get out", rather than giving a dove or hawk response.)
The arm chair generals and admirals here can probably think of strategies for that low-scale war, but it is, in my opinion, difficult to find a strategy that will keep the support of the American people for the years required, as divided as we are.
Remove dependence on oil. Then Iran becomes a small country with an interesting history. The current leadership are unable to create anything beyond a resource extraction economy. So economic collapse will end up with them being turfed out.
Have preached Death To The West for decades, that will become an unpopular pose.
Just buy an electric car and wait.
Acshuly... Iran's got a pretty complex economy, being blacklisted from the world economy has given the quite a diverse set of industries. When compared to Saudi they a much less dependant on resource extraction.
For years, I have believed that we should understand that Iran is in a low-scale war, fought mostly by proxies, with the US (and the UK). And, of course, Israel.
And has been, since 1979.
The US has not been particularly good at such wars in the last century. One great handicap in such wars is our preference for quick solutions. (Early in the Vietnam War, when American voters were asked, in an open-ended question, what we should do, many said "win or get out", rather than giving a dove or hawk response.)
The arm chair generals and admirals here can probably think of strategies for that low-scale war, but it is, in my opinion, difficult to find a strategy that will keep the support of the American people for the years required, as divided as we are.
Remove dependence on oil. Then Iran becomes a small country with an interesting history. The current leadership are unable to create anything beyond a resource extraction economy. So economic collapse will end up with them being turfed out.
Have preached Death To The West for decades, that will become an unpopular pose.
Just buy an electric car and wait.
Acshuly... Iran's got a pretty complex economy, being blacklisted from the world economy has given the quite a diverse set of industries. When compared to Saudi they a much less dependant on resource extraction.
To an extent. But the current regime is highly dependent on hydrocarbons to fund things both at home and abroad. Without that money, Iran becomes a power on the level of Brazil, say.
No names, no pack drill, but the Telegraph has been told to expect more announcements after the Christmas break.
Being an opposition MP must be one of the most boring and pointless things in the world. And the Tories are facing at least 10 years of it.
They'll keep themselves amused by bitter in-fighting, factionalism and Farage-curious fights. What could be more exciting? Running the country is much less fun. People expect you to do things, you know? Most unreasonable of them.
Plus, if you can't get a £100k plus a year job if you leave Parliament, you get subsidised accomodation in London, meals and bar in a Palace, access to an excellent library, staff costs, 'fact finding' trips overseas etc.
If you hang around long enough you might get a knighthood or damehood or even get a peerage and go up to the House of Lords with even grander restaurants and bars and no need to ask the voters what they think of your record to stay there
No names, no pack drill, but the Telegraph has been told to expect more announcements after the Christmas break.
Being an opposition MP must be one of the most boring and pointless things in the world. And the Tories are facing at least 10 years of it.
Well Labour MPs have already done 13 years of it.
However it is an important job, holding the government to account and dealing with constituency casework. How the economy performs under a Labour government will also effect how long Tory MPs have to do it
I can fully understand and sympathise as to why some of the more able Tories will think that they have better things to do for the next decade. You can't really hold a government with a decent majority to account, they simply vote you down time after time. If the limits of your aspirations are being an overpaid under qualified social worker then fair enough but I suspect most of the more ambitious actually want to run something.
Yes some of the most ambitious and arrogant Tory MPs, most of whom will have been Ministers at some point too, will prefer to join a City firm board or well paid lobbyist job or media role or return to the Bar or their old law firm than the hard slog of Opposition. However others will be more motivated by public service and see an MP's role as important both for representing their constituency and scrutinising policy and legislation in parliament without being mocked as an 'overpaid under qualified social worker' which disrespects both them and social workers
The precedent of 1997 isn't a cheerful one for soon to be ex Conservative MPs. A large chunk of their current value is their contacts book, and that is very probably about to be very obsolete.
Some will slip elegantly back into their old roles, some will reinvent themselves. But the supply of ex Conservative MPs (would it be a shock if it was around 200?) is going to massively exceed the demand.
And whilst the next Conservative Prime Minister might be about to enter Paraliament without anyone really noticing (though recent history suggests that might not happen until 2028 and we should be looking for people putting up a decent showing somewhere hopeless this time round), pretty much anyone currently in Cabinet can expect to be out by next time the pendulum swings.
It's a good test of character, leading an organisation when you know that failure is odds-on. I wonder what was going through Starmer's head in 2020?
