The main point on which Starmer and Badenoch publicly disagreed was on whether we should have allowed the USA the use of UK bases when asked. Starmer appears internally to have taken the same 'deranged, warmongering, X-brained' view as Badenoch on this, but was outvoted by the cabinet.
In any event, UK bases were still attacked, and our ability to defend our own territory, as well as to assist countries we are supposed to be close to (the Gulf States and the Europeans, most notably Cyprus) has been shown to be inadequate, which - needless to say - appears to have damaged our diplomatic reputation among those countries - a blunder for a Prime Minister who prides himself on his foreign policy acumen. This is where the opposition needs to focus its criticism - not on whether we should have supported a conflict that was happening anyway, but whether we have responded well to the fallout.
Beth Rigby @BethRigby · 1h NEW: Reform are subsidising prices at a petrol station in Buxton to promote their proposal to cut fuel duty in the wake of the Iran War - more on @skynews later
It is very important for both Reform and the Tories to make very clear to the public that energy price shocks happen, but their impact on household incomes and the economy is due to Net Zero policies. They need to hammer it. It is an explodable lie, when our energy prices are already four times the price of the US, to absolve Net Zero.
What has the global price of oil being $30 more due to supply issues got to do with Net Zero. Even if we were pumping all the oil out of the North Sea the global price would still be $30 more.
Fundamental problem is all the models used by British state (economic model, energy model) are deterministic.
They don't take into account the value of options or sovereign capability.
They essentially bake in globalist assumptions (migration is a positive, Britain will always be able to get goods/commodities at affordable price, history has ended).
These models are hard wired into legislation and unaccountable bodies (such as the OBR and CCC).
It's one of the reasons it is so hard to get policies like fracking/migration cuts/defence projects through, you are fighting these projections.
We need to start from scratch. We should be basing policy on what Britain needs to thrive in all scenarios - not just the globalist utopian one.
The main point on which Starmer and Badenoch publicly disagreed was on whether we should have allowed the USA the use of UK bases when asked. Starmer appears internally to have taken the same 'deranged, warmongering, X-brained' view as Badenoch on this, but was outvoted by the cabinet.
In any event, UK bases were still attacked, and our ability to defend our own territory, as well as to assist countries we are supposed to be close to (the Gulf States and the Europeans, most notably Cyprus) has been shown to be inadequate, which - needless to say - appears to have damaged our diplomatic reputation among those countries - a blunder for a Prime Minister who prides himself on his foreign policy acumen. This is where the opposition needs to focus its criticism - not on whether we should have supported a conflict that was happening anyway, but whether we have responded well to the fallout.
Fundamental problem is all the models used by British state (economic model, energy model) are deterministic.
They don't take into account the value of options or sovereign capability.
They essentially bake in globalist assumptions (migration is a positive, Britain will always be able to get goods/commodities at affordable price, history has ended).
These models are hard wired into legislation and unaccountable bodies (such as the OBR and CCC).
It's one of the reasons it is so hard to get policies like fracking/migration cuts/defence projects through, you are fighting these projections.
We need to start from scratch. We should be basing policy on what Britain needs to thrive in all scenarios - not just the globalist utopian one.
'A prison inmate has been charged with the murder of Soham killer Ian Huntley, police have said.
Anthony Russell, 43, will appear at Newton Aycliffe Magistrates' Court via video link on Wednesday, a spokesman for Durham Constabulary said.' Though given Russell is already serving a whole life order not really any sentence they can add further https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvg8ll4l7d9o
In a way it’s a little surprising that this doesn’t happen more often.
If you put a group of the worst scumbags in the country in one place, those who are never getting out, they have little to lose by going for each other.
Russell committed three murders, one of which was preceded by rape, in 2020. One more murder makes no difference to him.
Stick 200 of the worst rats in a mega high security prison
Ease solitary and offer the last one standing a pardon.
Rinse and repeat
Ease overcrowding
Doesn't sound very civilised to me.
What's civil about mass murder, rape, child abuse.
Haven't they lost the right to civility
Which is why it’s a credit to the British State that they still treat people as humans, even when the scumbags have abdicated themselves from society.
It's more humane to execute someone than to lock them up with someone who will bash their skull in.
"Most murders are crimes of necessity rather than desire. But the great ones, Dahmer, Gacy, Bundy... they did it because it excited them!"
Vladimir Putin's popularity ratings, as measured by a state-aligned pollster, are at their lowest point for years. Russian commentators blame the 'bad boyars' around Putin and say that "there's complete degradation all around" in Russia.
The pollster VTsIOM has recorded Putin's popularity at 32.1%, the lowest seen during the war so far (though still some way off his pre-war nadir of 24%, recorded in 2021). Russian bloggers are not surprised, though few blame Putin himself and instead blame his advisors
“Russia is collapsing” news has been a little light on the ground in the past few weeks, with other things going on in the world, but it’s definitely happening in the background. They’re up to about 500 km^2 of territory lost as well, Feb was the first month in three years the Ukranians had net territorial gains.
Trump's doing his best to save Vlad's economy though.
'A prison inmate has been charged with the murder of Soham killer Ian Huntley, police have said.
Anthony Russell, 43, will appear at Newton Aycliffe Magistrates' Court via video link on Wednesday, a spokesman for Durham Constabulary said.' Though given Russell is already serving a whole life order not really any sentence they can add further https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvg8ll4l7d9o
In a way it’s a little surprising that this doesn’t happen more often.
If you put a group of the worst scumbags in the country in one place, those who are never getting out, they have little to lose by going for each other.
Russell committed three murders, one of which was preceded by rape, in 2020. One more murder makes no difference to him.
Stick 200 of the worst rats in a mega high security prison
Ease solitary and offer the last one standing a pardon.
Rinse and repeat
Ease overcrowding
Doesn't sound very civilised to me.
What's civil about mass murder, rape, child abuse.
Haven't they lost the right to civility
Which is why it’s a credit to the British State that they still treat people as humans, even when the scumbags have abdicated themselves from society.
John Cusack: [while in the surveillance truck] This one's done it all: kidnapping, robbery, murder, extortion. His name is Cyrus Grissom, A.K.A. Cyrus the Virus. Thirty-nine years old, twenty-five of them spent in our institutions. But he's bettered himself inside. Earned two degrees, including his juris doctorate. He also killed eleven fellow inmates, incited three riots, and escaped twice. Likes to brag that he killed more men than cancer. Cyrus is a poster child for the criminally insane. He's a true product of the system. Colm Meaney: What's that supposed to mean? [to a co-worker] Colm Meaney: What is he, one of these sociology majors who thinks we're responsible for breeding these animals? John Cusack: No, but I can point a few fingers if it would make you feel comfortable.
The main point on which Starmer and Badenoch publicly disagreed was on whether we should have allowed the USA the use of UK bases when asked. Starmer appears internally to have taken the same 'deranged, warmongering, X-brained' view as Badenoch on this, but was outvoted by the cabinet.
In any event, UK bases were still attacked, and our ability to defend our own territory, as well as to assist countries we are supposed to be close to (the Gulf States and the Europeans, most notably Cyprus) has been shown to be inadequate, which - needless to say - appears to have damaged our diplomatic reputation among those countries - a blunder for a Prime Minister who prides himself on his foreign policy acumen. This is where the opposition needs to focus its criticism - not on whether we should have supported a conflict that was happening anyway, but whether we have responded well to the fallout.
Kemi is on completely the wrong side of public opinion.
Her comments this morning have dug the hole deeper still.
She has no off button.
Totally out of control.
How can the Tories attack Labour with a straight face when in 14 years to July 2024 they reduced defence spending by 22%,hollowed out all Services, recruitment, procurement.
To compound this they let Armed Forces Housing to rot, allowed veterans to rot.
Never in British history has so much wilful damage been done to our Armed Forces and Global reputation by so few.
