Going back to G&D for a moment. The lesson for Labour isn’t “move left”. Reform aren’t left, and they beat Labour.
It’s umph. People know the country is broken and want politicians who tell them what can be done to fix it.
Left. Right. Matters less than old school partisans think. Haven’t we learned this already? Blair won two landslides by occupying the right. Johnson won a substantial majority by occupying the left.
Both offered hope - with a simple plan for what is wrong and what can be done.
That’s all Labour need. A plan.
What is that plan, though?
The nearest to a plan that might work is "release funds for investment by covering current spending through broad-based tax rises".
Imagine a left-wing Peter Mannion saying it in the "Yes and Ho" scene from The Thick Of It.
Blair and Johnson could offer a popular plan with lots of upside and minimal downside. In Blair's case, thanks to a good fiscal situation (it's just that the public realm was shit), in Johnson's, thanks to a near-psychopathic degree of dishonesty.
What is the plan? Investment in our future: We spend ever increasing amounts for increasingly little Because we're spending to mop up the impact of not investing, instead of investing and gaining a return
The eternal question is "where do we get the money from" and the answer is simple - we borrow it. As we already borrow. But instead of tossing that borrowed cash on the bonfire, we invest it. Which means less cash needed for future bonfires.
I see the utterly insane Piers Corbyn is there, a raging and unrepentant anti-Semite
This is a real problem for Polanski. Would be better if the Corbynites fucked off and joined Your Party.
Polanski saw an opportunity to absorb the 2019 Corbyn coalition and took it. In that sense he’s a skilled politician.
However this is the danger of Labour going after this lot, it is completely toxic to the rest of the electorate.
Labour needs to change something and be radical. But going to the left is not it.
In that sense Rayner would not be a bad option because she’s not very left wing despite people pretending she is. However I just cannot take her seriously as a candidate.
Corbyn won more votes than Starmer, which suggests that the Corbynites aren't "completely toxic to the rest of the electorate".
He piled up votes in the wrong places. So yes he piled up votes in Gorton and Denton but wasn’t able to win seats like Basingstoke (only saying that seat because I know it).
So yes Labour is fine to go for that strategy again but it surely is one that accepts they’ve lost the election before it started and they’re giving up.
I won’t be voting for them in that case.
Yes, Corbyn lost. I wasn't disputing that, I wasn't disputing whether Corbynism is a sensible strategy for the Greens or Labour. I was just disputing your suggestion that it was "completely toxic".
How does not losing in a landslide suggest it’s not completely toxic?
Is your point that in a very split electorate Corbyn could have won in 2019?
Getting 32% of the vote is not completely toxic. The BNP peaked at 2% of the vote. They were completely toxic! I'm mainly just objecting to the hyperbole of "completely toxic".
Labour under Corbyn got 32%, which is more than any of the parties are currently polling. What happened in 2019 happened, but a party that re-builds the Corbyn coalition would be leading the polling today.
The Corbyn coalition frightened the horses. If the Greens were polling 32%, the lead right wing party would be polling 32%+.
Having a sneaking suspicion that the US is randomly raining death on foreigners because there are domestic stories they would like to sideline makes it hard to cheer enthusiastically.
The Iranian regime has been wishing death on America (and us) for almost 50 years so it's not entirely random.
That is true, although the question "why now?" is a pertinent one.
The Telegraph and NYT have the same story on “why now” so I suspect it’s true
1. There were fears Iran was preparing its own unilateral attack on Israel
2. Trump decided the Iranians really weren’t interested in serious talks on nukes
3. The Israelis said - “we have an incredible opportunity coming up, may not happen again, the entire Iranian leadership is gathering in one place, on this one day”
So they seized the moment. However twits like @DavidL think Trump should have gone to Congress, the UN, left wing British judges, Sky News TV and Lily Allen and her mum to get their “permission” before killing the most evil regime on earth
Why do you think it will kill it?
One of Trump's starting positions is that he will not send in soldiers to put boots on the ground, which is pretty much a guarantee of it not succeeding.
Well they did literally slaughter almost all the upper echelon of the regime. In one day
An incredible military success, whatever your thoughts on Trump, Bibi etc (and they are both odious - but then recall we supported Stalin over Hitler)
Will this overthrow the regime in toto? It MIGHT. If America says “we will keep killing your leaders until you free your people” it could actually work
A more moderate group might emerge, perhaps in the Iranian army, against the IRGC. Polls show that tens of millions of Iranians LOATHE the mullahs, so they wouldn’t lack support
I don't think anyone has ever doubted the capabilities of the US Military when it puts its mind to something (even if running a nation after conquering it is a step beyond even them). If Trump wants them to do a specific thing there's a good chance they can do it, for better and worse.
Yes, in the US military Donald Trump has the most amazing toy to play with and he's not about to leave it in the garage. People wonder about the thinking behind this latest adventure and IMO, difficult as this might be to accept, there was very little. His main objective was simply staging the whole dramatic episode. By which I mean the build up to the attack, the attack itself and the immediate aftermath. The point of it from his pov was 'it'. It now having happened, and successfully in those terms, he will be taking the win and moving on to whatever is next. As for Iran and the wider impact, whatever will be will be.
@RochdalePioneers we often agree and I find your insight useful as always.
Genuinely don’t know who I’ll vote for when Starmer goes. There just does not seem to be an obvious option. Burnham by default who I utterly despise however he’s clearly got something that I don’t understand.
Starmer is unelectable now. So its just a question of when and with whom.
The sad truth is that people are now starting to realise this country is broken, and as the centre (Lab/LD/Con) have run out of ideas it leaves the ground open to populism of left and right.
I see the utterly insane Piers Corbyn is there, a raging and unrepentant anti-Semite
This is a real problem for Polanski. Would be better if the Corbynites fucked off and joined Your Party.
Polanski saw an opportunity to absorb the 2019 Corbyn coalition and took it. In that sense he’s a skilled politician.
However this is the danger of Labour going after this lot, it is completely toxic to the rest of the electorate.
Labour needs to change something and be radical. But going to the left is not it.
In that sense Rayner would not be a bad option because she’s not very left wing despite people pretending she is. However I just cannot take her seriously as a candidate.
Corbyn won more votes than Starmer, which suggests that the Corbynites aren't "completely toxic to the rest of the electorate".
He piled up votes in the wrong places. So yes he piled up votes in Gorton and Denton but wasn’t able to win seats like Basingstoke (only saying that seat because I know it).
So yes Labour is fine to go for that strategy again but it surely is one that accepts they’ve lost the election before it started and they’re giving up.
I won’t be voting for them in that case.
Yes, Corbyn lost. I wasn't disputing that, I wasn't disputing whether Corbynism is a sensible strategy for the Greens or Labour. I was just disputing your suggestion that it was "completely toxic".
How does not losing in a landslide suggest it’s not completely toxic?
Is your point that in a very split electorate Corbyn could have won in 2019?
Getting 32% of the vote is not completely toxic. The BNP peaked at 2% of the vote. They were completely toxic! I'm mainly just objecting to the hyperbole of "completely toxic".
Labour under Corbyn got 32%, which is more than any of the parties are currently polling. What happened in 2019 happened, but a party that re-builds the Corbyn coalition would be leading the polling today.
The Corbyn coalition frightened the horses. If the Greens were polling 32%, the lead right wing party would be polling 32%+.
Yeah, maybe. It's like the argument that Reform are toxic and will underperform at a general election because people will tactically vote against them. That might happen as the Greens rise up the polls. So far, polling suggests the Greens are less toxic than Reform.
I see the utterly insane Piers Corbyn is there, a raging and unrepentant anti-Semite
This is a real problem for Polanski. Would be better if the Corbynites fucked off and joined Your Party.
Indeed
In the end it will destroy them. The eco left LGBTQ types are in bed with horrible ultra-sectarian Islamists who will happily and violently take over if and when they’re given the chance
With proper scrutiny I expect the Greens to fall badly away. Eventually
It’s a shame because there’s a need for a genuinely left wing party with real redistributive purpose. I don’t remotely agree with all that but many do and it needs representation
What they don’t need is a supposed Green party tainted with vile Islamism which apparently no longer has any Green policies
Surely Corbyn and the Islamic Independents will end up merging with the Greens.
I quite like environmentalism, it would be great if it were incorporated into politics without having to turn turn the country into an Islamic Republic. They'd fuck all that green shit off anyway
The other parties all have varying levels of Green policies. It's not the sole preserve of the Greens, so it isn't neccessary to go islamist or woke or marxist or whatever to get that.
So the Iranian regime is hated by the Iranians, hated by all the Arabs, hated by everyone in the region, hated from London to the Lebanon, from Damascus to Los Angeles, indeed its hated by literally everyone else in the world - apart from Vladimir Putin - plus thousands and thousands of left wing morons in the West who hate Jews so much they support Tehran. And the British Green Party
Beijing and Kim Jong Un have also sent condolences to Tehran on the death of the Ayatollah and condemned the US and Israeli strikes.
Spain also said the US and Israeli strikes were illegal
Having a sneaking suspicion that the US is randomly raining death on foreigners because there are domestic stories they would like to sideline makes it hard to cheer enthusiastically.
The Iranian regime has been wishing death on America (and us) for almost 50 years so it's not entirely random.
That is true, although the question "why now?" is a pertinent one.
The Telegraph and NYT have the same story on “why now” so I suspect it’s true
1. There were fears Iran was preparing its own unilateral attack on Israel
2. Trump decided the Iranians really weren’t interested in serious talks on nukes
3. The Israelis said - “we have an incredible opportunity coming up, may not happen again, the entire Iranian leadership is gathering in one place, on this one day”
So they seized the moment. However twits like @DavidL think Trump should have gone to Congress, the UN, left wing British judges, Sky News TV and Lily Allen and her mum to get their “permission” before killing the most evil regime on earth
Why do you think it will kill it?
One of Trump's starting positions is that he will not send in soldiers to put boots on the ground, which is pretty much a guarantee of it not succeeding.
Well they did literally slaughter almost all the upper echelon of the regime. In one day
An incredible military success, whatever your thoughts on Trump, Bibi etc (and they are both odious - but then recall we supported Stalin over Hitler)
Will this overthrow the regime in toto? It MIGHT. If America says “we will keep killing your leaders until you free your people” it could actually work
A more moderate group might emerge, perhaps in the Iranian army, against the IRGC. Polls show that tens of millions of Iranians LOATHE the mullahs, so they wouldn’t lack support
I don't think anyone has ever doubted the capabilities of the US Military when it puts its mind to something (even if running a nation after conquering it is a step beyond even them). If Trump wants them to do a specific thing there's a good chance they can do it, for better and worse.
Yes, in the US military Donald Trump has the most amazing toy to play with and he's not about to leave it in the garage. People wonder about the thinking behind this latest adventure and IMO, difficult as this might be to accept, there was very little. His main objective was simply staging the whole dramatic episode. By which I mean the build up to the attack, the attack itself and the immediate aftermath. The point of it from his pov was 'it'. It now having happened, and successfully in those terms, he will be taking the win and moving on to whatever is next. As for Iran and the wider impact, whatever will be will be.
Yes, but that Iran hasn't changed its path may become too obvious for Trump's narrative, in a way that hasn't happened with Venezuela (old regime still in power, but they're not making too much of a fuss and bombing US bases). Also, Israel may want to continue the war and keep dragging the US back into the conflict. I think it will be harder to end this war.
I see the utterly insane Piers Corbyn is there, a raging and unrepentant anti-Semite
This is a real problem for Polanski. Would be better if the Corbynites fucked off and joined Your Party.
Polanski saw an opportunity to absorb the 2019 Corbyn coalition and took it. In that sense he’s a skilled politician.
However this is the danger of Labour going after this lot, it is completely toxic to the rest of the electorate.
Labour needs to change something and be radical. But going to the left is not it.
In that sense Rayner would not be a bad option because she’s not very left wing despite people pretending she is. However I just cannot take her seriously as a candidate.
Corbyn won more votes than Starmer, which suggests that the Corbynites aren't "completely toxic to the rest of the electorate".
He piled up votes in the wrong places. So yes he piled up votes in Gorton and Denton but wasn’t able to win seats like Basingstoke (only saying that seat because I know it).
So yes Labour is fine to go for that strategy again but it surely is one that accepts they’ve lost the election before it started and they’re giving up.
I won’t be voting for them in that case.
Yes, Corbyn lost. I wasn't disputing that, I wasn't disputing whether Corbynism is a sensible strategy for the Greens or Labour. I was just disputing your suggestion that it was "completely toxic".
How does not losing in a landslide suggest it’s not completely toxic?
Is your point that in a very split electorate Corbyn could have won in 2019?
Getting 32% of the vote is not completely toxic. The BNP peaked at 2% of the vote. They were completely toxic! I'm mainly just objecting to the hyperbole of "completely toxic".
Labour under Corbyn got 32%, which is more than any of the parties are currently polling. What happened in 2019 happened, but a party that re-builds the Corbyn coalition would be leading the polling today.
Would it? Polanski has rebuilt the Corbyn core vote on the new Ashcroft poll but the Greens are still third behind Reform and the Tories and only 2% ahead of Starmer Labour
That's begging the question. You claim that Polanski has rebuilt the Corbyn core vote. Maybe he hasn't? I suspect he's rebuilt some of the Corbyn core vote, combined with the older Green vote, and he's taken the party to new electoral successes. He could yet attract more support.
Some of those who voted Labour under Corbyn did so solely as he was Labour leader, they were not Corbynite, the ideological Corbynites are the ones who have gone Green
I see the utterly insane Piers Corbyn is there, a raging and unrepentant anti-Semite
This is a real problem for Polanski. Would be better if the Corbynites fucked off and joined Your Party.
The Greens will be seen by the right wing media as a threat to Reform’s ascendency. Therefore, Polanski should expect high levels of attack in the Reform supporting media. He will need to be prepared to counteract it.
The death of President Ebrahim Raisi — widely viewed as a leading candidate for succession — deepened the uncertainty. Names previously mentioned as potential successors include:
Hassan Khomeini – grandson of Ayatollah Khomeini, perceived as relatively moderate. Sadeq Larijani – a senior institutional figure. Hassan Rouhani – former president, though his relationship with Khamenei was complex. Mojtaba Khamenei – the Supreme Leader’s son, long rumored as a possible candidate.
I see the utterly insane Piers Corbyn is there, a raging and unrepentant anti-Semite
This is a real problem for Polanski. Would be better if the Corbynites fucked off and joined Your Party.
Polanski saw an opportunity to absorb the 2019 Corbyn coalition and took it. In that sense he’s a skilled politician.
However this is the danger of Labour going after this lot, it is completely toxic to the rest of the electorate.
Labour needs to change something and be radical. But going to the left is not it.
In that sense Rayner would not be a bad option because she’s not very left wing despite people pretending she is. However I just cannot take her seriously as a candidate.
Corbyn won more votes than Starmer, which suggests that the Corbynites aren't "completely toxic to the rest of the electorate".
He piled up votes in the wrong places. So yes he piled up votes in Gorton and Denton but wasn’t able to win seats like Basingstoke (only saying that seat because I know it).
So yes Labour is fine to go for that strategy again but it surely is one that accepts they’ve lost the election before it started and they’re giving up.
I won’t be voting for them in that case.
Yes, Corbyn lost. I wasn't disputing that, I wasn't disputing whether Corbynism is a sensible strategy for the Greens or Labour. I was just disputing your suggestion that it was "completely toxic".
How does not losing in a landslide suggest it’s not completely toxic?
Is your point that in a very split electorate Corbyn could have won in 2019?
Getting 32% of the vote is not completely toxic. The BNP peaked at 2% of the vote. They were completely toxic! I'm mainly just objecting to the hyperbole of "completely toxic".
Labour under Corbyn got 32%, which is more than any of the parties are currently polling. What happened in 2019 happened, but a party that re-builds the Corbyn coalition would be leading the polling today.
The Corbyn coalition frightened the horses. If the Greens were polling 32%, the lead right wing party would be polling 32%+.
Yeah, maybe. It's like the argument that Reform are toxic and will underperform at a general election because people will tactically vote against them. That might happen as the Greens rise up the polls. So far, polling suggests the Greens are less toxic than Reform.