Starmer at least had the incentive of saving the Labour Party from the hard left and bringing it back to its senses. Lots had him down as Kinnock Mark II initially - and would've counted it as a success to win the internal battles and get the Tories' majority down to an easily erased figure. The fact he's exceeded that (partly through being so lucky in his opponents, admittedly) must be a bonus.
Not sure what the Tories' equivalent is though. As the Tory moderates have lost their war several times over.
Sunak is a moderate in the current Tory party, the right haven't even taken over yet like the Corbynites did Labour pre Starmer.
That would require someone like Braverman or Rees Mogg to lead the Conservatives
For years, I have believed that we should understand that Iran is in a low-scale war, fought mostly by proxies, with the US (and the UK). And, of course, Israel.
And has been, since 1979.
The US has not been particularly good at such wars in the last century. One great handicap in such wars is our preference for quick solutions. (Early in the Vietnam War, when American voters were asked, in an open-ended question, what we should do, many said "win or get out", rather than giving a dove or hawk response.)
The arm chair generals and admirals here can probably think of strategies for that low-scale war, but it is, in my opinion, difficult to find a strategy that will keep the support of the American people for the years required, as divided as we are.
Remove dependence on oil. Then Iran becomes a small country with an interesting history. The current leadership are unable to create anything beyond a resource extraction economy. So economic collapse will end up with them being turfed out.
Have preached Death To The West for decades, that will become an unpopular pose.
Just buy an electric car and wait.
A small country? Iran is larger than Britain by area, population and oil and gas reserves.
Without the oil and gas money, Iran becomes just another country - that is the point. And without that money, their economy is a fraction of the UK.
Oh for the love of God, this stuff isn’t hard. The line he needed was “the Tory Party doesn’t accept former leaders of other parties”. You don’t even have to attack his beliefs.
I do feel like there is more fertile ground for the Tories in seeking votes from the right flank rather than the centre, but they don't really seem to be committing to going after either so much as dabbling in both in a way that doesn't come across as broad church so much as confused and indecisive.
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?
Look ffs....israel in 2005 was helping gaze, they were all for it becoming a port of importance and helping gaze rebuild....the response to this from gaze was lets elect hamas.....at that point israel should have taken it as an act of war and wiped gaze off the map.
Helping Gaza? They were not allowing the formation of an independent Palestinian state.
They withdrew settlements from Gaza, they were helping them to turn the port into a viable concern...was it all what gazans want...hell no but it was a first step. Gazans response was to elect a governement that wanted to wipe out israel. If they had elected a more moderate governement that was willing to work with israel rather than one devoted to its destruction then just maybe we would be in a better position now.
This is what pisses me off about arses like you, you portray the gazans as victims sorry no they fucked themselves up the ass. I dont like israel either for info but the gazans made their own bed so tough luck. Personally I still think we in the west would just be better off nuking the whole of the middle east and france then forgetting the fuckers existed
"they were helping them to turn the port into a viable concern"
For years, I have believed that we should understand that Iran is in a low-scale war, fought mostly by proxies, with the US (and the UK). And, of course, Israel.
And has been, since 1979.
The US has not been particularly good at such wars in the last century. One great handicap in such wars is our preference for quick solutions. (Early in the Vietnam War, when American voters were asked, in an open-ended question, what we should do, many said "win or get out", rather than giving a dove or hawk response.)
The arm chair generals and admirals here can probably think of strategies for that low-scale war, but it is, in my opinion, difficult to find a strategy that will keep the support of the American people for the years required, as divided as we are.
Remove dependence on oil. Then Iran becomes a small country with an interesting history. The current leadership are unable to create anything beyond a resource extraction economy. So economic collapse will end up with them being turfed out.
Have preached Death To The West for decades, that will become an unpopular pose.
Just buy an electric car and wait.
A small country? Iran is larger than Britain by area, population and oil and gas reserves.
I put Iran in a bracket of countries who are quite a bit larger than I tend to think they are in my head, along with Canada (nearly 40m), the Phillipines (over 100m) and DR Congo (nearly 100m). I thought Iran was about the same as the UK, maybe a big larger, but it's got more than 15m on us.
A new wave of Conservative MPs are expected to announce that they are quitting politics in the new year as poor polling numbers help convince more Tories to stand down.
Multiple Conservative MPs have told The Telegraph that some colleagues have admitted in private that they have decided to not seek re-election and will say so early next year.