These disastrous policies will take a decade to correct.
The Tories are shameful and treacherous on this issue.
If Badenoch had one slither or decency backbone contrition or respect she would apologise and apologise daily.
Replying to yourself now
Your invective would have more salience if you didn't want Tel Aviv flattened along with US oilfields and called out Iran ot slaughtering 40,000 of their own citizens
The main point on which Starmer and Badenoch publicly disagreed was on whether we should have allowed the USA the use of UK bases when asked. Starmer appears internally to have taken the same 'deranged, warmongering, X-brained' view as Badenoch on this, but was outvoted by the cabinet.
In any event, UK bases were still attacked, and our ability to defend our own territory, as well as to assist countries we are supposed to be close to (the Gulf States and the Europeans, most notably Cyprus) has been shown to be inadequate, which - needless to say - appears to have damaged our diplomatic reputation among those countries - a blunder for a Prime Minister who prides himself on his foreign policy acumen. This is where the opposition needs to focus its criticism - not on whether we should have supported a conflict that was happening anyway, but whether we have responded well to the fallout.
The main point on which Starmer and Badenoch publicly disagreed was on whether we should have allowed the USA the use of UK bases when asked. Starmer appears internally to have taken the same 'deranged, warmongering, X-brained' view as Badenoch on this, but was outvoted by the cabinet.
In any event, UK bases were still attacked, and our ability to defend our own territory, as well as to assist countries we are supposed to be close to (the Gulf States and the Europeans, most notably Cyprus) has been shown to be inadequate, which - needless to say - appears to have damaged our diplomatic reputation among those countries - a blunder for a Prime Minister who prides himself on his foreign policy acumen. This is where the opposition needs to focus its criticism - not on whether we should have supported a conflict that was happening anyway, but whether we have responded well to the fallout.
The main point on which Starmer and Badenoch publicly disagreed was on whether we should have allowed the USA the use of UK bases when asked. Starmer appears internally to have taken the same 'deranged, warmongering, X-brained' view as Badenoch on this, but was outvoted by the cabinet.
In any event, UK bases were still attacked, and our ability to defend our own territory, as well as to assist countries we are supposed to be close to (the Gulf States and the Europeans, most notably Cyprus) has been shown to be inadequate, which - needless to say - appears to have damaged our diplomatic reputation among those countries - a blunder for a Prime Minister who prides himself on his foreign policy acumen. This is where the opposition needs to focus its criticism - not on whether we should have supported a conflict that was happening anyway, but whether we have responded well to the fallout.
Kemi is on completely the wrong side of public opinion.
Her comments this morning have dug the hole deeper still.
She has no off button.
Totally out of control.
How can the Tories attack Labour with a straight face when in 14 years to July 2024 they reduced defence spending by 22%,hollowed out all Services, recruitment, procurement.
To compound this they let Armed Forces Housing to rot, allowed veterans to rot.
Never in British history has so much wilful damage been done to our Armed Forces and Global reputation by so few.
These disastrous policies will take a decade to correct.
The Tories are shameful and treacherous on this issue.
If Badenoch had one slither or decency backbone contrition or respect she would apologise and apologise daily.
Replying to yourself now
Your invective would have more salience if you didn't want Tel Aviv flattened along with US oilfields and called out Iran ot slaughtering 40,000 of their own citizens
It's Beirut being flattened right now, and Israel did slaughter 50,000 Palestinians.
With the Afghan war, it was well planned and long prepared.
It was a fucking disaster.
With the Iraq war, it was well planned and long prepared.
It was a fucking disaster.
With this one, it's been done on the spur of the moment because Netanyahu's popularity was tanking and Trump urgently needed a distraction from the Epstein files and the references to forcing a 13-year-old girl to perform oral sex on him. It has not been planned, and it has not been prepared.
It has been a much bigger fucking disaster, and we're only a week in.
The amazing thing is that anyone supports it. It just shows how little attention most people pay to the news.
That is not strictly true. The news narrative from the BBC for example has been Starmer's treason and destruction of the "special relationship" because he egregiously refused Donnie's demands.
The BBC do this because they want the story and a long drawn out, destructive conflict story is a great story. Some viewers still believe BBC News to be reliable, hence their support for war. GeeBeebies and Nick Ferrari on the other hand just follow the aroma of Trump without questioning why and their viewers and listeners fall into line.
It's a mistake to believe that the BBC has that sort of influence.There have been a lot of studies about how people form their opinions and the best I read was it's like a bird builds its nest. Little bits are added and when it's put together it's difficult to shift. People are more likely to change their newspaper than change their opinion to that of the newspaper. GB News are preaching to the choir.. That's why advertising is such a tricky business. People won't believe what they don't believe!
Robbie Gibb appointment destroyed BBC as a credible news outlet
Utter bullshit. Do you think other leaders of the BBC have not had political opinions?
If they have it has been Far less apparent
Gibb has turned BBC in to GB News lite.
Crucially that applies in the Regions too where a generation of experienced impartial journalists who reported the news and were fair inquisitors have been replaced with a host of Tufton Street robots
Do you get paid to spout this crap every day?
Do you?
Sadiq Khan answer. Avoid asweriing a simple question at all costs. .. and no I don't .
Fundamental problem is all the models used by British state (economic model, energy model) are deterministic.
They don't take into account the value of options or sovereign capability.
They essentially bake in globalist assumptions (migration is a positive, Britain will always be able to get goods/commodities at affordable price, history has ended).
These models are hard wired into legislation and unaccountable bodies (such as the OBR and CCC).
It's one of the reasons it is so hard to get policies like fracking/migration cuts/defence projects through, you are fighting these projections.
We need to start from scratch. We should be basing policy on what Britain needs to thrive in all scenarios - not just the globalist utopian one.
The main point on which Starmer and Badenoch publicly disagreed was on whether we should have allowed the USA the use of UK bases when asked. Starmer appears internally to have taken the same 'deranged, warmongering, X-brained' view as Badenoch on this, but was outvoted by the cabinet.
In any event, UK bases were still attacked, and our ability to defend our own territory, as well as to assist countries we are supposed to be close to (the Gulf States and the Europeans, most notably Cyprus) has been shown to be inadequate, which - needless to say - appears to have damaged our diplomatic reputation among those countries - a blunder for a Prime Minister who prides himself on his foreign policy acumen. This is where the opposition needs to focus its criticism - not on whether we should have supported a conflict that was happening anyway, but whether we have responded well to the fallout.
The main point on which Starmer and Badenoch publicly disagreed was on whether we should have allowed the USA the use of UK bases when asked. Starmer appears internally to have taken the same 'deranged, warmongering, X-brained' view as Badenoch on this, but was outvoted by the cabinet.
In any event, UK bases were still attacked, and our ability to defend our own territory, as well as to assist countries we are supposed to be close to (the Gulf States and the Europeans, most notably Cyprus) has been shown to be inadequate, which - needless to say - appears to have damaged our diplomatic reputation among those countries - a blunder for a Prime Minister who prides himself on his foreign policy acumen. This is where the opposition needs to focus its criticism - not on whether we should have supported a conflict that was happening anyway, but whether we have responded well to the fallout.
Kemi is on completely the wrong side of public opinion.
Her comments this morning have dug the hole deeper still.
She has no off button.
Totally out of control.
How can the Tories attack Labour with a straight face when in 14 years to July 2024 they reduced defence spending by 22%,hollowed out all Services, recruitment, procurement.
To compound this they let Armed Forces Housing to rot, allowed veterans to rot.
Never in British history has so much wilful damage been done to our Armed Forces and Global reputation by so few.
These disastrous policies will take a decade to correct.
The Tories are shameful and treacherous on this issue.
If Badenoch had one slither or decency backbone contrition or respect she would apologise and apologise daily.