Nobody is going to win an election in the UK, on a platform of radical socialism, open borders, opposition to NATO, even against Reform.
I see the utterly insane Piers Corbyn is there, a raging and unrepentant anti-Semite
This is a real problem for Polanski. Would be better if the Corbynites fucked off and joined Your Party.
Indeed
In the end it will destroy them. The eco left LGBTQ types are in bed with horrible ultra-sectarian Islamists who will happily and violently take over if and when they’re given the chance
With proper scrutiny I expect the Greens to fall badly away. Eventually
It’s a shame because there’s a need for a genuinely left wing party with real redistributive purpose. I don’t remotely agree with all that but many do and it needs representation
What they don’t need is a supposed Green party tainted with vile Islamism which apparently no longer has any Green policies
Surely Corbyn and the Islamic Independents will end up merging with the Greens.
I quite like environmentalism, it would be great if it were incorporated into politics without having to turn turn the country into an Islamic Republic. They'd fuck all that green shit off anyway
The other parties all have varying levels of Green policies. It's not the sole preserve of the Greens, so it isn't neccessary to go islamist or woke or marxist or whatever to get that.
So the Iranian regime is hated by the Iranians, hated by all the Arabs, hated by everyone in the region, hated from London to the Lebanon, from Damascus to Los Angeles, indeed its hated by literally everyone else in the world - apart from Vladimir Putin - plus thousands and thousands of left wing morons in the West who hate Jews so much they support Tehran. And the British Green Party
The war has wiped Hannah "Where's me hijab" Spencer and Imam Zac off the headlines
The death of President Ebrahim Raisi — widely viewed as a leading candidate for succession — deepened the uncertainty. Names previously mentioned as potential successors include:
Hassan Khomeini – grandson of Ayatollah Khomeini, perceived as relatively moderate. Sadeq Larijani – a senior institutional figure. Hassan Rouhani – former president, though his relationship with Khamenei was complex. Mojtaba Khamenei – the Supreme Leader’s son, long rumored as a possible candidate.
The US/Israel should slot them all (except maybe the moderate guy)
Put the Fear of God in them and say “modern technology means we can kill you at will, and we shall keep doing so, Until you liberate your country and free your people”
Who knows? It could work. The only downside is that it will annoy lots of international lawyers, Jeremy and Piers Corbyn, and the UK Green Party
I see the utterly insane Piers Corbyn is there, a raging and unrepentant anti-Semite
This is a real problem for Polanski. Would be better if the Corbynites fucked off and joined Your Party.
Polanski saw an opportunity to absorb the 2019 Corbyn coalition and took it. In that sense he’s a skilled politician.
However this is the danger of Labour going after this lot, it is completely toxic to the rest of the electorate.
Labour needs to change something and be radical. But going to the left is not it.
In that sense Rayner would not be a bad option because she’s not very left wing despite people pretending she is. However I just cannot take her seriously as a candidate.
Corbyn won more votes than Starmer, which suggests that the Corbynites aren't "completely toxic to the rest of the electorate".
He piled up votes in the wrong places. So yes he piled up votes in Gorton and Denton but wasn’t able to win seats like Basingstoke (only saying that seat because I know it).
So yes Labour is fine to go for that strategy again but it surely is one that accepts they’ve lost the election before it started and they’re giving up.
I won’t be voting for them in that case.
Yes, Corbyn lost. I wasn't disputing that, I wasn't disputing whether Corbynism is a sensible strategy for the Greens or Labour. I was just disputing your suggestion that it was "completely toxic".
How does not losing in a landslide suggest it’s not completely toxic?
Is your point that in a very split electorate Corbyn could have won in 2019?
Getting 32% of the vote is not completely toxic. The BNP peaked at 2% of the vote. They were completely toxic! I'm mainly just objecting to the hyperbole of "completely toxic".
Labour under Corbyn got 32%, which is more than any of the parties are currently polling. What happened in 2019 happened, but a party that re-builds the Corbyn coalition would be leading the polling today.
Would it? Polanski has rebuilt the Corbyn core vote on the new Ashcroft poll but the Greens are still third behind Reform and the Tories and only 2% ahead of Starmer Labour
That's begging the question. You claim that Polanski has rebuilt the Corbyn core vote. Maybe he hasn't? I suspect he's rebuilt some of the Corbyn core vote, combined with the older Green vote, and he's taken the party to new electoral successes. He could yet attract more support.
Some of those who voted Labour under Corbyn did so solely as he was Labour leader, they were not Corbynite, the ideological Corbynites are the ones who have gone Green
Yes? No? Maybe? Yes, some of those who voted for Corbyn's Labour were voting Labour in spite of Corbyn. Many of the ideological Corbynites have gone Green, with a few going to Your Party. But I think some of them are still in Labour, voting Labour in spite of Starmer. People are complicated and blocks of votes don't move as one.
I see the utterly insane Piers Corbyn is there, a raging and unrepentant anti-Semite
This is a real problem for Polanski. Would be better if the Corbynites fucked off and joined Your Party.
Polanski saw an opportunity to absorb the 2019 Corbyn coalition and took it. In that sense he’s a skilled politician.
However this is the danger of Labour going after this lot, it is completely toxic to the rest of the electorate.
Labour needs to change something and be radical. But going to the left is not it.
In that sense Rayner would not be a bad option because she’s not very left wing despite people pretending she is. However I just cannot take her seriously as a candidate.
Corbyn won more votes than Starmer, which suggests that the Corbynites aren't "completely toxic to the rest of the electorate".
He piled up votes in the wrong places. So yes he piled up votes in Gorton and Denton but wasn’t able to win seats like Basingstoke (only saying that seat because I know it).
So yes Labour is fine to go for that strategy again but it surely is one that accepts they’ve lost the election before it started and they’re giving up.
I won’t be voting for them in that case.
Yes, Corbyn lost. I wasn't disputing that, I wasn't disputing whether Corbynism is a sensible strategy for the Greens or Labour. I was just disputing your suggestion that it was "completely toxic".
How does not losing in a landslide suggest it’s not completely toxic?
Is your point that in a very split electorate Corbyn could have won in 2019?
Getting 32% of the vote is not completely toxic. The BNP peaked at 2% of the vote. They were completely toxic! I'm mainly just objecting to the hyperbole of "completely toxic".
Labour under Corbyn got 32%, which is more than any of the parties are currently polling. What happened in 2019 happened, but a party that re-builds the Corbyn coalition would be leading the polling today.
The Corbyn coalition frightened the horses. If the Greens were polling 32%, the lead right wing party would be polling 32%+.
Yeah, maybe. It's like the argument that Reform are toxic and will underperform at a general election because people will tactically vote against them. That might happen as the Greens rise up the polls. So far, polling suggests the Greens are less toxic than Reform.
Nobody is going to win an election in the UK, on a platform of radical socialism, open borders, opposition to NATO, even against Reform.
Greens have received no real scrutiny as yet. But NATO will kill them off.
The death of President Ebrahim Raisi — widely viewed as a leading candidate for succession — deepened the uncertainty. Names previously mentioned as potential successors include:
Hassan Khomeini – grandson of Ayatollah Khomeini, perceived as relatively moderate. Sadeq Larijani – a senior institutional figure. Hassan Rouhani – former president, though his relationship with Khamenei was complex. Mojtaba Khamenei – the Supreme Leader’s son, long rumored as a possible candidate.
The US/Israel should slot them all (except maybe the moderate guy)
Put the Fear of God in them and say “modern technology means we can kill you at will, and we shall keep doing so, Until you liberate your country and free your people”
Who knows? It could work. The only downside is that it will annoy lots of international lawyers, Jeremy and Piers Corbyn, and the UK Green Party
I see the utterly insane Piers Corbyn is there, a raging and unrepentant anti-Semite
This is a real problem for Polanski. Would be better if the Corbynites fucked off and joined Your Party.
Polanski saw an opportunity to absorb the 2019 Corbyn coalition and took it. In that sense he’s a skilled politician.
However this is the danger of Labour going after this lot, it is completely toxic to the rest of the electorate.
Labour needs to change something and be radical. But going to the left is not it.
In that sense Rayner would not be a bad option because she’s not very left wing despite people pretending she is. However I just cannot take her seriously as a candidate.
Corbyn won more votes than Starmer, which suggests that the Corbynites aren't "completely toxic to the rest of the electorate".
He piled up votes in the wrong places. So yes he piled up votes in Gorton and Denton but wasn’t able to win seats like Basingstoke (only saying that seat because I know it).
So yes Labour is fine to go for that strategy again but it surely is one that accepts they’ve lost the election before it started and they’re giving up.
I won’t be voting for them in that case.
Yes, Corbyn lost. I wasn't disputing that, I wasn't disputing whether Corbynism is a sensible strategy for the Greens or Labour. I was just disputing your suggestion that it was "completely toxic".
How does not losing in a landslide suggest it’s not completely toxic?
Is your point that in a very split electorate Corbyn could have won in 2019?
Getting 32% of the vote is not completely toxic. The BNP peaked at 2% of the vote. They were completely toxic! I'm mainly just objecting to the hyperbole of "completely toxic".
Labour under Corbyn got 32%, which is more than any of the parties are currently polling. What happened in 2019 happened, but a party that re-builds the Corbyn coalition would be leading the polling today.
The Corbyn coalition frightened the horses. If the Greens were polling 32%, the lead right wing party would be polling 32%+.
I’d be voting Reform. I say that seriously.
Totally shocked. Your consistency has always been a feature of your contributions.
I see the utterly insane Piers Corbyn is there, a raging and unrepentant anti-Semite
This is a real problem for Polanski. Would be better if the Corbynites fucked off and joined Your Party.
Polanski saw an opportunity to absorb the 2019 Corbyn coalition and took it. In that sense he’s a skilled politician.
However this is the danger of Labour going after this lot, it is completely toxic to the rest of the electorate.
Labour needs to change something and be radical. But going to the left is not it.
In that sense Rayner would not be a bad option because she’s not very left wing despite people pretending she is. However I just cannot take her seriously as a candidate.
Corbyn won more votes than Starmer, which suggests that the Corbynites aren't "completely toxic to the rest of the electorate".
He piled up votes in the wrong places. So yes he piled up votes in Gorton and Denton but wasn’t able to win seats like Basingstoke (only saying that seat because I know it).
So yes Labour is fine to go for that strategy again but it surely is one that accepts they’ve lost the election before it started and they’re giving up.
I won’t be voting for them in that case.
Yes, Corbyn lost. I wasn't disputing that, I wasn't disputing whether Corbynism is a sensible strategy for the Greens or Labour. I was just disputing your suggestion that it was "completely toxic".
How does not losing in a landslide suggest it’s not completely toxic?
Is your point that in a very split electorate Corbyn could have won in 2019?
Getting 32% of the vote is not completely toxic. The BNP peaked at 2% of the vote. They were completely toxic! I'm mainly just objecting to the hyperbole of "completely toxic".
Labour under Corbyn got 32%, which is more than any of the parties are currently polling. What happened in 2019 happened, but a party that re-builds the Corbyn coalition would be leading the polling today.
The Corbyn coalition frightened the horses. If the Greens were polling 32%, the lead right wing party would be polling 32%+.
Yeah, maybe. It's like the argument that Reform are toxic and will underperform at a general election because people will tactically vote against them. That might happen as the Greens rise up the polls. So far, polling suggests the Greens are less toxic than Reform.
Nobody is going to win an election in the UK, on a platform of radical socialism, open borders, opposition to NATO, even against Reform.
Greens have received no real scrutiny as yet. But NATO will kill them off.
Polanski wants to win. I suspect he'll finesse the policy. The Greens used to be anti-EU, but they dropped all that. They can change their positions on many things!
I see the utterly insane Piers Corbyn is there, a raging and unrepentant anti-Semite
This is a real problem for Polanski. Would be better if the Corbynites fucked off and joined Your Party.
Polanski saw an opportunity to absorb the 2019 Corbyn coalition and took it. In that sense he’s a skilled politician.
However this is the danger of Labour going after this lot, it is completely toxic to the rest of the electorate.
Labour needs to change something and be radical. But going to the left is not it.
In that sense Rayner would not be a bad option because she’s not very left wing despite people pretending she is. However I just cannot take her seriously as a candidate.
Corbyn won more votes than Starmer, which suggests that the Corbynites aren't "completely toxic to the rest of the electorate".
He piled up votes in the wrong places. So yes he piled up votes in Gorton and Denton but wasn’t able to win seats like Basingstoke (only saying that seat because I know it).
So yes Labour is fine to go for that strategy again but it surely is one that accepts they’ve lost the election before it started and they’re giving up.
I won’t be voting for them in that case.
Yes, Corbyn lost. I wasn't disputing that, I wasn't disputing whether Corbynism is a sensible strategy for the Greens or Labour. I was just disputing your suggestion that it was "completely toxic".
How does not losing in a landslide suggest it’s not completely toxic?
Is your point that in a very split electorate Corbyn could have won in 2019?
Getting 32% of the vote is not completely toxic. The BNP peaked at 2% of the vote. They were completely toxic! I'm mainly just objecting to the hyperbole of "completely toxic".
Labour under Corbyn got 32%, which is more than any of the parties are currently polling. What happened in 2019 happened, but a party that re-builds the Corbyn coalition would be leading the polling today.
The Corbyn coalition frightened the horses. If the Greens were polling 32%, the lead right wing party would be polling 32%+.
Yeah, maybe. It's like the argument that Reform are toxic and will underperform at a general election because people will tactically vote against them. That might happen as the Greens rise up the polls. So far, polling suggests the Greens are less toxic than Reform.
Nobody is going to win an election in the UK, on a platform of radical socialism, open borders, opposition to NATO, even against Reform.
Greens have received no real scrutiny as yet. But NATO will kill them off.
I see the utterly insane Piers Corbyn is there, a raging and unrepentant anti-Semite
This is a real problem for Polanski. Would be better if the Corbynites fucked off and joined Your Party.
Polanski saw an opportunity to absorb the 2019 Corbyn coalition and took it. In that sense he’s a skilled politician.
However this is the danger of Labour going after this lot, it is completely toxic to the rest of the electorate.
Labour needs to change something and be radical. But going to the left is not it.
In that sense Rayner would not be a bad option because she’s not very left wing despite people pretending she is. However I just cannot take her seriously as a candidate.
Corbyn won more votes than Starmer, which suggests that the Corbynites aren't "completely toxic to the rest of the electorate".
He piled up votes in the wrong places. So yes he piled up votes in Gorton and Denton but wasn’t able to win seats like Basingstoke (only saying that seat because I know it).
So yes Labour is fine to go for that strategy again but it surely is one that accepts they’ve lost the election before it started and they’re giving up.
I won’t be voting for them in that case.
Yes, Corbyn lost. I wasn't disputing that, I wasn't disputing whether Corbynism is a sensible strategy for the Greens or Labour. I was just disputing your suggestion that it was "completely toxic".
How does not losing in a landslide suggest it’s not completely toxic?
Is your point that in a very split electorate Corbyn could have won in 2019?
Getting 32% of the vote is not completely toxic. The BNP peaked at 2% of the vote. They were completely toxic! I'm mainly just objecting to the hyperbole of "completely toxic".
Labour under Corbyn got 32%, which is more than any of the parties are currently polling. What happened in 2019 happened, but a party that re-builds the Corbyn coalition would be leading the polling today.
Would it? Polanski has rebuilt the Corbyn core vote on the new Ashcroft poll but the Greens are still third behind Reform and the Tories and only 2% ahead of Starmer Labour
That's begging the question. You claim that Polanski has rebuilt the Corbyn core vote. Maybe he hasn't? I suspect he's rebuilt some of the Corbyn core vote, combined with the older Green vote, and he's taken the party to new electoral successes. He could yet attract more support.
Both the Greens and Reform have a vision. After the last 18 years of stagnation, people are looking for a party with a vision. If Labour and the Tories had any vision, or even any ambition other than to be in power, people would vote for them instead of Reform and the Greens.
I see the utterly insane Piers Corbyn is there, a raging and unrepentant anti-Semite
This is a real problem for Polanski. Would be better if the Corbynites fucked off and joined Your Party.