Random fact, but I see next week Rishi will go past William Wyndham Grenville in the list of PMs by tenure, who was PM for 1 year 42 days. Wiki: As prime minister, his most significant achievement was the abolition of the slave trade in 1807. However, his government failed to either make peace with France or to accomplish Catholic emancipation and it was dismissed in the same year.
They really asked a lot more of PMs back then, didn't they?
Random fact, but I see next week Rishi will go past William Wyndham Grenville in the list of PMs by tenure, who was PM for 1 year 42 days. Wiki: As prime minister, his most significant achievement was the abolition of the slave trade in 1807. However, his government failed to either make peace with France or to accomplish Catholic emancipation and it was dismissed in the same year.
They really asked a lot more of PMs back then, didn't they?
I think you are just not giving making chess compulsory for everyone the importance it deserves.
A new wave of Conservative MPs are expected to announce that they are quitting politics in the new year as poor polling numbers help convince more Tories to stand down.
Multiple Conservative MPs have told The Telegraph that some colleagues have admitted in private that they have decided to not seek re-election and will say so early next year.
Telegrph
Bye.
Dont trouble the door on your way out.
When my Conservative MP was turfed out in 1997, he became, I believe, a sub-Postmaster. He had good Masonic connections so something was bound to turn up sooner or later. Less of a call for sub-Postmaters these days, and would one want the hassle? The alternative for the down at heel ex -Tory member who left the job hunting until after the defeat was of course a Publican. Not much call for that either nowadays. So shelf stacking in Tesco it is then. Good luck RedWallers.
We are in the final days of the licence fee I think. I’m not sure what I think about that, but it feels inevitable.
It has felt inevitable for decades, but unfortuantely never seems to happen. If it were a private sector arrangement, the market would have forced change years ago. But the private sector is much more ruthless.
On the other hand, obsolete and ill-conceived government programmes have a momentum of their own. They generally stumble on for years and are incredibly difficult to dismantle because of the vested interests they create and the statutory basis they are on. Just look at the euro, our planning system, or anything else that should have been scrapped long since.
I misread that headline as: Farage would be welcome to Rejoin ‘broad church’ Tories, says Sunak. And I thought, "I don't think Farage is in favour of Rejoin, is he?"
Reform in double figures is amazing. It’s really time for a pollster to dig into who these voters are, what is motivating them, whether they actually know what “Reform” is, and whether they’ll actually vote for them come polling day.
Reform in double figures is amazing. It’s really time for a pollster to dig into who these voters are, what is motivating them, whether they actually know what “Reform” is, and whether they’ll actually vote for them come polling day.
Presumably the same type of voters who are supporting Wilders in the Netherlands.
Reform in double figures is amazing. It’s really time for a pollster to dig into who these voters are, what is motivating them, whether they actually know what “Reform” is, and whether they’ll actually vote for them come polling day.
Probably most are in favour of reform rather than Reform but in any case I doubt many will have the choice because Reform will almost certainly not stand in every constituency, whatever the party says now.
This is a possible example of technological advances in medicine leading to increased costs. If we double the diagnoses, we double the number of treatments and increase the number of people developing other long term conditions. Sudden, catastrophic heart attack is about the best way to go from the NHS' perspective.
(This isn't a bad thing, of course, but we need to anticipate 20% of GDP being healthcare activity and set up the tax system to allow for that).
Does anyone know if it's still possible to buy a black and white TV set?
I don't think it's possible to buy a new one. Although B&W TV licences are still sold, they are in or less than four figures and relate to legacy hardware. A lot of the 20th century tech - analogue, CRTs, B&W - are no longer available and have not been for some time.
For second-hand, I don't think you will be able to buy one in the High Street - BHF Home and Electrical haven't accepted CRT sets for several years now. You would have to look for them on eBay or Gumtree or similar
Reform in double figures is amazing. It’s really time for a pollster to dig into who these voters are, what is motivating them, whether they actually know what “Reform” is, and whether they’ll actually vote for them come polling day.
Reform in double figures is amazing. It’s really time for a pollster to dig into who these voters are, what is motivating them, whether they actually know what “Reform” is, and whether they’ll actually vote for them come polling day.