Replying to yourself now
Your invective would have more salience if you didn't want Tel Aviv flattened along with US oilfields and called out Iran ot slaughtering 40,000 of their own citizens
It's Beirut being flattened right now, and Israel did slaughter 50,000 Palestinians.
I do not argue that and both Netanyahu and Hamas are pure evil
However, Iran slaughted 40,000 of their own citizens for wanting to protest
'A prison inmate has been charged with the murder of Soham killer Ian Huntley, police have said.
Anthony Russell, 43, will appear at Newton Aycliffe Magistrates' Court via video link on Wednesday, a spokesman for Durham Constabulary said.' Though given Russell is already serving a whole life order not really any sentence they can add further https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvg8ll4l7d9o
In a way it’s a little surprising that this doesn’t happen more often.
If you put a group of the worst scumbags in the country in one place, those who are never getting out, they have little to lose by going for each other.
Russell committed three murders, one of which was preceded by rape, in 2020. One more murder makes no difference to him.
Stick 200 of the worst rats in a mega high security prison
Ease solitary and offer the last one standing a pardon.
Rinse and repeat
Ease overcrowding
Doesn't sound very civilised to me.
What's civil about mass murder, rape, child abuse.
Haven't they lost the right to civility
Which is why it’s a credit to the British State that they still treat people as humans, even when the scumbags have abdicated themselves from society.
It's more humane to execute someone than to lock them up with someone who will bash their skull in.
If only we had applied that to the Birmingham Six, the Guildford Four, the Bridgewater Four, the Cardiff Two and Judith Ward we wouldn't have had to pay the compensation.
Fundamental problem is all the models used by British state (economic model, energy model) are deterministic.
They don't take into account the value of options or sovereign capability.
They essentially bake in globalist assumptions (migration is a positive, Britain will always be able to get goods/commodities at affordable price, history has ended).
These models are hard wired into legislation and unaccountable bodies (such as the OBR and CCC).
It's one of the reasons it is so hard to get policies like fracking/migration cuts/defence projects through, you are fighting these projections.
We need to start from scratch. We should be basing policy on what Britain needs to thrive in all scenarios - not just the globalist utopian one.
I don't even know where to start with this.
You've been captured by the blob
The apparent impossibility of getting batshit crazy policies enacted is, however, reassuring in the event of a Reform or Green government!
The main point on which Starmer and Badenoch publicly disagreed was on whether we should have allowed the USA the use of UK bases when asked. Starmer appears internally to have taken the same 'deranged, warmongering, X-brained' view as Badenoch on this, but was outvoted by the cabinet.
In any event, UK bases were still attacked, and our ability to defend our own territory, as well as to assist countries we are supposed to be close to (the Gulf States and the Europeans, most notably Cyprus) has been shown to be inadequate, which - needless to say - appears to have damaged our diplomatic reputation among those countries - a blunder for a Prime Minister who prides himself on his foreign policy acumen. This is where the opposition needs to focus its criticism - not on whether we should have supported a conflict that was happening anyway, but whether we have responded well to the fallout.
Kemi is on completely the wrong side of public opinion.
Her comments this morning have dug the hole deeper still.
She has no off button.
Totally out of control.
How can the Tories attack Labour with a straight face when in 14 years to July 2024 they reduced defence spending by 22%,hollowed out all Services, recruitment, procurement.
To compound this they let Armed Forces Housing to rot, allowed veterans to rot.
Never in British history has so much wilful damage been done to our Armed Forces and Global reputation by so few.
These disastrous policies will take a decade to correct.
The Tories are shameful and treacherous on this issue.
If Badenoch had one slither or decency backbone contrition or respect she would apologise and apologise daily.
Replying to yourself now
Your invective would have more salience if you didn't want Tel Aviv flattened along with US oilfields and called out Iran ot slaughtering 40,000 of their own citizens
It's Beirut being flattened right now, and Israel did slaughter 50,000 Palestinians.
I do not argue that and both Netanyahu and Hamas are pure evil
However, Iran slaughted 40,000 of their own citizens for wanting to protest
And now we are adding several thousand private citizens including almost 200 schoolgirls to the tally.
The main point on which Starmer and Badenoch publicly disagreed was on whether we should have allowed the USA the use of UK bases when asked. Starmer appears internally to have taken the same 'deranged, warmongering, X-brained' view as Badenoch on this, but was outvoted by the cabinet.
In any event, UK bases were still attacked, and our ability to defend our own territory, as well as to assist countries we are supposed to be close to (the Gulf States and the Europeans, most notably Cyprus) has been shown to be inadequate, which - needless to say - appears to have damaged our diplomatic reputation among those countries - a blunder for a Prime Minister who prides himself on his foreign policy acumen. This is where the opposition needs to focus its criticism - not on whether we should have supported a conflict that was happening anyway, but whether we have responded well to the fallout.
'A prison inmate has been charged with the murder of Soham killer Ian Huntley, police have said.
Anthony Russell, 43, will appear at Newton Aycliffe Magistrates' Court via video link on Wednesday, a spokesman for Durham Constabulary said.' Though given Russell is already serving a whole life order not really any sentence they can add further https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvg8ll4l7d9o
In a way it’s a little surprising that this doesn’t happen more often.
If you put a group of the worst scumbags in the country in one place, those who are never getting out, they have little to lose by going for each other.
Russell committed three murders, one of which was preceded by rape, in 2020. One more murder makes no difference to him.
Stick 200 of the worst rats in a mega high security prison
Ease solitary and offer the last one standing a pardon.
Rinse and repeat
Ease overcrowding
Doesn't sound very civilised to me.
What's civil about mass murder, rape, child abuse.
Haven't they lost the right to civility
Which is why it’s a credit to the British State that they still treat people as humans, even when the scumbags have abdicated themselves from society.
John Cusack: [while in the surveillance truck] This one's done it all: kidnapping, robbery, murder, extortion. His name is Cyrus Grissom, A.K.A. Cyrus the Virus. Thirty-nine years old, twenty-five of them spent in our institutions. But he's bettered himself inside. Earned two degrees, including his juris doctorate. He also killed eleven fellow inmates, incited three riots, and escaped twice. Likes to brag that he killed more men than cancer. Cyrus is a poster child for the criminally insane. He's a true product of the system. Colm Meaney: What's that supposed to mean? [to a co-worker] Colm Meaney: What is he, one of these sociology majors who thinks we're responsible for breeding these animals? John Cusack: No, but I can point a few fingers if it would make you feel comfortable.
Just such a great movie. I mean, John Cusack! John Malkovich! Steve Buscemi! And the incomparable Nicholas Cage! On a plane, crash landing on the Vegas Strip to Sweet Home Alabama. This is what Hollywood exists for.
Fundamental problem is all the models used by British state (economic model, energy model) are deterministic.
They don't take into account the value of options or sovereign capability.
They essentially bake in globalist assumptions (migration is a positive, Britain will always be able to get goods/commodities at affordable price, history has ended).
These models are hard wired into legislation and unaccountable bodies (such as the OBR and CCC).
It's one of the reasons it is so hard to get policies like fracking/migration cuts/defence projects through, you are fighting these projections.
We need to start from scratch. We should be basing policy on what Britain needs to thrive in all scenarios - not just the globalist utopian one.
Let's leave aside the migration question for now.
(1) There is no evidence that fracking in the UK is economic. None of the well drilled by Cuadrilla or iGas found commercial quantities of natural gas. Now, should there have been a ban? Nope. But that doesn't change the fundamental problem that (a) costs would be massively higher than the US because we're a small, densely populated country, and fracking takes a lot of space and equipment, and (b) there are no formations that look like being even vaguely close in terms of prospects to the ones that are economic.