Polanski saw an opportunity to absorb the 2019 Corbyn coalition and took it. In that sense he’s a skilled politician.
However this is the danger of Labour going after this lot, it is completely toxic to the rest of the electorate.
Labour needs to change something and be radical. But going to the left is not it.
In that sense Rayner would not be a bad option because she’s not very left wing despite people pretending she is. However I just cannot take her seriously as a candidate.
Corbyn won more votes than Starmer, which suggests that the Corbynites aren't "completely toxic to the rest of the electorate".
He piled up votes in the wrong places. So yes he piled up votes in Gorton and Denton but wasn’t able to win seats like Basingstoke (only saying that seat because I know it).
So yes Labour is fine to go for that strategy again but it surely is one that accepts they’ve lost the election before it started and they’re giving up.
I won’t be voting for them in that case.
Yes, Corbyn lost. I wasn't disputing that, I wasn't disputing whether Corbynism is a sensible strategy for the Greens or Labour. I was just disputing your suggestion that it was "completely toxic".
How does not losing in a landslide suggest it’s not completely toxic?
Is your point that in a very split electorate Corbyn could have won in 2019?
Getting 32% of the vote is not completely toxic. The BNP peaked at 2% of the vote. They were completely toxic! I'm mainly just objecting to the hyperbole of "completely toxic".
Labour under Corbyn got 32%, which is more than any of the parties are currently polling. What happened in 2019 happened, but a party that re-builds the Corbyn coalition would be leading the polling today.
The Corbyn coalition frightened the horses. If the Greens were polling 32%, the lead right wing party would be polling 32%+.
I’d be voting Reform. I say that seriously.
Totally shocked. Your consistency has always been a feature of your contributions.
I supported Corbyn. It was a disaster.
I’ve learned from that, I got it wrong and won’t see that repeated again.
The killing of Khamenei was certainly unexpected and by their actions the US and Israel have finally forced the middle east to confront the disruptiive nature of this murderous regime and sponsor of terror
It was interesting that at the UN, Iran only received support from Russia and China whilst being universally condemned by it's neighbours
Many on here praised Carney in standing upto Trump, but don't seem so happy that he pledged Canada's support for the US and Israel action as did Australia
In normal circumstances the UK PM would have done the same but he is so powerless he no choice but to sit on the fence
Anyway, we are involved in actively protecting our allies in the region and our base in Cyprus and hopefully Iran will come to it's senses and seek a deal with Trump
Nobody can know how long the airspace will be closed for, or the effect on oil prices, but let's hope it is not too long
Once again by choice or by not being fully briefed you misrepresent the position of Canada and Australia in a desperate attempt to attack Stsrmer
For the avoidance of any doubt
Canada supports the actions on Iran Australia welcomes the actions on Iran The UK welcome the actions on Iran
All 3 offer defensive support of their own citizens and bases
All 3 CATEGORICALLY oppose and w ill not at this time engage in direct aggressive action.
This is the position too of all European Countries with the exception of Spain who oppose the action.
ALL refer to the breaking of international law.
Starmer is once again totally aligned with the majority with the backbone to stand up to Trump and Netanyahu.
Meanwhile we all know what the right wing war mongering right wing leaders Farage and Badenoch want.
War against Islam Total blind support for Netanyahu brand of Zionism Ass kicking of Trump and MAGA
No doubt a bit of paki bashing in the UK and a bit of anti semitism would be most welcome.
Neither are fit to lead. Neither has any gravitas on the World stage and both would massively increase the risk to the UK and to UK citizens here and abroad.
The right want to fight anybody anywhere and have a pauciry of ideas other than division and confrontation
I’m sorry, are you complaining about anti-Semitism??!
In the last few days you’ve accused Labour of being run by a “Zionist clique”, “their Zionist bosses”, and a “Zionist cabal”
One is perhaps forgivable. Two is deeply suspicious. The full house says you hate Jews
Zionism has been a contested term since its inception. There's what was the mainstream "vegetarian" Zionism of Chaim Weizmann, and the Mussolini adjacent version pioneered by this guy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ze'ev_Jabotinsky The latter is more Netanyahu's thing.
I suspect few bandying it around today are bothered about the nuances. It's a term of ambiguity, and carries some very toxic freight indeed, so I avoid it.
I see the utterly insane Piers Corbyn is there, a raging and unrepentant anti-Semite
This is a real problem for Polanski. Would be better if the Corbynites fucked off and joined Your Party.
Indeed
In the end it will destroy them. The eco left LGBTQ types are in bed with horrible ultra-sectarian Islamists who will happily and violently take over if and when they’re given the chance
With proper scrutiny I expect the Greens to fall badly away. Eventually
It’s a shame because there’s a need for a genuinely left wing party with real redistributive purpose. I don’t remotely agree with all that but many do and it needs representation
What they don’t need is a supposed Green party tainted with vile Islamism which apparently no longer has any Green policies
And I see no need for a right wing populist party tainted with racism so I'm hoping they (Reform) explode under scrutiny. But I'm afraid once the populism train gets rolling you don't know where it will end up because it's down to the electorate and the electoral system.
You've been happy enough when it was all going in the direction you want. If there's now a touch of consternation that it might go in the opposite direction, well that's the nature of the beast and thems the breaks. You should have behaved yourself.
Ludicrous, silly, incoherent piffle. And you know it
You just felt you should say *something*
On the contrary, a true and telling point and YOU know it. Hence the boilerplate reply.
But once more for the road ...
The erstwhile scenario of your sort of populism alone in that lane with a free hit at the boring old mainstream was absolutely lovely for you (and ilk) - but that's over now because another sort of populism (one you fear and loath) has muscled into the frame.
Worth a couple of posts, that observation, I think. I'll probably say it again whenever you or ilk moan about Polanski and the Greens.
I see the utterly insane Piers Corbyn is there, a raging and unrepentant anti-Semite
This is a real problem for Polanski. Would be better if the Corbynites fucked off and joined Your Party.
Polanski saw an opportunity to absorb the 2019 Corbyn coalition and took it. In that sense he’s a skilled politician.
However this is the danger of Labour going after this lot, it is completely toxic to the rest of the electorate.
Labour needs to change something and be radical. But going to the left is not it.
In that sense Rayner would not be a bad option because she’s not very left wing despite people pretending she is. However I just cannot take her seriously as a candidate.
Corbyn won more votes than Starmer, which suggests that the Corbynites aren't "completely toxic to the rest of the electorate".
He piled up votes in the wrong places. So yes he piled up votes in Gorton and Denton but wasn’t able to win seats like Basingstoke (only saying that seat because I know it).
So yes Labour is fine to go for that strategy again but it surely is one that accepts they’ve lost the election before it started and they’re giving up.
I won’t be voting for them in that case.
Yes, Corbyn lost. I wasn't disputing that, I wasn't disputing whether Corbynism is a sensible strategy for the Greens or Labour. I was just disputing your suggestion that it was "completely toxic".
How does not losing in a landslide suggest it’s not completely toxic?
Is your point that in a very split electorate Corbyn could have won in 2019?
Getting 32% of the vote is not completely toxic. The BNP peaked at 2% of the vote. They were completely toxic! I'm mainly just objecting to the hyperbole of "completely toxic".
Labour under Corbyn got 32%, which is more than any of the parties are currently polling. What happened in 2019 happened, but a party that re-builds the Corbyn coalition would be leading the polling today.
The Corbyn coalition frightened the horses. If the Greens were polling 32%, the lead right wing party would be polling 32%+.
I’d be voting Reform. I say that seriously.
Totally shocked. Your consistency has always been a feature of your contributions.
I supported Corbyn. It was a disaster.
I’ve learned from that, I got it wrong and won’t see that repeated again.
At least when I’m wrong I say so. What do you do?
Yor track record on wrongness is wonderfully varied, and pooping out a 'I might vote Reform' just confirms that record.
I see the utterly insane Piers Corbyn is there, a raging and unrepentant anti-Semite
This is a real problem for Polanski. Would be better if the Corbynites fucked off and joined Your Party.
Polanski saw an opportunity to absorb the 2019 Corbyn coalition and took it. In that sense he’s a skilled politician.
However this is the danger of Labour going after this lot, it is completely toxic to the rest of the electorate.
Labour needs to change something and be radical. But going to the left is not it.
In that sense Rayner would not be a bad option because she’s not very left wing despite people pretending she is. However I just cannot take her seriously as a candidate.
Corbyn won more votes than Starmer, which suggests that the Corbynites aren't "completely toxic to the rest of the electorate".
He piled up votes in the wrong places. So yes he piled up votes in Gorton and Denton but wasn’t able to win seats like Basingstoke (only saying that seat because I know it).
So yes Labour is fine to go for that strategy again but it surely is one that accepts they’ve lost the election before it started and they’re giving up.
I won’t be voting for them in that case.
Yes, Corbyn lost. I wasn't disputing that, I wasn't disputing whether Corbynism is a sensible strategy for the Greens or Labour. I was just disputing your suggestion that it was "completely toxic".
How does not losing in a landslide suggest it’s not completely toxic?
Is your point that in a very split electorate Corbyn could have won in 2019?
Getting 32% of the vote is not completely toxic. The BNP peaked at 2% of the vote. They were completely toxic! I'm mainly just objecting to the hyperbole of "completely toxic".
Labour under Corbyn got 32%, which is more than any of the parties are currently polling. What happened in 2019 happened, but a party that re-builds the Corbyn coalition would be leading the polling today.
Would it? Polanski has rebuilt the Corbyn core vote on the new Ashcroft poll but the Greens are still third behind Reform and the Tories and only 2% ahead of Starmer Labour
That's begging the question. You claim that Polanski has rebuilt the Corbyn core vote. Maybe he hasn't? I suspect he's rebuilt some of the Corbyn core vote, combined with the older Green vote, and he's taken the party to new electoral successes. He could yet attract more support.
Both the Greens and Reform have a vision. After the last 18 years of stagnation, people are looking for a party with a vision. If Labour and the Tories had any vision, or even any ambition other than to be in power, people would vote for them instead of Reform and the Greens.
At its heart this is the core issue in our politics: hope vs hopelessness.
The Tories gave up trying to govern. Boris had a load of populist ideas which got swept away by his own hubris and replaced first by a lunatic and then by a cardboard cutout of a politician.
Labour? Proffered change. Which they delivered - change from the Tories. That’s as far as it went.
So there is a vast gulf of need with the big two not offering a product. No wonder that others have stepped in. Pity the LibDems have fizzled - we’ve sent ourselves to sleep.
Question: with demands for change from a public utterly sick of the status quo, why do the polls show the SNP as close to winning a majority?
The killing of Khamenei was certainly unexpected and by their actions the US and Israel have finally forced the middle east to confront the disruptiive nature of this murderous regime and sponsor of terror
It was interesting that at the UN, Iran only received support from Russia and China whilst being universally condemned by it's neighbours
Many on here praised Carney in standing upto Trump, but don't seem so happy that he pledged Canada's support for the US and Israel action as did Australia
In normal circumstances the UK PM would have done the same but he is so powerless he no choice but to sit on the fence
Anyway, we are involved in actively protecting our allies in the region and our base in Cyprus and hopefully Iran will come to it's senses and seek a deal with Trump
Nobody can know how long the airspace will be closed for, or the effect on oil prices, but let's hope it is not too long
Once again by choice or by not being fully briefed you misrepresent the position of Canada and Australia in a desperate attempt to attack Stsrmer
For the avoidance of any doubt
Canada supports the actions on Iran Australia welcomes the actions on Iran The UK welcome the actions on Iran
All 3 offer defensive support of their own citizens and bases
All 3 CATEGORICALLY oppose and w ill not at this time engage in direct aggressive action.
This is the position too of all European Countries with the exception of Spain who oppose the action.
ALL refer to the breaking of international law.
Starmer is once again totally aligned with the majority with the backbone to stand up to Trump and Netanyahu.
Meanwhile we all know what the right wing war mongering right wing leaders Farage and Badenoch want.
War against Islam Total blind support for Netanyahu brand of Zionism Ass kicking of Trump and MAGA
No doubt a bit of paki bashing in the UK and a bit of anti semitism would be most welcome.
Neither are fit to lead. Neither has any gravitas on the World stage and both would massively increase the risk to the UK and to UK citizens here and abroad.
The right want to fight anybody anywhere and have a pauciry of ideas other than division and confrontation
I’m sorry, are you complaining about anti-Semitism??!
In the last few days you’ve accused Labour of being run by a “Zionist clique”, “their Zionist bosses”, and a “Zionist cabal”
One is perhaps forgivable. Two is deeply suspicious. The full house says you hate Jews
Zionism has been a contested term since its inception. There's what was the mainstream "vegetarian" Zionism of Chaim Weizmann, and the Mussolini adjacent version pioneered by this guy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ze'ev_Jabotinsky The latter is more Netanyahu's thing.
I suspect few bandying it around today are bothered about the nuances. It's a term of ambiguity, and carries some very toxic freight indeed, so I avoid it.
It’s actually a useful word, and historically important
But when combined with words like “cabal” and “clique” there is only one sensible interpretation
Having a sneaking suspicion that the US is randomly raining death on foreigners because there are domestic stories they would like to sideline makes it hard to cheer enthusiastically.
The Iranian regime has been wishing death on America (and us) for almost 50 years so it's not entirely random.
That is true, although the question "why now?" is a pertinent one.
The Telegraph and NYT have the same story on “why now” so I suspect it’s true
1. There were fears Iran was preparing its own unilateral attack on Israel
2. Trump decided the Iranians really weren’t interested in serious talks on nukes
3. The Israelis said - “we have an incredible opportunity coming up, may not happen again, the entire Iranian leadership is gathering in one place, on this one day”
So they seized the moment. However twits like @DavidL think Trump should have gone to Congress, the UN, left wing British judges, Sky News TV and Lily Allen and her mum to get their “permission” before killing the most evil regime on earth
Why do you think it will kill it?
One of Trump's starting positions is that he will not send in soldiers to put boots on the ground, which is pretty much a guarantee of it not succeeding.
Well they did literally slaughter almost all the upper echelon of the regime. In one day
An incredible military success, whatever your thoughts on Trump, Bibi etc (and they are both odious - but then recall we supported Stalin over Hitler)
Will this overthrow the regime in toto? It MIGHT. If America says “we will keep killing your leaders until you free your people” it could actually work
A more moderate group might emerge, perhaps in the Iranian army, against the IRGC. Polls show that tens of millions of Iranians LOATHE the mullahs, so they wouldn’t lack support
I don't think anyone has ever doubted the capabilities of the US Military when it puts its mind to something (even if running a nation after conquering it is a step beyond even them). If Trump wants them to do a specific thing there's a good chance they can do it, for better and worse.
Yes, in the US military Donald Trump has the most amazing toy to play with and he's not about to leave it in the garage. People wonder about the thinking behind this latest adventure and IMO, difficult as this might be to accept, there was very little. His main objective was simply staging the whole dramatic episode. By which I mean the build up to the attack, the attack itself and the immediate aftermath. The point of it from his pov was 'it'. It now having happened, and successfully in those terms, he will be taking the win and moving on to whatever is next. As for Iran and the wider impact, whatever will be will be.
Yes, but that Iran hasn't changed its path may become too obvious for Trump's narrative, in a way that hasn't happened with Venezuela (old regime still in power, but they're not making too much of a fuss and bombing US bases). Also, Israel may want to continue the war and keep dragging the US back into the conflict. I think it will be harder to end this war.
I see the utterly insane Piers Corbyn is there, a raging and unrepentant anti-Semite
This is a real problem for Polanski. Would be better if the Corbynites fucked off and joined Your Party.
Polanski saw an opportunity to absorb the 2019 Corbyn coalition and took it. In that sense he’s a skilled politician.
However this is the danger of Labour going after this lot, it is completely toxic to the rest of the electorate.
Labour needs to change something and be radical. But going to the left is not it.
In that sense Rayner would not be a bad option because she’s not very left wing despite people pretending she is. However I just cannot take her seriously as a candidate.
Corbyn won more votes than Starmer, which suggests that the Corbynites aren't "completely toxic to the rest of the electorate".