Probably most are in favour of reform rather than Reform but in any case I doubt many will have the choice because Reform will almost certainly not stand in every constituency, whatever the party says now.
their footprint is pretty poor, I cant see them having any sort of impact beyond the BREXIT belt seats and even then its a major ask for what I believe to be an aging activist base that was stood down in the 2019 backroom deal..I feel that they'll be in a few %s at best and will have a small voting presence in a handful of seats
And his Thatcher love-in will go down even worse north of the border . Chasing imaginary votes from those who would never vote for Labour .
Who advised him to write this article ? Or did he think this was a marvelous idea by himself ?
A ridiculous own goal .
Perhaps he's after the Reform vote?
Although I understand the argument that to win an election one must appeal outside the core, I couldn't help but think I still don't get his view of the world - what its problems are and what needs to be done to fix them. He may well be a technocratic managerialist with an authoritarian streak. Sadly this may be what the country wants, but is certainly not what it needs.
The latest Hail Mary Pass to appeal to Captain Mainwaring.
The Government having reached an agreement for the BBC to increase its licence fee by the rate of inflation for several years in return for savings delivered previously, Short-Term-Rishi is going back on the promise for pure attempted politics - which are likely to fail.
The BBC fulfilled it's side of the bargain - a 2 year freeze, and Rishi is welching on the deal. What a miserable, untrustworthy, Scrooge-like Government we have.
At least their reputation is consistent, if that's what they want to reinforce.
Is anyone surprised?
I wonder, is this potentially subject to legal action?
For years, I have believed that we should understand that Iran is in a low-scale war, fought mostly by proxies, with the US (and the UK). And, of course, Israel.
And has been, since 1979.
The US has not been particularly good at such wars in the last century. One great handicap in such wars is our preference for quick solutions. (Early in the Vietnam War, when American voters were asked, in an open-ended question, what we should do, many said "win or get out", rather than giving a dove or hawk response.)
The arm chair generals and admirals here can probably think of strategies for that low-scale war, but it is, in my opinion, difficult to find a strategy that will keep the support of the American people for the years required, as divided as we are.
Remove dependence on oil. Then Iran becomes a small country with an interesting history. The current leadership are unable to create anything beyond a resource extraction economy. So economic collapse will end up with them being turfed out.
Have preached Death To The West for decades, that will become an unpopular pose.
Just buy an electric car and wait.
The eclipse of the petro states isn’t coming fast enough. As the nonsense at the climate summit starkly demonstrates. If anything, Saudi Arabia, with its outsize, money based influence, and sociopath leader, is more dangerous to the world than Iran.
For years, I have believed that we should understand that Iran is in a low-scale war, fought mostly by proxies, with the US (and the UK). And, of course, Israel.
And has been, since 1979.
The US has not been particularly good at such wars in the last century. One great handicap in such wars is our preference for quick solutions. (Early in the Vietnam War, when American voters were asked, in an open-ended question, what we should do, many said "win or get out", rather than giving a dove or hawk response.)
The arm chair generals and admirals here can probably think of strategies for that low-scale war, but it is, in my opinion, difficult to find a strategy that will keep the support of the American people for the years required, as divided as we are.
Remove dependence on oil. Then Iran becomes a small country with an interesting history. The current leadership are unable to create anything beyond a resource extraction economy. So economic collapse will end up with them being turfed out.
Have preached Death To The West for decades, that will become an unpopular pose.
Just buy an electric car and wait.
The eclipse of the petro states isn’t coming fast enough. As the nonsense at the climate summit starkly demonstrates. If anything, Saudi Arabia, with its outsize, money based influence, and sociopath leader, is more dangerous to the world than Iran.
Following the short exchanges on Dubai yesterday, an aspect that I find interesting is that the model 'cities of the future' they are trying to create in the Middle East is out of a 1950s USA techno-dreamland, and about a century out of date.
Comments
And has been, since 1979.
The US has not been particularly good at such wars in the last century. One great handicap in such wars is our preference for quick solutions. (Early in the Vietnam War, when American voters were asked, in an open-ended question, what we should do, many said "win or get out", rather than giving a dove or hawk response.)
The arm chair generals and admirals here can probably think of strategies for that low-scale war, but it is, in my opinion, difficult to find a strategy that will keep the support of the American people for the years required, as divided as we are.
...
...
A change in approach would also breach a six-year funding agreement struck under Boris Johnson, which froze the licence fee for two years and agreed inflation-linked rises for the four years after that.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2023/12/03/sunak-set-to-block-9pc-increase-in-bbc-licence-fee/ (£££)
Have preached Death To The West for decades, that will become an unpopular pose.