(2) Defence cuts happened because there is financial pressure on the government. There is financial pressure on the government principally because we have an ageing population. Old people need to recieve pensions, and they cost a lot of money to look after via the social care network and the NHS. This pressure is not going away. And the ratio between the number of workers are the number of retirees is going to keep getting worse (especially in a world with zero or negative migration).
(3) We are not a rich country in terms of commodities. Now, we could have done a much better job managing the North Sea (and been more Norwegian), but even if we had done, it is highly unlikely that we could be anywhere near self sufficient in terms of energy currently. (That will change with renewables over time, but that is a twenty year story, not a two year one.) Irrespective, we are always going to need to import aluminium, copper, tungsten, and a million other things. And that has always been the case. What exactly is Ms Truss proposing that solves our dependence on getting commodities from abroad?
Now, did the UK government -particularly the one which Ms Truss was a leading member of- let immigration get completely out of control? Yes, it did.
But that doesn't stop the rest of her tweet from being utterly absurd.
The main point on which Starmer and Badenoch publicly disagreed was on whether we should have allowed the USA the use of UK bases when asked. Starmer appears internally to have taken the same 'deranged, warmongering, X-brained' view as Badenoch on this, but was outvoted by the cabinet.
In any event, UK bases were still attacked, and our ability to defend our own territory, as well as to assist countries we are supposed to be close to (the Gulf States and the Europeans, most notably Cyprus) has been shown to be inadequate, which - needless to say - appears to have damaged our diplomatic reputation among those countries - a blunder for a Prime Minister who prides himself on his foreign policy acumen. This is where the opposition needs to focus its criticism - not on whether we should have supported a conflict that was happening anyway, but whether we have responded well to the fallout.
The main point on which Starmer and Badenoch publicly disagreed was on whether we should have allowed the USA the use of UK bases when asked. Starmer appears internally to have taken the same 'deranged, warmongering, X-brained' view as Badenoch on this, but was outvoted by the cabinet.
In any event, UK bases were still attacked, and our ability to defend our own territory, as well as to assist countries we are supposed to be close to (the Gulf States and the Europeans, most notably Cyprus) has been shown to be inadequate, which - needless to say - appears to have damaged our diplomatic reputation among those countries - a blunder for a Prime Minister who prides himself on his foreign policy acumen. This is where the opposition needs to focus its criticism - not on whether we should have supported a conflict that was happening anyway, but whether we have responded well to the fallout.
Kemi is on completely the wrong side of public opinion.
Her comments this morning have dug the hole deeper still.
She has no off button.
Totally out of control.
How can the Tories attack Labour with a straight face when in 14 years to July 2024 they reduced defence spending by 22%,hollowed out all Services, recruitment, procurement.
To compound this they let Armed Forces Housing to rot, allowed veterans to rot.
Never in British history has so much wilful damage been done to our Armed Forces and Global reputation by so few.
These disastrous policies will take a decade to correct.
The Tories are shameful and treacherous on this issue.
If Badenoch had one slither or decency backbone contrition or respect she would apologise and apologise daily.
Replying to yourself now
Your invective would have more salience if you didn't want Tel Aviv flattened along with US oilfields and called out Iran ot slaughtering 40,000 of their own citizens
It's Beirut being flattened right now, and Israel did slaughter 50,000 Palestinians.
I do not argue that and both Netanyahu and Hamas are pure evil
However, Iran slaughted 40,000 of their own citizens for wanting to protest
This is how things escalate. I have heard the figure 30,000 but you are ther first to make it 40,000. Apparently it was less than 10,000 (but that isn't something to shout about) I strogly suggest you to read the Oborne piece. You might get a better perspective without having your prejudices tampererd with in any way.
The main point on which Starmer and Badenoch publicly disagreed was on whether we should have allowed the USA the use of UK bases when asked. Starmer appears internally to have taken the same 'deranged, warmongering, X-brained' view as Badenoch on this, but was outvoted by the cabinet.
In any event, UK bases were still attacked, and our ability to defend our own territory, as well as to assist countries we are supposed to be close to (the Gulf States and the Europeans, most notably Cyprus) has been shown to be inadequate, which - needless to say - appears to have damaged our diplomatic reputation among those countries - a blunder for a Prime Minister who prides himself on his foreign policy acumen. This is where the opposition needs to focus its criticism - not on whether we should have supported a conflict that was happening anyway, but whether we have responded well to the fallout.
Kemi is on completely the wrong side of public opinion.
Her comments this morning have dug the hole deeper still.
She has no off button.
Totally out of control.
How can the Tories attack Labour with a straight face when in 14 years to July 2024 they reduced defence spending by 22%,hollowed out all Services, recruitment, procurement.
To compound this they let Armed Forces Housing to rot, allowed veterans to rot.
Never in British history has so much wilful damage been done to our Armed Forces and Global reputation by so few.
These disastrous policies will take a decade to correct.
The Tories are shameful and treacherous on this issue.
If Badenoch had one slither or decency backbone contrition or respect she would apologise and apologise daily.
Replying to yourself now
Your invective would have more salience if you didn't want Tel Aviv flattened along with US oilfields and called out Iran ot slaughtering 40,000 of their own citizens
It's Beirut being flattened right now, and Israel did slaughter 50,000 Palestinians.
I do not argue that and both Netanyahu and Hamas are pure evil
However, Iran slaughted 40,000 of their own citizens for wanting to protest
This is how things escalate. I have heard the figure 30,000 but you are ther first to make it 40,000. Apparently it was less than 10,000 (but that isn't something to shout about) I strogly suggest you to read the Oborne piece. You might get a better perspective without having your prejudices tampererd with in any way.
The Ayatollah was an evil murderous bastard. In the interest of BBC style balance do we know Bibi's body count?
The main point on which Starmer and Badenoch publicly disagreed was on whether we should have allowed the USA the use of UK bases when asked. Starmer appears internally to have taken the same 'deranged, warmongering, X-brained' view as Badenoch on this, but was outvoted by the cabinet.
In any event, UK bases were still attacked, and our ability to defend our own territory, as well as to assist countries we are supposed to be close to (the Gulf States and the Europeans, most notably Cyprus) has been shown to be inadequate, which - needless to say - appears to have damaged our diplomatic reputation among those countries - a blunder for a Prime Minister who prides himself on his foreign policy acumen. This is where the opposition needs to focus its criticism - not on whether we should have supported a conflict that was happening anyway, but whether we have responded well to the fallout.
Noted. And we can carry on being polite about this debate.
You are both wrong, because despite your desperate spin to save this situation saying Kemi and Starmer in identical position, Badenoch and her team have spent ten days doing the absolute opposite pointing up her differentials with Labours position, in her speeches She was talking about Labour these days being unpatriotic. In the commons she told Starmer he got it wrong saying no to what our allies asked for, and interviews she angrily said this
To add to it was your own awful abuse of both HY and the Head of UK armed forces - for saying our runways are only being used for defensive missions against what Iran is firing at other countries. You called everyone Naïve for believing that was the case. You admit this was spin on your part, the evidence was against you?
Your spin, desperate at times, that the two parties rhetoric and position is identical, actually shows that you agree with us, she got it wrong.
You keep quoting that like its outrageous or unreasonable.
They are hanging around.
Our allies are getting stuck in, fighting our enemy. Ours are not.
That's not our troops fault. Our troops aren't allowed to fight unless they're given the order to do so, an order that is lacking from the very top.
That is the PM's fault, not theirs. It is not unreasonable to point that out.
I am slightly surprised to see the Greens still below the LibDems. If I were to guess what an election would result in, if held today, I would probably knock 2 points off the LibDems and add them to the Greens.
'A prison inmate has been charged with the murder of Soham killer Ian Huntley, police have said.
Anthony Russell, 43, will appear at Newton Aycliffe Magistrates' Court via video link on Wednesday, a spokesman for Durham Constabulary said.' Though given Russell is already serving a whole life order not really any sentence they can add further https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvg8ll4l7d9o
In a way it’s a little surprising that this doesn’t happen more often.