He piled up votes in the wrong places. So yes he piled up votes in Gorton and Denton but wasn’t able to win seats like Basingstoke (only saying that seat because I know it).
So yes Labour is fine to go for that strategy again but it surely is one that accepts they’ve lost the election before it started and they’re giving up.
I won’t be voting for them in that case.
Yes, Corbyn lost. I wasn't disputing that, I wasn't disputing whether Corbynism is a sensible strategy for the Greens or Labour. I was just disputing your suggestion that it was "completely toxic".
How does not losing in a landslide suggest it’s not completely toxic?
Is your point that in a very split electorate Corbyn could have won in 2019?
Getting 32% of the vote is not completely toxic. The BNP peaked at 2% of the vote. They were completely toxic! I'm mainly just objecting to the hyperbole of "completely toxic".
Labour under Corbyn got 32%, which is more than any of the parties are currently polling. What happened in 2019 happened, but a party that re-builds the Corbyn coalition would be leading the polling today.
The Corbyn coalition frightened the horses. If the Greens were polling 32%, the lead right wing party would be polling 32%+.
I’d be voting Reform. I say that seriously.
Totally shocked. Your consistency has always been a feature of your contributions.
I supported Corbyn. It was a disaster.
I’ve learned from that, I got it wrong and won’t see that repeated again.
At least when I’m wrong I say so. What do you do?
Fair play to you. When facts change you change your mind. And you’re honest when you get it wrong
I see the utterly insane Piers Corbyn is there, a raging and unrepentant anti-Semite
This is a real problem for Polanski. Would be better if the Corbynites fucked off and joined Your Party.
Polanski saw an opportunity to absorb the 2019 Corbyn coalition and took it. In that sense he’s a skilled politician.
However this is the danger of Labour going after this lot, it is completely toxic to the rest of the electorate.
Labour needs to change something and be radical. But going to the left is not it.
In that sense Rayner would not be a bad option because she’s not very left wing despite people pretending she is. However I just cannot take her seriously as a candidate.
Corbyn won more votes than Starmer, which suggests that the Corbynites aren't "completely toxic to the rest of the electorate".
He piled up votes in the wrong places. So yes he piled up votes in Gorton and Denton but wasn’t able to win seats like Basingstoke (only saying that seat because I know it).
So yes Labour is fine to go for that strategy again but it surely is one that accepts they’ve lost the election before it started and they’re giving up.
I won’t be voting for them in that case.
Yes, Corbyn lost. I wasn't disputing that, I wasn't disputing whether Corbynism is a sensible strategy for the Greens or Labour. I was just disputing your suggestion that it was "completely toxic".
How does not losing in a landslide suggest it’s not completely toxic?
Is your point that in a very split electorate Corbyn could have won in 2019?
Getting 32% of the vote is not completely toxic. The BNP peaked at 2% of the vote. They were completely toxic! I'm mainly just objecting to the hyperbole of "completely toxic".
Labour under Corbyn got 32%, which is more than any of the parties are currently polling. What happened in 2019 happened, but a party that re-builds the Corbyn coalition would be leading the polling today.
Would it? Polanski has rebuilt the Corbyn core vote on the new Ashcroft poll but the Greens are still third behind Reform and the Tories and only 2% ahead of Starmer Labour
That's begging the question. You claim that Polanski has rebuilt the Corbyn core vote. Maybe he hasn't? I suspect he's rebuilt some of the Corbyn core vote, combined with the older Green vote, and he's taken the party to new electoral successes. He could yet attract more support.
Some of those who voted Labour under Corbyn did so solely as he was Labour leader, they were not Corbynite, the ideological Corbynites are the ones who have gone Green
Yes? No? Maybe? Yes, some of those who voted for Corbyn's Labour were voting Labour in spite of Corbyn. Many of the ideological Corbynites have gone Green, with a few going to Your Party. But I think some of them are still in Labour, voting Labour in spite of Starmer. People are complicated and blocks of votes don't move as one.
Equally there will be a few in the Tories voting Tory still who might yet go Reform.
The majority though of those still voting Tory and Labour now are the Conservative and Labour absolute core vote and won't be going to Reform or the Greens. Add up the Tory and Labour and LD vote combined and you still get 45%+ of the vote, about the same as the Reform and Green vote combined (and the latter two's voters are not going to vote for the other party while some of the former 3's voters would vote for the other 2 parties to keep out Farage or Polanski)
After yesterday’s over-excited hysteria, a more sober assessment of the impact of events is starting to come through.
I’m sure no one thought the death of Khamanei or indeed most of the immediate leadership would bring the whole house of cards down - it rarely works that way. In 1989, the Communist regimes of Eastern Europe basically gave up and melted away - except Romania. When you have a Gaddafi or a Saddam, their capture or demise means the end of the regime because so much of it is individually invested in them.
Iran isn’t like that - there is a not insignificant portion of the population who are sad and angry at what they see as the murder of their religious leader. Many others are for now keeping their own counsel and that’s probably wise. Absent an occupying military force, it will have to be the population who can force change (back to 1989). Could, would, the regime fight a mass movement on that scale? The Shah couldn’t, the SED couldn’t - do we assume the IRGC would?
Iran isn’t yet completely incapacitated militarily and seems to have drones and missiles to fire at some of its neighbours (though not all). Presumably the job of follow up Israeli and American strikes will be to further weaken that capability and perhaps seek to weaken the IRGC beyond the immediate command structure.
We shouldn’t discount the possibility a new leadership will follow a more pragmatic line toning down the reality if not the rhetoric. I note Hezbollah have decided to sit this one out which has probably spared them an Israeli strike or twenty.
As I argued yesterday, I suspect the one thing everyone wants to avoid is the wholesale collapse of Government and society in Iran. Some on here were actively supportive of anarchy - we’ve never experienced it here. The idea of life without the protective blanket of a functioning civil society isn’t easy to contemplate. No work, no money, no food, no law and order - it’s little wonder some come to look back on repression as preferable and often embrace a new tyranny for the certainties it brings.
No government is in most cases worse than bad government, on an overall country basis at least not for individuals and groups.
Belgium’s strongest economic performance in recent years was when the had no government…
The killing of Khamenei was certainly unexpected and by their actions the US and Israel have finally forced the middle east to confront the disruptiive nature of this murderous regime and sponsor of terror
It was interesting that at the UN, Iran only received support from Russia and China whilst being universally condemned by it's neighbours
Many on here praised Carney in standing upto Trump, but don't seem so happy that he pledged Canada's support for the US and Israel action as did Australia
In normal circumstances the UK PM would have done the same but he is so powerless he no choice but to sit on the fence
Anyway, we are involved in actively protecting our allies in the region and our base in Cyprus and hopefully Iran will come to it's senses and seek a deal with Trump
Nobody can know how long the airspace will be closed for, or the effect on oil prices, but let's hope it is not too long
Once again by choice or by not being fully briefed you misrepresent the position of Canada and Australia in a desperate attempt to attack Stsrmer
For the avoidance of any doubt
Canada supports the actions on Iran Australia welcomes the actions on Iran The UK welcome the actions on Iran
All 3 offer defensive support of their own citizens and bases
All 3 CATEGORICALLY oppose and w ill not at this time engage in direct aggressive action.
This is the position too of all European Countries with the exception of Spain who oppose the action.
ALL refer to the breaking of international law.
Starmer is once again totally aligned with the majority with the backbone to stand up to Trump and Netanyahu.
Meanwhile we all know what the right wing war mongering right wing leaders Farage and Badenoch want.
War against Islam Total blind support for Netanyahu brand of Zionism Ass kicking of Trump and MAGA
No doubt a bit of paki bashing in the UK and a bit of anti semitism would be most welcome.
Neither are fit to lead. Neither has any gravitas on the World stage and both would massively increase the risk to the UK and to UK citizens here and abroad.
The right want to fight anybody anywhere and have a pauciry of ideas other than division and confrontation
I’m sorry, are you complaining about anti-Semitism??!
In the last few days you’ve accused Labour of being run by a “Zionist clique”, “their Zionist bosses”, and a “Zionist cabal”
One is perhaps forgivable. Two is deeply suspicious. The full house says you hate Jews
Zionism has been a contested term since its inception. There's what was the mainstream "vegetarian" Zionism of Chaim Weizmann, and the Mussolini adjacent version pioneered by this guy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ze'ev_Jabotinsky The latter is more Netanyahu's thing.
I suspect few bandying it around today are bothered about the nuances. It's a term of ambiguity, and carries some very toxic freight indeed, so I avoid it.
Still, Reeves claim that she was a Zionist as should be all 'progressives' certainly proved a cunning plan to win votes.
I see the utterly insane Piers Corbyn is there, a raging and unrepentant anti-Semite
This is a real problem for Polanski. Would be better if the Corbynites fucked off and joined Your Party.
Polanski saw an opportunity to absorb the 2019 Corbyn coalition and took it. In that sense he’s a skilled politician.
However this is the danger of Labour going after this lot, it is completely toxic to the rest of the electorate.
Labour needs to change something and be radical. But going to the left is not it.
In that sense Rayner would not be a bad option because she’s not very left wing despite people pretending she is. However I just cannot take her seriously as a candidate.
Corbyn won more votes than Starmer, which suggests that the Corbynites aren't "completely toxic to the rest of the electorate".
He piled up votes in the wrong places. So yes he piled up votes in Gorton and Denton but wasn’t able to win seats like Basingstoke (only saying that seat because I know it).
So yes Labour is fine to go for that strategy again but it surely is one that accepts they’ve lost the election before it started and they’re giving up.
I won’t be voting for them in that case.
Yes, Corbyn lost. I wasn't disputing that, I wasn't disputing whether Corbynism is a sensible strategy for the Greens or Labour. I was just disputing your suggestion that it was "completely toxic".
How does not losing in a landslide suggest it’s not completely toxic?
Is your point that in a very split electorate Corbyn could have won in 2019?
Getting 32% of the vote is not completely toxic. The BNP peaked at 2% of the vote. They were completely toxic! I'm mainly just objecting to the hyperbole of "completely toxic".
Labour under Corbyn got 32%, which is more than any of the parties are currently polling. What happened in 2019 happened, but a party that re-builds the Corbyn coalition would be leading the polling today.
The Corbyn coalition frightened the horses. If the Greens were polling 32%, the lead right wing party would be polling 32%+.
I’d be voting Reform. I say that seriously.
Totally shocked. Your consistency has always been a feature of your contributions.
I supported Corbyn. It was a disaster.
I’ve learned from that, I got it wrong and won’t see that repeated again.
At least when I’m wrong I say so. What do you do?
Yor track record on wrongness is wonderfully varied, and pooping out a 'I might vote Reform' just confirms that record.
The persuadable voter is a fairly rare beast on PB. We should value their presence.
I see the utterly insane Piers Corbyn is there, a raging and unrepentant anti-Semite
This is a real problem for Polanski. Would be better if the Corbynites fucked off and joined Your Party.
Polanski saw an opportunity to absorb the 2019 Corbyn coalition and took it. In that sense he’s a skilled politician.
However this is the danger of Labour going after this lot, it is completely toxic to the rest of the electorate.
Labour needs to change something and be radical. But going to the left is not it.
In that sense Rayner would not be a bad option because she’s not very left wing despite people pretending she is. However I just cannot take her seriously as a candidate.
Corbyn won more votes than Starmer, which suggests that the Corbynites aren't "completely toxic to the rest of the electorate".
He piled up votes in the wrong places. So yes he piled up votes in Gorton and Denton but wasn’t able to win seats like Basingstoke (only saying that seat because I know it).
So yes Labour is fine to go for that strategy again but it surely is one that accepts they’ve lost the election before it started and they’re giving up.
I won’t be voting for them in that case.
Yes, Corbyn lost. I wasn't disputing that, I wasn't disputing whether Corbynism is a sensible strategy for the Greens or Labour. I was just disputing your suggestion that it was "completely toxic".
How does not losing in a landslide suggest it’s not completely toxic?
Is your point that in a very split electorate Corbyn could have won in 2019?
Getting 32% of the vote is not completely toxic. The BNP peaked at 2% of the vote. They were completely toxic! I'm mainly just objecting to the hyperbole of "completely toxic".
Labour under Corbyn got 32%, which is more than any of the parties are currently polling. What happened in 2019 happened, but a party that re-builds the Corbyn coalition would be leading the polling today.
The Corbyn coalition frightened the horses. If the Greens were polling 32%, the lead right wing party would be polling 32%+.
Yeah, maybe. It's like the argument that Reform are toxic and will underperform at a general election because people will tactically vote against them. That might happen as the Greens rise up the polls. So far, polling suggests the Greens are less toxic than Reform.
Nobody is going to win an election in the UK, on a platform of radical socialism, open borders, opposition to NATO, even against Reform.
Corbyn got 40% on such a platform, which is more than any party these days can dream of.
(OK that wasn't quite his official platform, but everybody knew in practice that's what he'd have done if elected).
After yesterday’s over-excited hysteria, a more sober assessment of the impact of events is starting to come through.
I’m sure no one thought the death of Khamanei or indeed most of the immediate leadership would bring the whole house of cards down - it rarely works that way. In 1989, the Communist regimes of Eastern Europe basically gave up and melted away - except Romania. When you have a Gaddafi or a Saddam, their capture or demise means the end of the regime because so much of it is individually invested in them.
Iran isn’t like that - there is a not insignificant portion of the population who are sad and angry at what they see as the murder of their religious leader. Many others are for now keeping their own counsel and that’s probably wise. Absent an occupying military force, it will have to be the population who can force change (back to 1989). Could, would, the regime fight a mass movement on that scale? The Shah couldn’t, the SED couldn’t - do we assume the IRGC would?
Iran isn’t yet completely incapacitated militarily and seems to have drones and missiles to fire at some of its neighbours (though not all). Presumably the job of follow up Israeli and American strikes will be to further weaken that capability and perhaps seek to weaken the IRGC beyond the immediate command structure.
We shouldn’t discount the possibility a new leadership will follow a more pragmatic line toning down the reality if not the rhetoric. I note Hezbollah have decided to sit this one out which has probably spared them an Israeli strike or twenty.
As I argued yesterday, I suspect the one thing everyone wants to avoid is the wholesale collapse of Government and society in Iran. Some on here were actively supportive of anarchy - we’ve never experienced it here. The idea of life without the protective blanket of a functioning civil society isn’t easy to contemplate. No work, no money, no food, no law and order - it’s little wonder some come to look back on repression as preferable and often embrace a new tyranny for the certainties it brings.
No government is in most cases worse than bad government, on an overall country basis at least not for individuals and groups.
Belgium’s strongest economic performance in recent years was when the had no government…
If they hit Dubai every day people would get used to the new normal. We can get used to everything and anything however horrible, it is a great strength and yet also tragedy of humankind.
The difference is the inhabitants of Dubai are much less committed to the place they live in than Ukrainians. Dubai is an entirely transactional country.
And has no sustainable water supply.
Eh? There’s literally a dozen desalination plants in the UAE.
But the Gulf is gettng significantly more saline as a result. As well as destroying marine life, it is taking more energy to produce potable water.
I always thought they just used the salt rather than put it back.
I don’t think it’s salt that they end up with after the process - more of a toxic sludge with a mix of various unpleasant minerals and chemicals. No use to anyone and should be disposed of with care
I see the utterly insane Piers Corbyn is there, a raging and unrepentant anti-Semite
This is a real problem for Polanski. Would be better if the Corbynites fucked off and joined Your Party.
Polanski saw an opportunity to absorb the 2019 Corbyn coalition and took it. In that sense he’s a skilled politician.
However this is the danger of Labour going after this lot, it is completely toxic to the rest of the electorate.
Labour needs to change something and be radical. But going to the left is not it.
In that sense Rayner would not be a bad option because she’s not very left wing despite people pretending she is. However I just cannot take her seriously as a candidate.
Corbyn won more votes than Starmer, which suggests that the Corbynites aren't "completely toxic to the rest of the electorate".
He piled up votes in the wrong places. So yes he piled up votes in Gorton and Denton but wasn’t able to win seats like Basingstoke (only saying that seat because I know it).