Just buy an electric car and wait.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2023/12/03/farage-welcome-rejoin-broad-church-tories-sunak/ (£££)
David Quantick
@quantick
·
3h
BREAKING: On Christmas Day, the remixed MAGICAL MYSTERY TOUR will be shown on BBC2. The new Peter Jackson-helmed restoration reveals a well-structured plot with narrative development, while Giles Martin has remixed the music, replacing old songs with new ones where needed.
Not sure what the Tories' equivalent is though. As the Tory moderates have lost their war several times over.
What's Been Happening With the Iranian Stock Market
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cIdHNXuwOSc
If Farage did do what Sunak wants he will eat the party alive from its innards.
Shadow health secretary pledges to double NHS diagnostic capacity and cut heart deaths by one quarter under plans to learn from Australia
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/12/03/ai-hospital-scan-nhs-labour-health-plans-australia/ (£££)
The Saudis will be farming sand, true.
That would require someone like Braverman or Rees Mogg to lead the Conservatives
Could I have a source for that?
Multiple Conservative MPs have told The Telegraph that some colleagues have admitted in private that they have decided to not seek re-election and will say so early next year.
Telegrph
Bye.
Dont trouble the door on your way out.
Wiki: As prime minister, his most significant achievement was the abolition of the slave trade in 1807. However, his government failed to either make peace with France or to accomplish Catholic emancipation and it was dismissed in the same year.
They really asked a lot more of PMs back then, didn't they?
Sunak winning would surely now be the greatest upset in a very very long time?
Lab 43% (nc)
Con 27% (-3)
Reform UK 11% (+4)
LD 10% (-1)
Green 5% (-1)
Others 4% (+1)
https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/sunak-losing-votes-farage-reform-uk-tory-rows-migration-2789423
On the other hand, obsolete and ill-conceived government programmes have a momentum of their own. They generally stumble on for years and are incredibly difficult to dismantle because of the vested interests they create and the statutory basis they are on. Just look at the euro, our planning system, or anything else that should have been scrapped long since.
It’s really time for a pollster to dig into who these voters are, what is motivating them, whether they actually know what “Reform” is, and whether they’ll actually vote for them come polling day.
80s pop star Toyah continuing to brighten up everyone's Sunday, with the help of Robert Fripp.
"Toyah & Robert's Sunday Lunch Revisited - Bullet With Butterfly Wings"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6R9r1DMrBo
(This isn't a bad thing, of course, but we need to anticipate 20% of GDP being healthcare activity and set up the tax system to allow for that).
For second-hand, I don't think you will be able to buy one in the High Street - BHF Home and Electrical haven't accepted CRT sets for several years now. You would have to look for them on eBay or Gumtree or similar
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-46125741
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Dlk9G2ADjs
https://www.gumtree.com/search?search_category=tv-dvd-cameras&search_location=uk&q=black+and+white
https://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2023/11/26/what-will-reform-voters-do-at-the-general-election/
So,the doofus can get something right.
https://x.com/ianbremmer/status/1731481941822869783?s=61&t=s0ae0IFncdLS1Dc7J0P_TQ
And his Thatcher love-in will go down even worse north of the border . Chasing imaginary votes from those who would never vote for Labour .
Who advised him to write this article ? Or did he think this was a marvelous idea by himself ?
A ridiculous own goal .
Although I understand the argument that to win an election one must appeal outside the core, I couldn't help but think I still don't get his view of the world - what its problems are and what needs to be done to fix them. He may well be a technocratic managerialist with an authoritarian streak. Sadly this may be what the country wants, but is certainly not what it needs.
NEW THREAD
The Government having reached an agreement for the BBC to increase its licence fee by the rate of inflation for several years in return for savings delivered previously, Short-Term-Rishi is going back on the promise for pure attempted politics - which are likely to fail.
The BBC fulfilled it's side of the bargain - a 2 year freeze, and Rishi is welching on the deal. What a miserable, untrustworthy, Scrooge-like Government we have.
At least their reputation is consistent, if that's what they want to reinforce.
Is anyone surprised?
I wonder, is this potentially subject to legal action?
Full article:
https://archive.ph/k4747
If anything, Saudi Arabia, with its outsize, money based influence, and sociopath leader, is more dangerous to the world than Iran.
I don't think that's a viable post-oil future.