If you put a group of the worst scumbags in the country in one place, those who are never getting out, they have little to lose by going for each other.
Russell committed three murders, one of which was preceded by rape, in 2020. One more murder makes no difference to him.
Stick 200 of the worst rats in a mega high security prison
Ease solitary and offer the last one standing a pardon.
Rinse and repeat
Ease overcrowding
Doesn't sound very civilised to me.
What's civil about mass murder, rape, child abuse.
Haven't they lost the right to civility
Which is why it’s a credit to the British State that they still treat people as humans, even when the scumbags have abdicated themselves from society.
John Cusack: [while in the surveillance truck] This one's done it all: kidnapping, robbery, murder, extortion. His name is Cyrus Grissom, A.K.A. Cyrus the Virus. Thirty-nine years old, twenty-five of them spent in our institutions. But he's bettered himself inside. Earned two degrees, including his juris doctorate. He also killed eleven fellow inmates, incited three riots, and escaped twice. Likes to brag that he killed more men than cancer. Cyrus is a poster child for the criminally insane. He's a true product of the system. Colm Meaney: What's that supposed to mean? [to a co-worker] Colm Meaney: What is he, one of these sociology majors who thinks we're responsible for breeding these animals? John Cusack: No, but I can point a few fingers if it would make you feel comfortable.
Just such a great movie. I mean, John Cusack! John Malkovich! Steve Buscemi! And the incomparable Nicholas Cage! On a plane, crash landing on the Vegas Strip to Sweet Home Alabama. This is what Hollywood exists for.
I don't nomally watch a film for the actors. An actor is a tool, the director is the artist, and a much better guide to whether a film will be to your taste or not (I accept this is only partly true, but still, a good rule of thumb). But Steve Buscemi and John Cusack have never, I don't think, been in a bad film. They are both at the very least both very good indicators of a good film.
The main point on which Starmer and Badenoch publicly disagreed was on whether we should have allowed the USA the use of UK bases when asked. Starmer appears internally to have taken the same 'deranged, warmongering, X-brained' view as Badenoch on this, but was outvoted by the cabinet.
In any event, UK bases were still attacked, and our ability to defend our own territory, as well as to assist countries we are supposed to be close to (the Gulf States and the Europeans, most notably Cyprus) has been shown to be inadequate, which - needless to say - appears to have damaged our diplomatic reputation among those countries - a blunder for a Prime Minister who prides himself on his foreign policy acumen. This is where the opposition needs to focus its criticism - not on whether we should have supported a conflict that was happening anyway, but whether we have responded well to the fallout.
Kemi is on completely the wrong side of public opinion.
Her comments this morning have dug the hole deeper still.
She has no off button.
Totally out of control.
How can the Tories attack Labour with a straight face when in 14 years to July 2024 they reduced defence spending by 22%,hollowed out all Services, recruitment, procurement.
To compound this they let Armed Forces Housing to rot, allowed veterans to rot.
Never in British history has so much wilful damage been done to our Armed Forces and Global reputation by so few.
These disastrous policies will take a decade to correct.
The Tories are shameful and treacherous on this issue.
If Badenoch had one slither or decency backbone contrition or respect she would apologise and apologise daily.
Replying to yourself now
Your invective would have more salience if you didn't want Tel Aviv flattened along with US oilfields and called out Iran ot slaughtering 40,000 of their own citizens
It's Beirut being flattened right now, and Israel did slaughter 50,000 Palestinians.
I do not argue that and both Netanyahu and Hamas are pure evil
However, Iran slaughted 40,000 of their own citizens for wanting to protest
This is how things escalate. I have heard the figure 30,000 but you are ther first to make it 40,000. Apparently it was less than 10,000 (but that isn't something to shout about) I strogly suggest you to read the Oborne piece. You might get a better perspective without having your prejudices tampererd with in any way.
The Ayatollah was an evil murderous bastard. In the interest of BBC style balance do we know Bibi's body count?
On a like-for-like basis of unarmed civilians murdered in cold blood without provocation?
AFAIK it is zero. If you know otherwise, I would be curious.
The worst the strategy can do is so devastate Iran with endless aerial bombardments that it becomes ungovernable for anyone. That would be a disaster of incalculable proportions.
I am slightly surprised to see the Greens still below the LibDems. If I were to guess what an election would result in, if held today, I would probably knock 2 points off the LibDems and add them to the Greens.
I'd knock 5 off the Greens and add it to Labour.
Vote Green, Get Farage has to be the message from Labour.
The worst the strategy can do is so devastate Iran with endless aerial bombardments that it becomes ungovernable for anyone. That would be a disaster of incalculable proportions.
The worst the strategy can do is so devastate Iran with endless aerial bombardments that it becomes ungovernable for anyone. That would be a disaster of incalculable proportions.
Fundamental problem is all the models used by British state (economic model, energy model) are deterministic.
They don't take into account the value of options or sovereign capability.
They essentially bake in globalist assumptions (migration is a positive, Britain will always be able to get goods/commodities at affordable price, history has ended).
These models are hard wired into legislation and unaccountable bodies (such as the OBR and CCC).
It's one of the reasons it is so hard to get policies like fracking/migration cuts/defence projects through, you are fighting these projections.
We need to start from scratch. We should be basing policy on what Britain needs to thrive in all scenarios - not just the globalist utopian one.
This is the usual incoherent drivel we've come to expect from one of our former Prime Ministers.
I accept we should maximise (where possible) our own energy resources and that means fracking, nuclear and renewable to name but three.
As for "migration cuts", I've no clue what that means (well, I do, I think). If she wants to reduce the migration of largely unskilled young men from various parts of the world, let's hear her solution. Presumably, as a loyal member of the Johnson Government, she supported the post-Brexit changes to immigration which boosted non-European immigration post Freedom of Movement within the EU because the feeling then was the economy added labour to grow.
"Defence Projects" - again, she presumably supported the Conservative Governments (starting with the Coalition) which cut defence in order to restore the public finances. Such projects takes years if not decades to reach fruition and we are dealing with the consequences of previous Government's defence policies.
'A prison inmate has been charged with the murder of Soham killer Ian Huntley, police have said.
Anthony Russell, 43, will appear at Newton Aycliffe Magistrates' Court via video link on Wednesday, a spokesman for Durham Constabulary said.' Though given Russell is already serving a whole life order not really any sentence they can add further https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvg8ll4l7d9o
In a way it’s a little surprising that this doesn’t happen more often.
If you put a group of the worst scumbags in the country in one place, those who are never getting out, they have little to lose by going for each other.
Russell committed three murders, one of which was preceded by rape, in 2020. One more murder makes no difference to him.
Stick 200 of the worst rats in a mega high security prison
Ease solitary and offer the last one standing a pardon.
Rinse and repeat
Ease overcrowding
Doesn't sound very civilised to me.
What's civil about mass murder, rape, child abuse.
Haven't they lost the right to civility
Which is why it’s a credit to the British State that they still treat people as humans, even when the scumbags have abdicated themselves from society.
John Cusack: [while in the surveillance truck] This one's done it all: kidnapping, robbery, murder, extortion. His name is Cyrus Grissom, A.K.A. Cyrus the Virus. Thirty-nine years old, twenty-five of them spent in our institutions. But he's bettered himself inside. Earned two degrees, including his juris doctorate. He also killed eleven fellow inmates, incited three riots, and escaped twice. Likes to brag that he killed more men than cancer. Cyrus is a poster child for the criminally insane. He's a true product of the system. Colm Meaney: What's that supposed to mean? [to a co-worker] Colm Meaney: What is he, one of these sociology majors who thinks we're responsible for breeding these animals? John Cusack: No, but I can point a few fingers if it would make you feel comfortable.