So yes Labour is fine to go for that strategy again but it surely is one that accepts they’ve lost the election before it started and they’re giving up.
I won’t be voting for them in that case.
Yes, Corbyn lost. I wasn't disputing that, I wasn't disputing whether Corbynism is a sensible strategy for the Greens or Labour. I was just disputing your suggestion that it was "completely toxic".
How does not losing in a landslide suggest it’s not completely toxic?
Is your point that in a very split electorate Corbyn could have won in 2019?
Getting 32% of the vote is not completely toxic. The BNP peaked at 2% of the vote. They were completely toxic! I'm mainly just objecting to the hyperbole of "completely toxic".
Labour under Corbyn got 32%, which is more than any of the parties are currently polling. What happened in 2019 happened, but a party that re-builds the Corbyn coalition would be leading the polling today.
Would it? Polanski has rebuilt the Corbyn core vote on the new Ashcroft poll but the Greens are still third behind Reform and the Tories and only 2% ahead of Starmer Labour
That's begging the question. You claim that Polanski has rebuilt the Corbyn core vote. Maybe he hasn't? I suspect he's rebuilt some of the Corbyn core vote, combined with the older Green vote, and he's taken the party to new electoral successes. He could yet attract more support.
Both the Greens and Reform have a vision. After the last 18 years of stagnation, people are looking for a party with a vision. If Labour and the Tories had any vision, or even any ambition other than to be in power, people would vote for them instead of Reform and the Greens.
At its heart this is the core issue in our politics: hope vs hopelessness.
The Tories gave up trying to govern. Boris had a load of populist ideas which got swept away by his own hubris and replaced first by a lunatic and then by a cardboard cutout of a politician.
Labour? Proffered change. Which they delivered - change from the Tories. That’s as far as it went.
So there is a vast gulf of need with the big two not offering a product. No wonder that others have stepped in. Pity the LibDems have fizzled - we’ve sent ourselves to sleep.
Question: with demands for change from a public utterly sick of the status quo, why do the polls show the SNP as close to winning a majority?
Because they're the change from Westminster.
Its like US midterms going for whoever is not in the Oval Office.
I see the utterly insane Piers Corbyn is there, a raging and unrepentant anti-Semite
This is a real problem for Polanski. Would be better if the Corbynites fucked off and joined Your Party.
Polanski saw an opportunity to absorb the 2019 Corbyn coalition and took it. In that sense he’s a skilled politician.
However this is the danger of Labour going after this lot, it is completely toxic to the rest of the electorate.
Labour needs to change something and be radical. But going to the left is not it.
In that sense Rayner would not be a bad option because she’s not very left wing despite people pretending she is. However I just cannot take her seriously as a candidate.
Corbyn won more votes than Starmer, which suggests that the Corbynites aren't "completely toxic to the rest of the electorate".
He piled up votes in the wrong places. So yes he piled up votes in Gorton and Denton but wasn’t able to win seats like Basingstoke (only saying that seat because I know it).
So yes Labour is fine to go for that strategy again but it surely is one that accepts they’ve lost the election before it started and they’re giving up.
I won’t be voting for them in that case.
Yes, Corbyn lost. I wasn't disputing that, I wasn't disputing whether Corbynism is a sensible strategy for the Greens or Labour. I was just disputing your suggestion that it was "completely toxic".
How does not losing in a landslide suggest it’s not completely toxic?
Is your point that in a very split electorate Corbyn could have won in 2019?
Getting 32% of the vote is not completely toxic. The BNP peaked at 2% of the vote. They were completely toxic! I'm mainly just objecting to the hyperbole of "completely toxic".
Labour under Corbyn got 32%, which is more than any of the parties are currently polling. What happened in 2019 happened, but a party that re-builds the Corbyn coalition would be leading the polling today.
The Corbyn coalition frightened the horses. If the Greens were polling 32%, the lead right wing party would be polling 32%+.
I’d be voting Reform. I say that seriously.
Totally shocked. Your consistency has always been a feature of your contributions.
I supported Corbyn. It was a disaster.
I’ve learned from that, I got it wrong and won’t see that repeated again.
At least when I’m wrong I say so. What do you do?
Yor track record on wrongness is wonderfully varied, and pooping out a 'I might vote Reform' just confirms that record.
The persuadable voter is a fairly rare beast on PB. We should value their presence.
Indeed. That some of the loudest screechers about the awfulness of Starmer actually voted for him is something that constantly warms the cockles of my heart.
Having a sneaking suspicion that the US is randomly raining death on foreigners because there are domestic stories they would like to sideline makes it hard to cheer enthusiastically.
The Iranian regime has been wishing death on America (and us) for almost 50 years so it's not entirely random.
That is true, although the question "why now?" is a pertinent one.
The Telegraph and NYT have the same story on “why now” so I suspect it’s true
1. There were fears Iran was preparing its own unilateral attack on Israel
2. Trump decided the Iranians really weren’t interested in serious talks on nukes
3. The Israelis said - “we have an incredible opportunity coming up, may not happen again, the entire Iranian leadership is gathering in one place, on this one day”
So they seized the moment. However twits like @DavidL think Trump should have gone to Congress, the UN, left wing British judges, Sky News TV and Lily Allen and her mum to get their “permission” before killing the most evil regime on earth
Why do you think it will kill it?
One of Trump's starting positions is that he will not send in soldiers to put boots on the ground, which is pretty much a guarantee of it not succeeding.
Well they did literally slaughter almost all the upper echelon of the regime. In one day
An incredible military success, whatever your thoughts on Trump, Bibi etc (and they are both odious - but then recall we supported Stalin over Hitler)
Will this overthrow the regime in toto? It MIGHT. If America says “we will keep killing your leaders until you free your people” it could actually work
A more moderate group might emerge, perhaps in the Iranian army, against the IRGC. Polls show that tens of millions of Iranians LOATHE the mullahs, so they wouldn’t lack support
I don't think anyone has ever doubted the capabilities of the US Military when it puts its mind to something (even if running a nation after conquering it is a step beyond even them). If Trump wants them to do a specific thing there's a good chance they can do it, for better and worse.
Yes, in the US military Donald Trump has the most amazing toy to play with and he's not about to leave it in the garage. People wonder about the thinking behind this latest adventure and IMO, difficult as this might be to accept, there was very little. His main objective was simply staging the whole dramatic episode. By which I mean the build up to the attack, the attack itself and the immediate aftermath. The point of it from his pov was 'it'. It now having happened, and successfully in those terms, he will be taking the win and moving on to whatever is next. As for Iran and the wider impact, whatever will be will be.
Yes, but that Iran hasn't changed its path may become too obvious for Trump's narrative, in a way that hasn't happened with Venezuela (old regime still in power, but they're not making too much of a fuss and bombing US bases). Also, Israel may want to continue the war and keep dragging the US back into the conflict. I think it will be harder to end this war.
Yes, it's way more complex than Venezuela, both in the geopolitics and the actors with influence (esp Netanyahu).
After yesterday’s over-excited hysteria, a more sober assessment of the impact of events is starting to come through.
I’m sure no one thought the death of Khamanei or indeed most of the immediate leadership would bring the whole house of cards down - it rarely works that way. In 1989, the Communist regimes of Eastern Europe basically gave up and melted away - except Romania. When you have a Gaddafi or a Saddam, their capture or demise means the end of the regime because so much of it is individually invested in them.
Iran isn’t like that - there is a not insignificant portion of the population who are sad and angry at what they see as the murder of their religious leader. Many others are for now keeping their own counsel and that’s probably wise. Absent an occupying military force, it will have to be the population who can force change (back to 1989). Could, would, the regime fight a mass movement on that scale? The Shah couldn’t, the SED couldn’t - do we assume the IRGC would?
Iran isn’t yet completely incapacitated militarily and seems to have drones and missiles to fire at some of its neighbours (though not all). Presumably the job of follow up Israeli and American strikes will be to further weaken that capability and perhaps seek to weaken the IRGC beyond the immediate command structure.
We shouldn’t discount the possibility a new leadership will follow a more pragmatic line toning down the reality if not the rhetoric. I note Hezbollah have decided to sit this one out which has probably spared them an Israeli strike or twenty.
As I argued yesterday, I suspect the one thing everyone wants to avoid is the wholesale collapse of Government and society in Iran. Some on here were actively supportive of anarchy - we’ve never experienced it here. The idea of life without the protective blanket of a functioning civil society isn’t easy to contemplate. No work, no money, no food, no law and order - it’s little wonder some come to look back on repression as preferable and often embrace a new tyranny for the certainties it brings.
No government is in most cases worse than bad government, on an overall country basis at least not for individuals and groups.
Belgium’s strongest economic performance in recent years was when the had no government…
It hasn’t worked for us. We’ve had no government since Starmer was elected and we’re still in the economic doldrums.
After yesterday’s over-excited hysteria, a more sober assessment of the impact of events is starting to come through.
I’m sure no one thought the death of Khamanei or indeed most of the immediate leadership would bring the whole house of cards down - it rarely works that way. In 1989, the Communist regimes of Eastern Europe basically gave up and melted away - except Romania. When you have a Gaddafi or a Saddam, their capture or demise means the end of the regime because so much of it is individually invested in them.
Iran isn’t like that - there is a not insignificant portion of the population who are sad and angry at what they see as the murder of their religious leader. Many others are for now keeping their own counsel and that’s probably wise. Absent an occupying military force, it will have to be the population who can force change (back to 1989). Could, would, the regime fight a mass movement on that scale? The Shah couldn’t, the SED couldn’t - do we assume the IRGC would?
Iran isn’t yet completely incapacitated militarily and seems to have drones and missiles to fire at some of its neighbours (though not all). Presumably the job of follow up Israeli and American strikes will be to further weaken that capability and perhaps seek to weaken the IRGC beyond the immediate command structure.
We shouldn’t discount the possibility a new leadership will follow a more pragmatic line toning down the reality if not the rhetoric. I note Hezbollah have decided to sit this one out which has probably spared them an Israeli strike or twenty.
As I argued yesterday, I suspect the one thing everyone wants to avoid is the wholesale collapse of Government and society in Iran. Some on here were actively supportive of anarchy - we’ve never experienced it here. The idea of life without the protective blanket of a functioning civil society isn’t easy to contemplate. No work, no money, no food, no law and order - it’s little wonder some come to look back on repression as preferable and often embrace a new tyranny for the certainties it brings.
No government is in most cases worse than bad government, on an overall country basis at least not for individuals and groups.
Belgium’s strongest economic performance in recent years was when the had no government…
A government with no damnfool politicians to interfere.
"When it came to military affairs, the Constitution separated the power to declare war from the power to command the military. The short way of describing the structure is that America should go to war only at Congress’s direction, but when it does, its armies are commanded by the president."
"No matter what he thinks, Trump is not a king. But by taking America to war all on his own, he is acting like one."
Iranian forces attacked a tanker from their own “shadow fleet” in the Strait of Hormuz, causing it to catch fire and begin sinking. The ship was targeted for allegedly “illegally passing” through the strait. The Skylight had 20 crew members on board: 15 Indian nationals and 5 Iranians. All were evacuated, and four were injured during the incident.
The Skylight tanker is subject to U.S. sanctions. American authorities say the vessel is part of Iran’s “shadow fleet” and transports Iranian oil through the Persian Gulf.
Most UK Muslims are Sunnis so I doubt they’ll be in tears over Khamenei being killed .
There are scenes of celebration in… Damascus
That I did not expect
Iran funded proxies for years in Syria which killed thousands of people. All across the Middle East they loathe the Iranian regime.
Pretty much everything terroristic and destabilising in the entire MENA region, has Iran behind it.
Most have, yes, and the world will be a far safer place if Iran was gone and a civilised Persia took its place.
Though not all has been Iran behind it. Some has Saudi Arabia behind it, and their funding of extreme Wahhabism, including on our streets, should be addressed.
No it's overpriced rubbish and has as much to do with Dubai as Fry's Turkish Delight does with Turkey. While we're on the subject, I am irrationally annoyed how everything that is just pistachio flavoured is now being called 'Dubai style'. It's like how you can't get anything that is caramel flavoured anymore without it being dubbed 'salted caramel'.
Yes, it was like 4 years ago everything became salted, really odd.
I really ought to start selling Dubai Style Salted Caramel Blondies for the ultimate TikTok product
I think you’d get into trouble for trafficking Isabel Oakeshott!
I see the utterly insane Piers Corbyn is there, a raging and unrepentant anti-Semite
This is a real problem for Polanski. Would be better if the Corbynites fucked off and joined Your Party.
Polanski saw an opportunity to absorb the 2019 Corbyn coalition and took it. In that sense he’s a skilled politician.
However this is the danger of Labour going after this lot, it is completely toxic to the rest of the electorate.
Labour needs to change something and be radical. But going to the left is not it.
In that sense Rayner would not be a bad option because she’s not very left wing despite people pretending she is. However I just cannot take her seriously as a candidate.
Corbyn won more votes than Starmer, which suggests that the Corbynites aren't "completely toxic to the rest of the electorate".
He piled up votes in the wrong places. So yes he piled up votes in Gorton and Denton but wasn’t able to win seats like Basingstoke (only saying that seat because I know it).
So yes Labour is fine to go for that strategy again but it surely is one that accepts they’ve lost the election before it started and they’re giving up.
I won’t be voting for them in that case.
Yes, Corbyn lost. I wasn't disputing that, I wasn't disputing whether Corbynism is a sensible strategy for the Greens or Labour. I was just disputing your suggestion that it was "completely toxic".
How does not losing in a landslide suggest it’s not completely toxic?
Is your point that in a very split electorate Corbyn could have won in 2019?
Getting 32% of the vote is not completely toxic. The BNP peaked at 2% of the vote. They were completely toxic! I'm mainly just objecting to the hyperbole of "completely toxic".
Labour under Corbyn got 32%, which is more than any of the parties are currently polling. What happened in 2019 happened, but a party that re-builds the Corbyn coalition would be leading the polling today.
The Corbyn coalition frightened the horses. If the Greens were polling 32%, the lead right wing party would be polling 32%+.
Yeah, maybe. It's like the argument that Reform are toxic and will underperform at a general election because people will tactically vote against them. That might happen as the Greens rise up the polls. So far, polling suggests the Greens are less toxic than Reform.
Nobody is going to win an election in the UK, on a platform of radical socialism, open borders, opposition to NATO, even against Reform.
Unless he's changed it official Green policy at the last GE was no longer openly anti-Nato, though in practice it might not have been that different.
After yesterday’s over-excited hysteria, a more sober assessment of the impact of events is starting to come through.
I’m sure no one thought the death of Khamanei or indeed most of the immediate leadership would bring the whole house of cards down - it rarely works that way. In 1989, the Communist regimes of Eastern Europe basically gave up and melted away - except Romania. When you have a Gaddafi or a Saddam, their capture or demise means the end of the regime because so much of it is individually invested in them.
Iran isn’t like that - there is a not insignificant portion of the population who are sad and angry at what they see as the murder of their religious leader. Many others are for now keeping their own counsel and that’s probably wise. Absent an occupying military force, it will have to be the population who can force change (back to 1989). Could, would, the regime fight a mass movement on that scale? The Shah couldn’t, the SED couldn’t - do we assume the IRGC would?
Iran isn’t yet completely incapacitated militarily and seems to have drones and missiles to fire at some of its neighbours (though not all). Presumably the job of follow up Israeli and American strikes will be to further weaken that capability and perhaps seek to weaken the IRGC beyond the immediate command structure.
We shouldn’t discount the possibility a new leadership will follow a more pragmatic line toning down the reality if not the rhetoric. I note Hezbollah have decided to sit this one out which has probably spared them an Israeli strike or twenty.
As I argued yesterday, I suspect the one thing everyone wants to avoid is the wholesale collapse of Government and society in Iran. Some on here were actively supportive of anarchy - we’ve never experienced it here. The idea of life without the protective blanket of a functioning civil society isn’t easy to contemplate. No work, no money, no food, no law and order - it’s little wonder some come to look back on repression as preferable and often embrace a new tyranny for the certainties it brings.
No government is in most cases worse than bad government, on an overall country basis at least not for individuals and groups.