Just such a great movie. I mean, John Cusack! John Malkovich! Steve Buscemi! And the incomparable Nicholas Cage! On a plane, crash landing on the Vegas Strip to Sweet Home Alabama. This is what Hollywood exists for.
I don't nomally watch a film for the actors. An actor is a tool, the director is the artist, and a much better guide to whether a film will be to your taste or not (I accept this is only partly true, but still, a good rule of thumb). But Steve Buscemi and John Cusack have never, I don't think, been in a bad film. They are both at the very least both very good indicators of a good film.
Whereas Nicholas Cage has been in brilliant movies, terrible movies and everything in between, and is always a majestic and unmistakable presence on the screen.
With the Afghan war, it was well planned and long prepared.
It was a fucking disaster.
With the Iraq war, it was well planned and long prepared.
It was a fucking disaster.
With this one, it's been done on the spur of the moment because Netanyahu's popularity was tanking and Trump urgently needed a distraction from the Epstein files and the references to forcing a 13-year-old girl to perform oral sex on him. It has not been planned, and it has not been prepared.
It has been a much bigger fucking disaster, and we're only a week in.
The amazing thing is that anyone supports it. It just shows how little attention most people pay to the news.
That is not strictly true. The news narrative from the BBC for example has been Starmer's treason and destruction of the "special relationship" because he egregiously refused Donnie's demands.
The BBC do this because they want the story and a long drawn out, destructive conflict story is a great story. Some viewers still believe BBC News to be reliable, hence their support for war. GeeBeebies and Nick Ferrari on the other hand just follow the aroma of Trump without questioning why and their viewers and listeners fall into line.
It's a mistake to believe that the BBC has that sort of influence.There have been a lot of studies about how people form their opinions and the best I read was it's like a bird builds its nest. Little bits are added and when it's put together it's difficult to shift. People are more likely to change their newspaper than change their opinion to that of the newspaper. GB News are preaching to the choir.. That's why advertising is such a tricky business. People won't believe what they don't believe!
Robbie Gibb appointment destroyed BBC as a credible news outlet
He did. Most BBC watchers aren't zionists or fascists and many who worked in the organisation didn't agree with what they were peddaling so they left and now they've got become a hollowed out shell with the likes of katie Razzell -a pretty good entertainment presenter -filling in for everyone.
People of the hard left regard the BBC as biased to the right. People of the hard right regard the BBC as biased to the left.
Why might that be?
Just like sex in Lincolnshire, its all relative.
One of my colleagues last week described a conversation with a manager as being like having sex whilst camping - fuckin in tents
2% a poor result for Restore, the Greens get a bounce post Gorton but Polanski would certainly have hoped for more than a 3% increase and still 5th behind the LDs.
As Farage and Jenrick look like going wobbly wet lettuces on Iran, Kemi will hope her continued send the RAF to bomb the Ayatollahs and Iranian regime to bits raw steak uber hawk line can get the Tories back up to 20%+ and gain some of the 57% of Reform voters who Yougov has supporting the US strikes on Iran for the Tories
The main point on which Starmer and Badenoch publicly disagreed was on whether we should have allowed the USA the use of UK bases when asked. Starmer appears internally to have taken the same 'deranged, warmongering, X-brained' view as Badenoch on this, but was outvoted by the cabinet.
In any event, UK bases were still attacked, and our ability to defend our own territory, as well as to assist countries we are supposed to be close to (the Gulf States and the Europeans, most notably Cyprus) has been shown to be inadequate, which - needless to say - appears to have damaged our diplomatic reputation among those countries - a blunder for a Prime Minister who prides himself on his foreign policy acumen. This is where the opposition needs to focus its criticism - not on whether we should have supported a conflict that was happening anyway, but whether we have responded well to the fallout.
Kemi is on completely the wrong side of public opinion.
Her comments this morning have dug the hole deeper still.
She has no off button.
Totally out of control.
How can the Tories attack Labour with a straight face when in 14 years to July 2024 they reduced defence spending by 22%,hollowed out all Services, recruitment, procurement.
To compound this they let Armed Forces Housing to rot, allowed veterans to rot.
Never in British history has so much wilful damage been done to our Armed Forces and Global reputation by so few.
These disastrous policies will take a decade to correct.
The Tories are shameful and treacherous on this issue.
If Badenoch had one slither or decency backbone contrition or respect she would apologise and apologise daily.
Replying to yourself now
Your invective would have more salience if you didn't want Tel Aviv flattened along with US oilfields and called out Iran ot slaughtering 40,000 of their own citizens
It's Beirut being flattened right now, and Israel did slaughter 50,000 Palestinians.
I do not argue that and both Netanyahu and Hamas are pure evil
However, Iran slaughted 40,000 of their own citizens for wanting to protest
This is how things escalate. I have heard the figure 30,000 but you are ther first to make it 40,000. Apparently it was less than 10,000 (but that isn't something to shout about) I strogly suggest you to read the Oborne piece. You might get a better perspective without having your prejudices tampererd with in any way.
The Ayatollah was an evil murderous bastard. In the interest of BBC style balance do we know Bibi's body count?
On a like-for-like basis of unarmed civilians murdered in cold blood without provocation?
AFAIK it is zero. If you know otherwise, I would be curious.
For starters 80,000 civilians, about half of whom women and children. We can add the bombings in Lebanon, Iraq and Iran. Although my question was how many deaths has he been responsible for over the last 40 years.
The main point on which Starmer and Badenoch publicly disagreed was on whether we should have allowed the USA the use of UK bases when asked. Starmer appears internally to have taken the same 'deranged, warmongering, X-brained' view as Badenoch on this, but was outvoted by the cabinet.
In any event, UK bases were still attacked, and our ability to defend our own territory, as well as to assist countries we are supposed to be close to (the Gulf States and the Europeans, most notably Cyprus) has been shown to be inadequate, which - needless to say - appears to have damaged our diplomatic reputation among those countries - a blunder for a Prime Minister who prides himself on his foreign policy acumen. This is where the opposition needs to focus its criticism - not on whether we should have supported a conflict that was happening anyway, but whether we have responded well to the fallout.
Kemi is on completely the wrong side of public opinion.
Her comments this morning have dug the hole deeper still.
She has no off button.
Totally out of control.
How can the Tories attack Labour with a straight face when in 14 years to July 2024 they reduced defence spending by 22%,hollowed out all Services, recruitment, procurement.
To compound this they let Armed Forces Housing to rot, allowed veterans to rot.
Never in British history has so much wilful damage been done to our Armed Forces and Global reputation by so few.
These disastrous policies will take a decade to correct.
The Tories are shameful and treacherous on this issue.
If Badenoch had one slither or decency backbone contrition or respect she would apologise and apologise daily.
Replying to yourself now
Your invective would have more salience if you didn't want Tel Aviv flattened along with US oilfields and called out Iran ot slaughtering 40,000 of their own citizens
It's Beirut being flattened right now, and Israel did slaughter 50,000 Palestinians.
I do not argue that and both Netanyahu and Hamas are pure evil
However, Iran slaughted 40,000 of their own citizens for wanting to protest
This is how things escalate. I have heard the figure 30,000 but you are ther first to make it 40,000. Apparently it was less than 10,000 (but that isn't something to shout about) I strogly suggest you to read the Oborne piece. You might get a better perspective without having your prejudices tampererd with in any way.
The Ayatollah was an evil murderous bastard. In the interest of BBC style balance do we know Bibi's body count?
I am slightly surprised to see the Greens still below the LibDems. If I were to guess what an election would result in, if held today, I would probably knock 2 points off the LibDems and add them to the Greens.
I'd knock 5 off the Greens and add it to Labour.
Vote Green, Get Farage has to be the message from Labour.