Belgium’s strongest economic performance in recent years was when the had no government…
Belgium has an asymmetric seven level devolutionary settlement and Le Terme stayed as caretaker PM while the coalition wrangling went on for nearly two years so they had plenty of government, even at the Federal level.
I see the utterly insane Piers Corbyn is there, a raging and unrepentant anti-Semite
This is a real problem for Polanski. Would be better if the Corbynites fucked off and joined Your Party.
Polanski saw an opportunity to absorb the 2019 Corbyn coalition and took it. In that sense he’s a skilled politician.
However this is the danger of Labour going after this lot, it is completely toxic to the rest of the electorate.
Labour needs to change something and be radical. But going to the left is not it.
In that sense Rayner would not be a bad option because she’s not very left wing despite people pretending she is. However I just cannot take her seriously as a candidate.
Corbyn won more votes than Starmer, which suggests that the Corbynites aren't "completely toxic to the rest of the electorate".
He piled up votes in the wrong places. So yes he piled up votes in Gorton and Denton but wasn’t able to win seats like Basingstoke (only saying that seat because I know it).
So yes Labour is fine to go for that strategy again but it surely is one that accepts they’ve lost the election before it started and they’re giving up.
I won’t be voting for them in that case.
Yes, Corbyn lost. I wasn't disputing that, I wasn't disputing whether Corbynism is a sensible strategy for the Greens or Labour. I was just disputing your suggestion that it was "completely toxic".
How does not losing in a landslide suggest it’s not completely toxic?
Is your point that in a very split electorate Corbyn could have won in 2019?
Getting 32% of the vote is not completely toxic. The BNP peaked at 2% of the vote. They were completely toxic! I'm mainly just objecting to the hyperbole of "completely toxic".
Labour under Corbyn got 32%, which is more than any of the parties are currently polling. What happened in 2019 happened, but a party that re-builds the Corbyn coalition would be leading the polling today.
Would it? Polanski has rebuilt the Corbyn core vote on the new Ashcroft poll but the Greens are still third behind Reform and the Tories and only 2% ahead of Starmer Labour
That's begging the question. You claim that Polanski has rebuilt the Corbyn core vote. Maybe he hasn't? I suspect he's rebuilt some of the Corbyn core vote, combined with the older Green vote, and he's taken the party to new electoral successes. He could yet attract more support.
Both the Greens and Reform have a vision. After the last 18 years of stagnation, people are looking for a party with a vision. If Labour and the Tories had any vision, or even any ambition other than to be in power, people would vote for them instead of Reform and the Greens.
At its heart this is the core issue in our politics: hope vs hopelessness.
The Tories gave up trying to govern. Boris had a load of populist ideas which got swept away by his own hubris and replaced first by a lunatic and then by a cardboard cutout of a politician.
Labour? Proffered change. Which they delivered - change from the Tories. That’s as far as it went.
So there is a vast gulf of need with the big two not offering a product. No wonder that others have stepped in. Pity the LibDems have fizzled - we’ve sent ourselves to sleep.
Question: with demands for change from a public utterly sick of the status quo, why do the polls show the SNP as close to winning a majority?
Because the other parties in Scotland are utterly bereft of talent and charisma. TBF, I have been more impressed with Cole-Hamilton since he has stopped being a Labour mini-me and has developed his own ideas and personality. He and his party don’t get any publicity, though, so he’s going to struggle to break through.
The killing of Khamenei was certainly unexpected and by their actions the US and Israel have finally forced the middle east to confront the disruptiive nature of this murderous regime and sponsor of terror
It was interesting that at the UN, Iran only received support from Russia and China whilst being universally condemned by it's neighbours
Many on here praised Carney in standing upto Trump, but don't seem so happy that he pledged Canada's support for the US and Israel action as did Australia
In normal circumstances the UK PM would have done the same but he is so powerless he no choice but to sit on the fence
Anyway, we are involved in actively protecting our allies in the region and our base in Cyprus and hopefully Iran will come to it's senses and seek a deal with Trump
Nobody can know how long the airspace will be closed for, or the effect on oil prices, but let's hope it is not too long
Once again by choice or by not being fully briefed you misrepresent the position of Canada and Australia in a desperate attempt to attack Stsrmer
For the avoidance of any doubt
Canada supports the actions on Iran Australia welcomes the actions on Iran The UK welcome the actions on Iran
All 3 offer defensive support of their own citizens and bases
All 3 CATEGORICALLY oppose and w ill not at this time engage in direct aggressive action.
This is the position too of all European Countries with the exception of Spain who oppose the action.
ALL refer to the breaking of international law.
Starmer is once again totally aligned with the majority with the backbone to stand up to Trump and Netanyahu.
Meanwhile we all know what the right wing war mongering right wing leaders Farage and Badenoch want.
War against Islam Total blind support for Netanyahu brand of Zionism Ass kicking of Trump and MAGA
No doubt a bit of paki bashing in the UK and a bit of anti semitism would be most welcome.
Neither are fit to lead. Neither has any gravitas on the World stage and both would massively increase the risk to the UK and to UK citizens here and abroad.
The right want to fight anybody anywhere and have a pauciry of ideas other than division and confrontation
I’m sorry, are you complaining about anti-Semitism??!
In the last few days you’ve accused Labour of being run by a “Zionist clique”, “their Zionist bosses”, and a “Zionist cabal”
One is perhaps forgivable. Two is deeply suspicious. The full house says you hate Jews
Zionism has been a contested term since its inception. There's what was the mainstream "vegetarian" Zionism of Chaim Weizmann, and the Mussolini adjacent version pioneered by this guy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ze'ev_Jabotinsky The latter is more Netanyahu's thing.
I suspect few bandying it around today are bothered about the nuances. It's a term of ambiguity, and carries some very toxic freight indeed, so I avoid it.
It’s actually a useful word, and historically important
But when combined with words like “cabal” and “clique” there is only one sensible interpretation
Historically useful. I don't think it's particularly so in the context of contemporary politics.
No it's overpriced rubbish and has as much to do with Dubai as Fry's Turkish Delight does with Turkey. While we're on the subject, I am irrationally annoyed how everything that is just pistachio flavoured is now being called 'Dubai style'. It's like how you can't get anything that is caramel flavoured anymore without it being dubbed 'salted caramel'.
Yes, it was like 4 years ago everything became salted, really odd.
I really ought to start selling Dubai Style Salted Caramel Blondies for the ultimate TikTok product
I think you’d get into trouble for trafficking Isabel Oakeshott!
After yesterday’s over-excited hysteria, a more sober assessment of the impact of events is starting to come through.
I’m sure no one thought the death of Khamanei or indeed most of the immediate leadership would bring the whole house of cards down - it rarely works that way. In 1989, the Communist regimes of Eastern Europe basically gave up and melted away - except Romania. When you have a Gaddafi or a Saddam, their capture or demise means the end of the regime because so much of it is individually invested in them.
Iran isn’t like that - there is a not insignificant portion of the population who are sad and angry at what they see as the murder of their religious leader. Many others are for now keeping their own counsel and that’s probably wise. Absent an occupying military force, it will have to be the population who can force change (back to 1989). Could, would, the regime fight a mass movement on that scale? The Shah couldn’t, the SED couldn’t - do we assume the IRGC would?
Iran isn’t yet completely incapacitated militarily and seems to have drones and missiles to fire at some of its neighbours (though not all). Presumably the job of follow up Israeli and American strikes will be to further weaken that capability and perhaps seek to weaken the IRGC beyond the immediate command structure.
We shouldn’t discount the possibility a new leadership will follow a more pragmatic line toning down the reality if not the rhetoric. I note Hezbollah have decided to sit this one out which has probably spared them an Israeli strike or twenty.
As I argued yesterday, I suspect the one thing everyone wants to avoid is the wholesale collapse of Government and society in Iran. Some on here were actively supportive of anarchy - we’ve never experienced it here. The idea of life without the protective blanket of a functioning civil society isn’t easy to contemplate. No work, no money, no food, no law and order - it’s little wonder some come to look back on repression as preferable and often embrace a new tyranny for the certainties it brings.
No government is in most cases worse than bad government, on an overall country basis at least not for individuals and groups.
Belgium’s strongest economic performance in recent years was when the had no government…
I am using the term no government quite a bit more literally, not in the 'I actually want a very strong government but which does the things i like or does not interfere much' neo-reagan way.
"When it came to military affairs, the Constitution separated the power to declare war from the power to command the military. The short way of describing the structure is that America should go to war only at Congress’s direction, but when it does, its armies are commanded by the president."
"No matter what he thinks, Trump is not a king. But by taking America to war all on his own, he is acting like one."
The constitutional principles are very clear; the practical detail a lot less so, since Congress has over the years passed various pieces of legislation which give the President some independence of action.
But Congress could, if it wished, vote to declare the action illegal tomorrow. It won't.
Most UK Muslims are Sunnis so I doubt they’ll be in tears over Khamenei being killed .
There are scenes of celebration in… Damascus
That I did not expect
Iran funded proxies for years in Syria which killed thousands of people. All across the Middle East they loathe the Iranian regime.
Pretty much everything terroristic and destabilising in the entire MENA region, has Iran behind it.
Haven't UAE been accused a fair amount of meddling from Yemen to South Sudan? Plus the Saudis.
Iran seems to spread itself thin though.
Fighting the Irani-sponsored terrorists in Yemen, yes.
I thought Hamas had a base hosted in Qatar?
Yes they did. Qatar had something of a spat with its neighbours a few years ago, after they were clearly channeling funds to the Iranians and supporting the terrorists of Hamas and Hezbollah.
They only kicked the Hamas leadership out of their fancy Doha hotels a few months ago, when it became clear that they were seen as legitimate targets.
After yesterday’s over-excited hysteria, a more sober assessment of the impact of events is starting to come through.
I’m sure no one thought the death of Khamanei or indeed most of the immediate leadership would bring the whole house of cards down - it rarely works that way. In 1989, the Communist regimes of Eastern Europe basically gave up and melted away - except Romania. When you have a Gaddafi or a Saddam, their capture or demise means the end of the regime because so much of it is individually invested in them.
Iran isn’t like that - there is a not insignificant portion of the population who are sad and angry at what they see as the murder of their religious leader. Many others are for now keeping their own counsel and that’s probably wise. Absent an occupying military force, it will have to be the population who can force change (back to 1989). Could, would, the regime fight a mass movement on that scale? The Shah couldn’t, the SED couldn’t - do we assume the IRGC would?
Iran isn’t yet completely incapacitated militarily and seems to have drones and missiles to fire at some of its neighbours (though not all). Presumably the job of follow up Israeli and American strikes will be to further weaken that capability and perhaps seek to weaken the IRGC beyond the immediate command structure.
We shouldn’t discount the possibility a new leadership will follow a more pragmatic line toning down the reality if not the rhetoric. I note Hezbollah have decided to sit this one out which has probably spared them an Israeli strike or twenty.
As I argued yesterday, I suspect the one thing everyone wants to avoid is the wholesale collapse of Government and society in Iran. Some on here were actively supportive of anarchy - we’ve never experienced it here. The idea of life without the protective blanket of a functioning civil society isn’t easy to contemplate. No work, no money, no food, no law and order - it’s little wonder some come to look back on repression as preferable and often embrace a new tyranny for the certainties it brings.
No government is in most cases worse than bad government, on an overall country basis at least not for individuals and groups.
Belgium’s strongest economic performance in recent years was when the had no government…
Belgium has an asymmetric seven level devolutionary settlement and Le Terme stayed as caretaker PM while the coalition wrangling went on for nearly two years so they had plenty of government, even at the Federal level.
Quite. I know people don't generally mean anarchy when they advocate for no or limited government, it's a term of art, but the rhetoric about the ills of government can be too literal.
The killing of Khamenei was certainly unexpected and by their actions the US and Israel have finally forced the middle east to confront the disruptiive nature of this murderous regime and sponsor of terror
It was interesting that at the UN, Iran only received support from Russia and China whilst being universally condemned by it's neighbours
Many on here praised Carney in standing upto Trump, but don't seem so happy that he pledged Canada's support for the US and Israel action as did Australia
In normal circumstances the UK PM would have done the same but he is so powerless he no choice but to sit on the fence
Anyway, we are involved in actively protecting our allies in the region and our base in Cyprus and hopefully Iran will come to it's senses and seek a deal with Trump
Nobody can know how long the airspace will be closed for, or the effect on oil prices, but let's hope it is not too long
Once again by choice or by not being fully briefed you misrepresent the position of Canada and Australia in a desperate attempt to attack Stsrmer
For the avoidance of any doubt
Canada supports the actions on Iran Australia welcomes the actions on Iran The UK welcome the actions on Iran
All 3 offer defensive support of their own citizens and bases
All 3 CATEGORICALLY oppose and w ill not at this time engage in direct aggressive action.
This is the position too of all European Countries with the exception of Spain who oppose the action.
ALL refer to the breaking of international law.
Starmer is once again totally aligned with the majority with the backbone to stand up to Trump and Netanyahu.
Meanwhile we all know what the right wing war mongering right wing leaders Farage and Badenoch want.
War against Islam Total blind support for Netanyahu brand of Zionism Ass kicking of Trump and MAGA
No doubt a bit of paki bashing in the UK and a bit of anti semitism would be most welcome.
Neither are fit to lead. Neither has any gravitas on the World stage and both would massively increase the risk to the UK and to UK citizens here and abroad.
The right want to fight anybody anywhere and have a pauciry of ideas other than division and confrontation
I’m sorry, are you complaining about anti-Semitism??!
In the last few days you’ve accused Labour of being run by a “Zionist clique”, “their Zionist bosses”, and a “Zionist cabal”
One is perhaps forgivable. Two is deeply suspicious. The full house says you hate Jews
Zionism has been a contested term since its inception. There's what was the mainstream "vegetarian" Zionism of Chaim Weizmann, and the Mussolini adjacent version pioneered by this guy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ze'ev_Jabotinsky The latter is more Netanyahu's thing.
I suspect few bandying it around today are bothered about the nuances. It's a term of ambiguity, and carries some very toxic freight indeed, so I avoid it.
It’s actually a useful word, and historically important
But when combined with words like “cabal” and “clique” there is only one sensible interpretation
Historically useful. I don't think it's particularly so in the context of contemporary politics.
I politely disagree. I think there is a strand of very nationalist Israeli discourse, borderline fascist, which is kind of ultra-Zionist. The Promised Land is theirs and woe betide anyone who gets in the way of their claim on Zion
This after all was one of the founding principles of Israel. The promised land. Zion. Cf Theodore Herzl.
However one should be very careful lobbing it about and for a definite genre of western lefty it’s obviously just a cover for blatant Jew hate
“You’re not gonna believe this latest story. Over the past few years mossad undercover agents infiltrated as doctors and dentists in Iran. The Dentists gave priority to. Key military, and elite Iranian personnel. While doing a routine dental check up, they implanted tracking devices as fillings for cavities.
“On the other side, Gastro doctors implanted similar devices in their elite patients. Yesterday mossad knew exactly where each one of them were ( komayne’s wife and family members included )and sent missiles at them. Over 400 elite military in government personnel were eliminated in the first few moments ( maybe that’s one of the reasons why they knew where he was hiding )when Israel attacked.”
The mere fact that this *could* be true - it’s probably not, but no one can be sure - must terrify the fuck out of any enemy facing Israel
Yup, it’s like a Bond movie but we saw what happened with the pagers with Hezbollah.
May very well be true.
I'm more cautious.I think it's probably overstated.
But only probably!
There might be a spin-off that the sensible world might welcome; if Iran is throwing all it's drones and missiles at the US's Gulf bases and at Israel it won't have any to sell to Russia to throw at Ukraine.
Like Leon I’d have dismissed it had it not been for the pagers in Lebanon
The problem is power. It takes quite a lot of power to send a signal that will travel any meaningful distance.
The way little trackers like airtags work is that they send a weak signal that is picked up by nearby mobile phones, which then send the signal on. That way mobile phones are acting like a dense observation network to pick up these signals.
If you have tiny dental implants they definitely don't have a greater power source than an airtag, so you definitely need nearby mobile phones (or pagers) to act in a similar way. But if you have access to the phones/pagers I'm not sure you need the tiny implants.