Didn’t work out too well in G&D but I think you’re right
The main point on which Starmer and Badenoch publicly disagreed was on whether we should have allowed the USA the use of UK bases when asked. Starmer appears internally to have taken the same 'deranged, warmongering, X-brained' view as Badenoch on this, but was outvoted by the cabinet.
In any event, UK bases were still attacked, and our ability to defend our own territory, as well as to assist countries we are supposed to be close to (the Gulf States and the Europeans, most notably Cyprus) has been shown to be inadequate, which - needless to say - appears to have damaged our diplomatic reputation among those countries - a blunder for a Prime Minister who prides himself on his foreign policy acumen. This is where the opposition needs to focus its criticism - not on whether we should have supported a conflict that was happening anyway, but whether we have responded well to the fallout.
Kemi is on completely the wrong side of public opinion.
Her comments this morning have dug the hole deeper still.
She has no off button.
Totally out of control.
How can the Tories attack Labour with a straight face when in 14 years to July 2024 they reduced defence spending by 22%,hollowed out all Services, recruitment, procurement.
To compound this they let Armed Forces Housing to rot, allowed veterans to rot.
Never in British history has so much wilful damage been done to our Armed Forces and Global reputation by so few.
These disastrous policies will take a decade to correct.
The Tories are shameful and treacherous on this issue.
If Badenoch had one slither or decency backbone contrition or respect she would apologise and apologise daily.
Replying to yourself now
Your invective would have more salience if you didn't want Tel Aviv flattened along with US oilfields and called out Iran ot slaughtering 40,000 of their own citizens
It's Beirut being flattened right now, and Israel did slaughter 50,000 Palestinians.
I do not argue that and both Netanyahu and Hamas are pure evil
However, Iran slaughted 40,000 of their own citizens for wanting to protest
This is how things escalate. I have heard the figure 30,000 but you are ther first to make it 40,000. Apparently it was less than 10,000 (but that isn't something to shout about) I strogly suggest you to read the Oborne piece. You might get a better perspective without having your prejudices tampererd with in any way.
The Ayatollah was an evil murderous bastard. In the interest of BBC style balance do we know Bibi's body count?
The main point on which Starmer and Badenoch publicly disagreed was on whether we should have allowed the USA the use of UK bases when asked. Starmer appears internally to have taken the same 'deranged, warmongering, X-brained' view as Badenoch on this, but was outvoted by the cabinet.
In any event, UK bases were still attacked, and our ability to defend our own territory, as well as to assist countries we are supposed to be close to (the Gulf States and the Europeans, most notably Cyprus) has been shown to be inadequate, which - needless to say - appears to have damaged our diplomatic reputation among those countries - a blunder for a Prime Minister who prides himself on his foreign policy acumen. This is where the opposition needs to focus its criticism - not on whether we should have supported a conflict that was happening anyway, but whether we have responded well to the fallout.
Kemi is on completely the wrong side of public opinion.
Her comments this morning have dug the hole deeper still.
She has no off button.
Totally out of control.
How can the Tories attack Labour with a straight face when in 14 years to July 2024 they reduced defence spending by 22%,hollowed out all Services, recruitment, procurement.
To compound this they let Armed Forces Housing to rot, allowed veterans to rot.
Never in British history has so much wilful damage been done to our Armed Forces and Global reputation by so few.
These disastrous policies will take a decade to correct.
The Tories are shameful and treacherous on this issue.
If Badenoch had one slither or decency backbone contrition or respect she would apologise and apologise daily.
Replying to yourself now
Your invective would have more salience if you didn't want Tel Aviv flattened along with US oilfields and called out Iran ot slaughtering 40,000 of their own citizens
It's Beirut being flattened right now, and Israel did slaughter 50,000 Palestinians.
I do not argue that and both Netanyahu and Hamas are pure evil
However, Iran slaughted 40,000 of their own citizens for wanting to protest
This is how things escalate. I have heard the figure 30,000 but you are ther first to make it 40,000. Apparently it was less than 10,000 (but that isn't something to shout about) I strogly suggest you to read the Oborne piece. You might get a better perspective without having your prejudices tampererd with in any way.
The Ayatollah was an evil murderous bastard. In the interest of BBC style balance do we know Bibi's body count?
On a like-for-like basis of unarmed civilians murdered in cold blood without provocation?
AFAIK it is zero. If you know otherwise, I would be curious.
For starters 80,000 civilians, about half of whom women and children. We can add the bombings in Lebanon, Iraq and Iran. Although my question was how many deaths has he been responsible for over the last 40 years.
80,000 casualties was the total, there is no breakdown on civilians versus non-civilians in that figure.
And that is not murdered in cold blood without provocation, it is casualties in war. A war with a damned big provocation.
War has casualties, including civilian casualties. Cold blooded murder is something entirely different.
What Iran has done, which Israel has not, is the latter.
Fundamental problem is all the models used by British state (economic model, energy model) are deterministic.
They don't take into account the value of options or sovereign capability.
They essentially bake in globalist assumptions (migration is a positive, Britain will always be able to get goods/commodities at affordable price, history has ended).
These models are hard wired into legislation and unaccountable bodies (such as the OBR and CCC).
It's one of the reasons it is so hard to get policies like fracking/migration cuts/defence projects through, you are fighting these projections.
We need to start from scratch. We should be basing policy on what Britain needs to thrive in all scenarios - not just the globalist utopian one.
I don't even know where to start with this.
Every single one of those things was perfectly within the competence of parliament to implement. Sometimes you just need to accept you haven't won the argument.
'A prison inmate has been charged with the murder of Soham killer Ian Huntley, police have said.
Anthony Russell, 43, will appear at Newton Aycliffe Magistrates' Court via video link on Wednesday, a spokesman for Durham Constabulary said.' Though given Russell is already serving a whole life order not really any sentence they can add further https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvg8ll4l7d9o
In a way it’s a little surprising that this doesn’t happen more often.
If you put a group of the worst scumbags in the country in one place, those who are never getting out, they have little to lose by going for each other.
Russell committed three murders, one of which was preceded by rape, in 2020. One more murder makes no difference to him.
Stick 200 of the worst rats in a mega high security prison
Ease solitary and offer the last one standing a pardon.
Rinse and repeat
Ease overcrowding
Doesn't sound very civilised to me.
What's civil about mass murder, rape, child abuse.
2% a poor result for Restore, the Greens get a bounce post Gorton but Polanski would certainly have hoped for more than a 3% increase and still 5th behind the LDs.
As Farage and Jenrick look like going wobby on Iran, Kemi will hope her continued send the RAF to bomb the Ayatollahs and Iranian regime to bits line can get the Tories back up to 20%+ and gain some of the 57% of Reform voters who Yougov has supporting the US strikes on Iran
Gorton & Denton is a very unrepresentative constituency of the country as a whole. That's why doing well there doesn't mean the Greens go beyond 13% in the polls.
The worst the strategy can do is so devastate Iran with endless aerial bombardments that it becomes ungovernable for anyone. That would be a disaster of incalculable proportions.
Published on day Hegseth says air attack will be biggest yet.
Perhaps but there are plenty on here who have the view an anarchic Iran is preferable for the Iranian people than a theocratic Iran.
I understand the logic but I'm far from convinced - regime change isn't just about changing FROM what you currently have but it is also about changing TO something else.
The Iraq experience should caution against the assumption the Iranians will accept any old Tom, Dick or Reza dished up by Washington - they may want, for example, to be a socialist republic but the key part it should be their decision and all an outside force can or should do is maintain order and infrastructure until those actions are taken (hopefully freely and fairly via some form of election).
'A prison inmate has been charged with the murder of Soham killer Ian Huntley, police have said.
Anthony Russell, 43, will appear at Newton Aycliffe Magistrates' Court via video link on Wednesday, a spokesman for Durham Constabulary said.' Though given Russell is already serving a whole life order not really any sentence they can add further https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvg8ll4l7d9o
In a way it’s a little surprising that this doesn’t happen more often.