Unless, perhaps, they're literally simply the internals of an airtag (or similar) and they're relying on the Iranians not opting-out of being part of the detection network for them.
Sometimes stories like this are used to deflect from the real mode of surveillance in the hope of preserving that capability for as long as possible.
How about using them as a radioactive marker than can be traced remotely?
I see the utterly insane Piers Corbyn is there, a raging and unrepentant anti-Semite
This is a real problem for Polanski. Would be better if the Corbynites fucked off and joined Your Party.
Polanski saw an opportunity to absorb the 2019 Corbyn coalition and took it. In that sense he’s a skilled politician.
However this is the danger of Labour going after this lot, it is completely toxic to the rest of the electorate.
Labour needs to change something and be radical. But going to the left is not it.
In that sense Rayner would not be a bad option because she’s not very left wing despite people pretending she is. However I just cannot take her seriously as a candidate.
Corbyn won more votes than Starmer, which suggests that the Corbynites aren't "completely toxic to the rest of the electorate".
He piled up votes in the wrong places. So yes he piled up votes in Gorton and Denton but wasn’t able to win seats like Basingstoke (only saying that seat because I know it).
So yes Labour is fine to go for that strategy again but it surely is one that accepts they’ve lost the election before it started and they’re giving up.
I won’t be voting for them in that case.
Yes, Corbyn lost. I wasn't disputing that, I wasn't disputing whether Corbynism is a sensible strategy for the Greens or Labour. I was just disputing your suggestion that it was "completely toxic".
How does not losing in a landslide suggest it’s not completely toxic?
Is your point that in a very split electorate Corbyn could have won in 2019?
Getting 32% of the vote is not completely toxic. The BNP peaked at 2% of the vote. They were completely toxic! I'm mainly just objecting to the hyperbole of "completely toxic".
Labour under Corbyn got 32%, which is more than any of the parties are currently polling. What happened in 2019 happened, but a party that re-builds the Corbyn coalition would be leading the polling today.
The Corbyn coalition frightened the horses. If the Greens were polling 32%, the lead right wing party would be polling 32%+.
Yeah, maybe. It's like the argument that Reform are toxic and will underperform at a general election because people will tactically vote against them. That might happen as the Greens rise up the polls. So far, polling suggests the Greens are less toxic than Reform.
Nobody is going to win an election in the UK, on a platform of radical socialism, open borders, opposition to NATO, even against Reform.
Greens have received no real scrutiny as yet. But NATO will kill them off.
Polanski wants to win. I suspect he'll finesse the policy. The Greens used to be anti-EU, but they dropped all that. They can change their positions on many things!
I see the utterly insane Piers Corbyn is there, a raging and unrepentant anti-Semite
This is a real problem for Polanski. Would be better if the Corbynites fucked off and joined Your Party.
Polanski saw an opportunity to absorb the 2019 Corbyn coalition and took it. In that sense he’s a skilled politician.
However this is the danger of Labour going after this lot, it is completely toxic to the rest of the electorate.
Labour needs to change something and be radical. But going to the left is not it.
In that sense Rayner would not be a bad option because she’s not very left wing despite people pretending she is. However I just cannot take her seriously as a candidate.
Corbyn won more votes than Starmer, which suggests that the Corbynites aren't "completely toxic to the rest of the electorate".
He piled up votes in the wrong places. So yes he piled up votes in Gorton and Denton but wasn’t able to win seats like Basingstoke (only saying that seat because I know it).
So yes Labour is fine to go for that strategy again but it surely is one that accepts they’ve lost the election before it started and they’re giving up.
I won’t be voting for them in that case.
Yes, Corbyn lost. I wasn't disputing that, I wasn't disputing whether Corbynism is a sensible strategy for the Greens or Labour. I was just disputing your suggestion that it was "completely toxic".
How does not losing in a landslide suggest it’s not completely toxic?
Is your point that in a very split electorate Corbyn could have won in 2019?
Getting 32% of the vote is not completely toxic. The BNP peaked at 2% of the vote. They were completely toxic! I'm mainly just objecting to the hyperbole of "completely toxic".
Labour under Corbyn got 32%, which is more than any of the parties are currently polling. What happened in 2019 happened, but a party that re-builds the Corbyn coalition would be leading the polling today.
The Corbyn coalition frightened the horses. If the Greens were polling 32%, the lead right wing party would be polling 32%+.
Yeah, maybe. It's like the argument that Reform are toxic and will underperform at a general election because people will tactically vote against them. That might happen as the Greens rise up the polls. So far, polling suggests the Greens are less toxic than Reform.
Nobody is going to win an election in the UK, on a platform of radical socialism, open borders, opposition to NATO, even against Reform.
Greens have received no real scrutiny as yet. But NATO will kill them off.
Polanski wants to win. I suspect he'll finesse the policy. The Greens used to be anti-EU, but they dropped all that. They can change their positions on many things!
NATO doesn't have anything like the heft it used to. Trump and Rutte have killed the brand by being an unpredictable lunatic and pathological liar respectively.
Despite being a Green member, I have no particular insight into the policy machinations, but my informed guess would be that PM Polanski won't leave the NATO treaty but will withdraw UK forces from its command structure. #takebackcontrol
Challenging Imperialism and its particularly repellent sub-genus Zionsim will have to be at the centre of the policy platform or at the GE or ZP will be out on his arse.
I see the utterly insane Piers Corbyn is there, a raging and unrepentant anti-Semite
This is a real problem for Polanski. Would be better if the Corbynites fucked off and joined Your Party.
Polanski saw an opportunity to absorb the 2019 Corbyn coalition and took it. In that sense he’s a skilled politician.
However this is the danger of Labour going after this lot, it is completely toxic to the rest of the electorate.
Labour needs to change something and be radical. But going to the left is not it.
In that sense Rayner would not be a bad option because she’s not very left wing despite people pretending she is. However I just cannot take her seriously as a candidate.
Corbyn won more votes than Starmer, which suggests that the Corbynites aren't "completely toxic to the rest of the electorate".
He piled up votes in the wrong places. So yes he piled up votes in Gorton and Denton but wasn’t able to win seats like Basingstoke (only saying that seat because I know it).
So yes Labour is fine to go for that strategy again but it surely is one that accepts they’ve lost the election before it started and they’re giving up.
I won’t be voting for them in that case.
Yes, Corbyn lost. I wasn't disputing that, I wasn't disputing whether Corbynism is a sensible strategy for the Greens or Labour. I was just disputing your suggestion that it was "completely toxic".
How does not losing in a landslide suggest it’s not completely toxic?
Is your point that in a very split electorate Corbyn could have won in 2019?
Getting 32% of the vote is not completely toxic. The BNP peaked at 2% of the vote. They were completely toxic! I'm mainly just objecting to the hyperbole of "completely toxic".
Labour under Corbyn got 32%, which is more than any of the parties are currently polling. What happened in 2019 happened, but a party that re-builds the Corbyn coalition would be leading the polling today.
The Corbyn coalition frightened the horses. If the Greens were polling 32%, the lead right wing party would be polling 32%+.
Yeah, maybe. It's like the argument that Reform are toxic and will underperform at a general election because people will tactically vote against them. That might happen as the Greens rise up the polls. So far, polling suggests the Greens are less toxic than Reform.
Nobody is going to win an election in the UK, on a platform of radical socialism, open borders, opposition to NATO, even against Reform.
Probably but who would rule anything out these days? We're in a new age in which more people feel they're falling behind rather than getting ahead, elites are despised and we have an increasing amount of third world politics driven by demographic change.
I also didn't like the element of smugness (glee?) from some over the Greens beating Labour at their own game in G&D. Any serious patriot ought to be looking at the Green peril with a source of dread.
The killing of Khamenei was certainly unexpected and by their actions the US and Israel have finally forced the middle east to confront the disruptiive nature of this murderous regime and sponsor of terror
It was interesting that at the UN, Iran only received support from Russia and China whilst being universally condemned by it's neighbours
Many on here praised Carney in standing upto Trump, but don't seem so happy that he pledged Canada's support for the US and Israel action as did Australia
In normal circumstances the UK PM would have done the same but he is so powerless he no choice but to sit on the fence
Anyway, we are involved in actively protecting our allies in the region and our base in Cyprus and hopefully Iran will come to it's senses and seek a deal with Trump
Nobody can know how long the airspace will be closed for, or the effect on oil prices, but let's hope it is not too long
Once again by choice or by not being fully briefed you misrepresent the position of Canada and Australia in a desperate attempt to attack Stsrmer
For the avoidance of any doubt
Canada supports the actions on Iran Australia welcomes the actions on Iran The UK welcome the actions on Iran
All 3 offer defensive support of their own citizens and bases
All 3 CATEGORICALLY oppose and w ill not at this time engage in direct aggressive action.
This is the position too of all European Countries with the exception of Spain who oppose the action.
ALL refer to the breaking of international law.
Starmer is once again totally aligned with the majority with the backbone to stand up to Trump and Netanyahu.
Meanwhile we all know what the right wing war mongering right wing leaders Farage and Badenoch want.
War against Islam Total blind support for Netanyahu brand of Zionism Ass kicking of Trump and MAGA
No doubt a bit of paki bashing in the UK and a bit of anti semitism would be most welcome.
Neither are fit to lead. Neither has any gravitas on the World stage and both would massively increase the risk to the UK and to UK citizens here and abroad.
The right want to fight anybody anywhere and have a pauciry of ideas other than division and confrontation
I’m sorry, are you complaining about anti-Semitism??!
In the last few days you’ve accused Labour of being run by a “Zionist clique”, “their Zionist bosses”, and a “Zionist cabal”
One is perhaps forgivable. Two is deeply suspicious. The full house says you hate Jews
Zionism has been a contested term since its inception. There's what was the mainstream "vegetarian" Zionism of Chaim Weizmann, and the Mussolini adjacent version pioneered by this guy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ze'ev_Jabotinsky The latter is more Netanyahu's thing.
I suspect few bandying it around today are bothered about the nuances. It's a term of ambiguity, and carries some very toxic freight indeed, so I avoid it.
It’s actually a useful word, and historically important
But when combined with words like “cabal” and “clique” there is only one sensible interpretation
Historically useful. I don't think it's particularly so in the context of contemporary politics.
In my mind its modern meaning is restricted to people who have a 'superior v inferior' or 'important v unimportant' view of the relationship between Jews and Palestinians.
The US and IDF need to be mindful that killing loads of Iranian civilians could backfire .
The argument that Iran has been killing its own civilians isn’t a reason to treat Iran like Gaza .
The IDF don't give a shit about democracy in Iran. They're just trying to degrade an adversary's military capacity while a useful idiot in the WH will allow them. I'm not sure what the US's objective is here apart from to distract from Epstein and let Trump play with some new toys.
Another question for the geopolitical men of PB, twitter is awash with chat about Netanyahu's flying bolt hole, The Wing of Zion, taking off yesterday and landing in Berlin. Any truth to this?
BREAKING: Palestinian Authority condemns Iranian attacks on Arab countries
Iranians are not Arabs.
The Khuzestanis are.
Yeah there are loads of non Persian minorities in Iran including Arabs and Kurds, there is every chance that Iran could collapse into a failed state with IS and other bad actors gaining a foothold. The idea that Iran can be bombed into becoming a stable liberal democracy is utter idiocy.
The killing of Khamenei was certainly unexpected and by their actions the US and Israel have finally forced the middle east to confront the disruptiive nature of this murderous regime and sponsor of terror
It was interesting that at the UN, Iran only received support from Russia and China whilst being universally condemned by it's neighbours
Many on here praised Carney in standing upto Trump, but don't seem so happy that he pledged Canada's support for the US and Israel action as did Australia
In normal circumstances the UK PM would have done the same but he is so powerless he no choice but to sit on the fence
Anyway, we are involved in actively protecting our allies in the region and our base in Cyprus and hopefully Iran will come to it's senses and seek a deal with Trump
Nobody can know how long the airspace will be closed for, or the effect on oil prices, but let's hope it is not too long
Once again by choice or by not being fully briefed you misrepresent the position of Canada and Australia in a desperate attempt to attack Stsrmer
For the avoidance of any doubt
Canada supports the actions on Iran Australia welcomes the actions on Iran The UK welcome the actions on Iran
All 3 offer defensive support of their own citizens and bases
All 3 CATEGORICALLY oppose and w ill not at this time engage in direct aggressive action.
This is the position too of all European Countries with the exception of Spain who oppose the action.
ALL refer to the breaking of international law.
Starmer is once again totally aligned with the majority with the backbone to stand up to Trump and Netanyahu.
Meanwhile we all know what the right wing war mongering right wing leaders Farage and Badenoch want.
War against Islam Total blind support for Netanyahu brand of Zionism Ass kicking of Trump and MAGA
No doubt a bit of paki bashing in the UK and a bit of anti semitism would be most welcome.
Neither are fit to lead. Neither has any gravitas on the World stage and both would massively increase the risk to the UK and to UK citizens here and abroad.
The right want to fight anybody anywhere and have a pauciry of ideas other than division and confrontation
I’m sorry, are you complaining about anti-Semitism??!
In the last few days you’ve accused Labour of being run by a “Zionist clique”, “their Zionist bosses”, and a “Zionist cabal”
One is perhaps forgivable. Two is deeply suspicious. The full house says you hate Jews
Zionism has been a contested term since its inception. There's what was the mainstream "vegetarian" Zionism of Chaim Weizmann, and the Mussolini adjacent version pioneered by this guy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ze'ev_Jabotinsky The latter is more Netanyahu's thing.
I suspect few bandying it around today are bothered about the nuances. It's a term of ambiguity, and carries some very toxic freight indeed, so I avoid it.
It’s actually a useful word, and historically important
But when combined with words like “cabal” and “clique” there is only one sensible interpretation
Historically useful. I don't think it's particularly so in the context of contemporary politics.
I politely disagree. I think there is a strand of very nationalist Israeli discourse, borderline fascist, which is kind of ultra-Zionist. The Promised Land is theirs and woe betide anyone who gets in the way of their claim on Zion
This after all was one of the founding principles of Israel. The promised land. Zion. Cf Theodore Herzl.
However one should be very careful lobbing it about and for a definite genre of western lefty it’s obviously just a cover for blatant Jew hate
Complicated slightly by Netanyahu describing his political opponents in Israel as anti-Zionists, even though at other times he has claimed that anti-Zionism is a synonym for antisemitism but yes, best to steer clear.
Iranian forces attacked a tanker from their own “shadow fleet” in the Strait of Hormuz, causing it to catch fire and begin sinking. The ship was targeted for allegedly “illegally passing” through the strait. The Skylight had 20 crew members on board: 15 Indian nationals and 5 Iranians. All were evacuated, and four were injured during the incident.
The Skylight tanker is subject to U.S. sanctions. American authorities say the vessel is part of Iran’s “shadow fleet” and transports Iranian oil through the Persian Gulf.
Iranian forces attacked a tanker from their own “shadow fleet” in the Strait of Hormuz, causing it to catch fire and begin sinking. The ship was targeted for allegedly “illegally passing” through the strait. The Skylight had 20 crew members on board: 15 Indian nationals and 5 Iranians. All were evacuated, and four were injured during the incident.
The Skylight tanker is subject to U.S. sanctions. American authorities say the vessel is part of Iran’s “shadow fleet” and transports Iranian oil through the Persian Gulf.
I see the utterly insane Piers Corbyn is there, a raging and unrepentant anti-Semite
This is a real problem for Polanski. Would be better if the Corbynites fucked off and joined Your Party.
Polanski saw an opportunity to absorb the 2019 Corbyn coalition and took it. In that sense he’s a skilled politician.
However this is the danger of Labour going after this lot, it is completely toxic to the rest of the electorate.
Labour needs to change something and be radical. But going to the left is not it.
In that sense Rayner would not be a bad option because she’s not very left wing despite people pretending she is. However I just cannot take her seriously as a candidate.
Corbyn won more votes than Starmer, which suggests that the Corbynites aren't "completely toxic to the rest of the electorate".
He piled up votes in the wrong places. So yes he piled up votes in Gorton and Denton but wasn’t able to win seats like Basingstoke (only saying that seat because I know it).
So yes Labour is fine to go for that strategy again but it surely is one that accepts they’ve lost the election before it started and they’re giving up.
I won’t be voting for them in that case.
Yes, Corbyn lost. I wasn't disputing that, I wasn't disputing whether Corbynism is a sensible strategy for the Greens or Labour. I was just disputing your suggestion that it was "completely toxic".
How does not losing in a landslide suggest it’s not completely toxic?
Is your point that in a very split electorate Corbyn could have won in 2019?
Getting 32% of the vote is not completely toxic. The BNP peaked at 2% of the vote. They were completely toxic! I'm mainly just objecting to the hyperbole of "completely toxic".
Labour under Corbyn got 32%, which is more than any of the parties are currently polling. What happened in 2019 happened, but a party that re-builds the Corbyn coalition would be leading the polling today.
The Corbyn coalition frightened the horses. If the Greens were polling 32%, the lead right wing party would be polling 32%+.
Yeah, maybe. It's like the argument that Reform are toxic and will underperform at a general election because people will tactically vote against them. That might happen as the Greens rise up the polls. So far, polling suggests the Greens are less toxic than Reform.
Nobody is going to win an election in the UK, on a platform of radical socialism, open borders, opposition to NATO, even against Reform.
Greens have received no real scrutiny as yet. But NATO will kill them off.
Polanski wants to win. I suspect he'll finesse the policy. The Greens used to be anti-EU, but they dropped all that. They can change their positions on many things!
I see the utterly insane Piers Corbyn is there, a raging and unrepentant anti-Semite
This is a real problem for Polanski. Would be better if the Corbynites fucked off and joined Your Party.
Polanski saw an opportunity to absorb the 2019 Corbyn coalition and took it. In that sense he’s a skilled politician.
However this is the danger of Labour going after this lot, it is completely toxic to the rest of the electorate.
Labour needs to change something and be radical. But going to the left is not it.
In that sense Rayner would not be a bad option because she’s not very left wing despite people pretending she is. However I just cannot take her seriously as a candidate.
Corbyn won more votes than Starmer, which suggests that the Corbynites aren't "completely toxic to the rest of the electorate".
He piled up votes in the wrong places. So yes he piled up votes in Gorton and Denton but wasn’t able to win seats like Basingstoke (only saying that seat because I know it).
So yes Labour is fine to go for that strategy again but it surely is one that accepts they’ve lost the election before it started and they’re giving up.
I won’t be voting for them in that case.
Yes, Corbyn lost. I wasn't disputing that, I wasn't disputing whether Corbynism is a sensible strategy for the Greens or Labour. I was just disputing your suggestion that it was "completely toxic".
How does not losing in a landslide suggest it’s not completely toxic?
Is your point that in a very split electorate Corbyn could have won in 2019?
Getting 32% of the vote is not completely toxic. The BNP peaked at 2% of the vote. They were completely toxic! I'm mainly just objecting to the hyperbole of "completely toxic".
Labour under Corbyn got 32%, which is more than any of the parties are currently polling. What happened in 2019 happened, but a party that re-builds the Corbyn coalition would be leading the polling today.
The Corbyn coalition frightened the horses. If the Greens were polling 32%, the lead right wing party would be polling 32%+.
Yeah, maybe. It's like the argument that Reform are toxic and will underperform at a general election because people will tactically vote against them. That might happen as the Greens rise up the polls. So far, polling suggests the Greens are less toxic than Reform.
Nobody is going to win an election in the UK, on a platform of radical socialism, open borders, opposition to NATO, even against Reform.
Greens have received no real scrutiny as yet. But NATO will kill them off.
Polanski wants to win. I suspect he'll finesse the policy. The Greens used to be anti-EU, but they dropped all that. They can change their positions on many things!
NATO doesn't have anything like the heft it used to. Trump and Rutte have killed the brand by being an unpredictable lunatic and pathological liar respectively.
Despite being a Green member, I have no particular insight into the policy machinations, but my informed guess would be that PM Polanski won't leave the NATO treaty but will withdraw UK forces from its command structure. #takebackcontrol
Challenging Imperialism and its particularly repellent sub-genus Zionsim will have to be at the centre of the policy platform or at the GE or ZP will be out on his arse.
In practice, anti-imperialism doesn’t exist and never has. One is left choosing between rival imperialisms.
The US and IDF need to be mindful that killing loads of Iranian civilians could backfire .
The argument that Iran has been killing its own civilians isn’t a reason to treat Iran like Gaza .
The IDF don't give a shit about democracy in Iran. They're just trying to degrade an adversary's military capacity while a useful idiot in the WH will allow them. I'm not sure what the US's objective is here apart from to distract from Epstein and let Trump play with some new toys.
It's a facet of the right in general not really giving a shit about sexism, homophobia, antsemitism, racism, democracy etc except for cynical postioning purposes. About the only prejudice they genuinely care about is no one wanting to kiss them.
What chance do we give the Bahrain Grand Prix going ahead? I reckon 60%.
At the moment the Australian Grand Prix is the bigger worry. A lot of people and equipment caught up in the airspace closures, scrambling for Eastbound flights through the US.
WRT Bahrain, the problem is that it’s a tiny place, so the city, the naval port, and the circuit are all within a few km of each other. Although it’s not for another six weeks yet, and a lot can happen in that time.
“You’re not gonna believe this latest story. Over the past few years mossad undercover agents infiltrated as doctors and dentists in Iran. The Dentists gave priority to. Key military, and elite Iranian personnel. While doing a routine dental check up, they implanted tracking devices as fillings for cavities.
“On the other side, Gastro doctors implanted similar devices in their elite patients. Yesterday mossad knew exactly where each one of them were ( komayne’s wife and family members included )and sent missiles at them. Over 400 elite military in government personnel were eliminated in the first few moments ( maybe that’s one of the reasons why they knew where he was hiding )when Israel attacked.”
The mere fact that this *could* be true - it’s probably not, but no one can be sure - must terrify the fuck out of any enemy facing Israel
Yup, it’s like a Bond movie but we saw what happened with the pagers with Hezbollah.
May very well be true.
I'm more cautious.I think it's probably overstated.
But only probably!
There might be a spin-off that the sensible world might welcome; if Iran is throwing all it's drones and missiles at the US's Gulf bases and at Israel it won't have any to sell to Russia to throw at Ukraine.
Like Leon I’d have dismissed it had it not been for the pagers in Lebanon
The problem is power. It takes quite a lot of power to send a signal that will travel any meaningful distance.
The way little trackers like airtags work is that they send a weak signal that is picked up by nearby mobile phones, which then send the signal on. That way mobile phones are acting like a dense observation network to pick up these signals.
If you have tiny dental implants they definitely don't have a greater power source than an airtag, so you definitely need nearby mobile phones (or pagers) to act in a similar way. But if you have access to the phones/pagers I'm not sure you need the tiny implants.
Unless, perhaps, they're literally simply the internals of an airtag (or similar) and they're relying on the Iranians not opting-out of being part of the detection network for them.
Sometimes stories like this are used to deflect from the real mode of surveillance in the hope of preserving that capability for as long as possible.
How about using them as a radioactive marker than can be traced remotely?
It’s all a bit ridiculous and over the top.
Much easier to stick AirTags inside the soles of people’s shoes. Which has actually happened. And works.
BREAKING: Palestinian Authority condemns Iranian attacks on Arab countries
Iranians are not Arabs.
The Khuzestanis are.
Yeah there are loads of non Persian minorities in Iran including Arabs and Kurds, there is every chance that Iran could collapse into a failed state with IS and other bad actors gaining a foothold. The idea that Iran can be bombed into becoming a stable liberal democracy is utter idiocy.
This literally worked in Japan. And it wasn’t just bombed, it was NUKED into liberal democracy
The US and IDF need to be mindful that killing loads of Iranian civilians could backfire .
The argument that Iran has been killing its own civilians isn’t a reason to treat Iran like Gaza .
The IDF don't give a shit about democracy in Iran. They're just trying to degrade an adversary's military capacity while a useful idiot in the WH will allow them. I'm not sure what the US's objective is here apart from to distract from Epstein and let Trump play with some new toys.
It's a facet of the right in general not really giving a shit about sexism, homophobia, antsemitism, racism, democracy etc except for cynical postioning purposes. About the only prejudice they genuinely care about is no one wanting to kiss them.
Comments
Anton Gerashchenko
@Gerashchenko_en
Putin expressed his condolences regarding the death of Khamenei.
He said it was "a cynical murder that violated all norms of human morality and international law."
Meanwhile, a Telegram account believed to belong to pro-Putin philosopher Alexander Dugin is very worried and thinks Russia will be next
https://x.com/Gerashchenko_en/status/2028062294672920979
We spend ever increasing amounts for increasingly little
Because we're spending to mop up the impact of not investing, instead of investing and gaining a return
The eternal question is "where do we get the money from" and the answer is simple - we borrow it. As we already borrow. But instead of tossing that borrowed cash on the bonfire, we invest it. Which means less cash needed for future bonfires.
The sad truth is that people are now starting to realise this country is broken, and as the centre (Lab/LD/Con) have run out of ideas it leaves the ground open to populism of left and right.
Spain also said the US and Israeli strikes were illegal
A Succession Vacuum
The death of President Ebrahim Raisi — widely viewed as a leading candidate for succession — deepened the uncertainty. Names previously mentioned as potential successors include:
Hassan Khomeini – grandson of Ayatollah Khomeini, perceived as relatively moderate.
Sadeq Larijani – a senior institutional figure.
Hassan Rouhani – former president, though his relationship with Khamenei was complex.
Mojtaba Khamenei – the Supreme Leader’s son, long rumored as a possible candidate.
At present, no clear consensus candidate exists.
https://x.com/citrinowicz/status/2027841576261521492
(There's a lot more in the tweet thread)
WarMonitor🇺🇦🇬🇧
@WarMonitor3
·
25m
Explosions are reported in Abu Dhabi, Dubai and Doha as Iran launches massive air attack on the Gulf states.
https://x.com/WarMonitor3/status/2028078493011980356
Put the Fear of God in them and say “modern technology means we can kill you at will, and we shall keep doing so, Until you liberate your country and free your people”
Who knows? It could work. The only downside is that it will annoy lots of international lawyers, Jeremy and Piers Corbyn, and the UK Green Party
Your consistency has always been a feature of your contributions.
I’ve learned from that, I got it wrong and won’t see that repeated again.
At least when I’m wrong I say so. What do you do?
There's what was the mainstream "vegetarian" Zionism of Chaim Weizmann, and the Mussolini adjacent version pioneered by this guy:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ze'ev_Jabotinsky
The latter is more Netanyahu's thing.
I suspect few bandying it around today are bothered about the nuances.
It's a term of ambiguity, and carries some very toxic freight indeed, so I avoid it.
But once more for the road ...
The erstwhile scenario of your sort of populism alone in that lane with a free hit at the boring old mainstream was absolutely lovely for you (and ilk) - but that's over now because another sort of populism (one you fear and loath) has muscled into the frame.
Worth a couple of posts, that observation, I think. I'll probably say it again whenever you or ilk moan about Polanski and the Greens.
The Tories gave up trying to govern. Boris had a load of populist ideas which got swept away by his own hubris and replaced first by a lunatic and then by a cardboard cutout of a politician.
Labour? Proffered change. Which they delivered - change from the Tories. That’s as far as it went.
So there is a vast gulf of need with the big two not offering a product. No wonder that others have stepped in. Pity the LibDems have fizzled - we’ve sent ourselves to sleep.
Question: with demands for change from a public utterly sick of the status quo, why do the polls show the SNP as close to winning a majority?
But when combined with words like “cabal” and “clique”
there is only one sensible interpretation
The majority though of those still voting Tory and Labour now are the Conservative and Labour absolute core vote and won't be going to Reform or the Greens. Add up the Tory and Labour and LD vote combined and you still get 45%+ of the vote, about the same as the Reform and Green vote combined (and the latter two's voters are not going to vote for the other party while some of the former 3's voters would vote for the other 2 parties to keep out Farage or Polanski)
We should value their presence.
(OK that wasn't quite his official platform, but everybody knew in practice that's what he'd have done if elected).
It muddies the waters . I loathe Netenyahu but don’t hate Israel which is at least a democracy .
We might not like what it delivered but at least voters can change that .
Its like US midterms going for whoever is not in the Oval Office.
That some of the loudest screechers about the awfulness of Starmer actually voted for him is something that constantly warms the cockles of my heart.
https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/116150413051904167
Satire is dead.
What Sir Humphrey Appleby wanted all that time.
"When it came to military affairs, the Constitution separated the power to declare war from the power to command the military. The short way of describing the structure is that America should go to war only at Congress’s direction, but when it does, its armies are commanded by the president."
"No matter what he thinks, Trump is not a king. But by taking America to war all on his own, he is acting like one."
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/01/opinion/trump-iran-congress-approval.html
As I said yesterday Iran does have a democracy even if one that's been very shackled by the regime. That is something that could be built on.
Iranian forces attacked a tanker from their own “shadow fleet” in the Strait of Hormuz, causing it to catch fire and begin sinking. The ship was targeted for allegedly “illegally passing” through the strait. The Skylight had 20 crew members on board: 15 Indian nationals and 5 Iranians. All were evacuated, and four were injured during the incident.
The Skylight tanker is subject to U.S. sanctions. American authorities say the vessel is part of Iran’s “shadow fleet” and transports Iranian oil through the Persian Gulf.
https://x.com/visegrad24/status/2028075042110644267?s=20
Though not all has been Iran behind it. Some has Saudi Arabia behind it, and their funding of extreme Wahhabism, including on our streets, should be addressed.
The argument that Iran has been killing its own civilians isn’t a reason to treat Iran like Gaza .
BREAKING: Palestinian Authority condemns Iranian attacks on Arab countries
I don't think it's particularly so in the context of contemporary politics.
Think Haiti not Belgium.
Yesterday's horseracing – the Guineas meeting at Meydan (in Dubai/UAE) – went ahead but today's Jebel Ali card has been postponed. Some European jockeys who had flown in for yesterday's racing are trapped for a while as airspace is closed, and so is Dubai's airport after missile damage.
https://www.racingpost.com/news/international/uae/dozens-of-jockeys-and-trainers-among-those-stranded-in-gulf-region-after-being-caught-up-in-ongoing-iran-conflict-aRWxg1L01742/
But Congress could, if it wished, vote to declare the action illegal tomorrow.
It won't.
They only kicked the Hamas leadership out of their fancy Doha hotels a few months ago, when it became clear that they were seen as legitimate targets.
They’ll have to make a deal at some point .
This after all was one of the founding principles of Israel. The promised land. Zion. Cf Theodore Herzl.
However one should be very careful lobbing it about and for a definite genre of western lefty it’s obviously just a cover for blatant Jew hate
Despite being a Green member, I have no particular insight into the policy machinations, but my informed guess would be that PM Polanski won't leave the NATO treaty but will withdraw UK forces from its command structure. #takebackcontrol
Challenging Imperialism and its particularly repellent sub-genus Zionsim will have to be at the centre of the policy platform or at the GE or ZP will be out on his arse.
I also didn't like the element of smugness (glee?) from some over the Greens beating Labour at their own game in G&D. Any serious patriot ought to be looking at the Green peril with a source of dread.
As it is the Cypriot population are fed up with being drawn into any conflict and don’t appreciate a UK politician trashing their tourism industry .
Word matter .
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c98g91wgdd8o
The risk however small is not worth taking.
🟦 Reform UK: 26% (-2)
🔵 Conservatives: 18% (+2)
🟢 Greens: 18% (-)
🔴 Labour: 15% (-1)
🟠 Lib Dems: 12% (+2)
Implied turnout: 55%
Note: fieldwork conducted BEFORE by-election
Changes from 18th February
[Find Out Now, 25th February, N=2,442
Lowestt Reform share in FoN regular polling since April 2025
WRT Bahrain, the problem is that it’s a tiny place, so the city, the naval port, and the circuit are all within a few km of each other. Although it’s not for another six weeks yet, and a lot can happen in that time.
Much easier to stick AirTags inside the soles of people’s shoes. Which has actually happened. And works.