If you put a group of the worst scumbags in the country in one place, those who are never getting out, they have little to lose by going for each other.
Russell committed three murders, one of which was preceded by rape, in 2020. One more murder makes no difference to him.
Stick 200 of the worst rats in a mega high security prison
Ease solitary and offer the last one standing a pardon.
Rinse and repeat
Ease overcrowding
Doesn't sound very civilised to me.
What's civil about mass murder, rape, child abuse.
Haven't they lost the right to civility
Which is why it’s a credit to the British State that they still treat people as humans, even when the scumbags have abdicated themselves from society.
It's more humane to execute someone than to lock them up with someone who will bash their skull in.
The state should never, ever be given the power to kill as punishment for crime. They are neither competent nor trustworthy enough to have that power.
Fundamental problem is all the models used by British state (economic model, energy model) are deterministic.
They don't take into account the value of options or sovereign capability.
They essentially bake in globalist assumptions (migration is a positive, Britain will always be able to get goods/commodities at affordable price, history has ended).
These models are hard wired into legislation and unaccountable bodies (such as the OBR and CCC).
It's one of the reasons it is so hard to get policies like fracking/migration cuts/defence projects through, you are fighting these projections.
We need to start from scratch. We should be basing policy on what Britain needs to thrive in all scenarios - not just the globalist utopian one.
I don't even know where to start with this.
She does have at least half a point. I was listening to a IFS (so hardly right wing extremist) podcast, and they noted that the OBR's migration modeling works roughly as follows: Take projected number of immigrants, calculate their projected incomes, calculate tax due, add to projected government tax receipts. All projected costs of this immigration are assumed to already be included in the government's spending plans, thus no adjustment is made for these costs.
Now, in a "steady state" sort of a way, this kind of works - if departmental spending has the correct amount in to cover the cost of immigration, one has to include the additional tax generated from immigration somewhere.
However, it means that plugging in different numbers of immigrants into the OBR model is meaningless, as it changes the projected tax take, but not the projected costs. This pretty much bakes into the forecasting model a presumption that lots of immigration is double plus good, and low immigration is very bad.
Obviously, it tells us nothing at-all about if migration is actually good news for the exchequer, but it means the treasury definitely wants lots of it anyway...
Latest craic from the MAGAs on the slaughtered Iranian schoolgirls is that the Ukrainians sold the Tomahawk that killed them to the Iranians. You couldn't make it up! Well, unless you're a MAGA obviously.
The main point on which Starmer and Badenoch publicly disagreed was on whether we should have allowed the USA the use of UK bases when asked. Starmer appears internally to have taken the same 'deranged, warmongering, X-brained' view as Badenoch on this, but was outvoted by the cabinet.
In any event, UK bases were still attacked, and our ability to defend our own territory, as well as to assist countries we are supposed to be close to (the Gulf States and the Europeans, most notably Cyprus) has been shown to be inadequate, which - needless to say - appears to have damaged our diplomatic reputation among those countries - a blunder for a Prime Minister who prides himself on his foreign policy acumen. This is where the opposition needs to focus its criticism - not on whether we should have supported a conflict that was happening anyway, but whether we have responded well to the fallout.
Kemi is on completely the wrong side of public opinion.
Her comments this morning have dug the hole deeper still.
She has no off button.
Totally out of control.
How can the Tories attack Labour with a straight face when in 14 years to July 2024 they reduced defence spending by 22%,hollowed out all Services, recruitment, procurement.
To compound this they let Armed Forces Housing to rot, allowed veterans to rot.
Never in British history has so much wilful damage been done to our Armed Forces and Global reputation by so few.
These disastrous policies will take a decade to correct.
The Tories are shameful and treacherous on this issue.
If Badenoch had one slither or decency backbone contrition or respect she would apologise and apologise daily.
Replying to yourself now
Your invective would have more salience if you didn't want Tel Aviv flattened along with US oilfields and called out Iran ot slaughtering 40,000 of their own citizens
It's Beirut being flattened right now, and Israel did slaughter 50,000 Palestinians.
I do not argue that and both Netanyahu and Hamas are pure evil
However, Iran slaughted 40,000 of their own citizens for wanting to protest
This is how things escalate. I have heard the figure 30,000 but you are ther first to make it 40,000. Apparently it was less than 10,000 (but that isn't something to shout about) I strogly suggest you to read the Oborne piece. You might get a better perspective without having your prejudices tampererd with in any way.
The Ayatollah was an evil murderous bastard. In the interest of BBC style balance do we know Bibi's body count?
On a like-for-like basis of unarmed civilians murdered in cold blood without provocation?
AFAIK it is zero. If you know otherwise, I would be curious.
For starters 80,000 civilians, about half of whom women and children. We can add the bombings in Lebanon, Iraq and Iran. Although my question was how many deaths has he been responsible for over the last 40 years.
80,000 casualties was the total, there is no breakdown on civilians versus non-civilians in that figure.
And that is not murdered in cold blood without provocation, it is casualties in war. A war with a damned big provocation.
War has casualties, including civilian casualties. Cold blooded murder is something entirely different.
What Iran has done, which Israel has not, is the latter.
No, what Israel has done has also often been cold blooded murder. They and you might pretend otherwise but that is the truth.
The main point on which Starmer and Badenoch publicly disagreed was on whether we should have allowed the USA the use of UK bases when asked. Starmer appears internally to have taken the same 'deranged, warmongering, X-brained' view as Badenoch on this, but was outvoted by the cabinet.
In any event, UK bases were still attacked, and our ability to defend our own territory, as well as to assist countries we are supposed to be close to (the Gulf States and the Europeans, most notably Cyprus) has been shown to be inadequate, which - needless to say - appears to have damaged our diplomatic reputation among those countries - a blunder for a Prime Minister who prides himself on his foreign policy acumen. This is where the opposition needs to focus its criticism - not on whether we should have supported a conflict that was happening anyway, but whether we have responded well to the fallout.
Kemi is on completely the wrong side of public opinion.
Her comments this morning have dug the hole deeper still.
She has no off button.
Totally out of control.
How can the Tories attack Labour with a straight face when in 14 years to July 2024 they reduced defence spending by 22%,hollowed out all Services, recruitment, procurement.
To compound this they let Armed Forces Housing to rot, allowed veterans to rot.
Never in British history has so much wilful damage been done to our Armed Forces and Global reputation by so few.
These disastrous policies will take a decade to correct.
The Tories are shameful and treacherous on this issue.
If Badenoch had one slither or decency backbone contrition or respect she would apologise and apologise daily.
Replying to yourself now
Your invective would have more salience if you didn't want Tel Aviv flattened along with US oilfields and called out Iran ot slaughtering 40,000 of their own citizens
It's Beirut being flattened right now, and Israel did slaughter 50,000 Palestinians.
I do not argue that and both Netanyahu and Hamas are pure evil
However, Iran slaughted 40,000 of their own citizens for wanting to protest
This is how things escalate. I have heard the figure 30,000 but you are ther first to make it 40,000. Apparently it was less than 10,000 (but that isn't something to shout about) I strogly suggest you to read the Oborne piece. You might get a better perspective without having your prejudices tampererd with in any way.
The Ayatollah was an evil murderous bastard. In the interest of BBC style balance do we know Bibi's body count?
On a like-for-like basis of unarmed civilians murdered in cold blood without provocation?
AFAIK it is zero. If you know otherwise, I would be curious.
For starters 80,000 civilians, about half of whom women and children. We can add the bombings in Lebanon, Iraq and Iran. Although my question was how many deaths has he been responsible for over the last 40 years.
80,000 casualties was the total, there is no breakdown on civilians versus non-civilians in that figure.
And that is not murdered in cold blood without provocation, it is casualties in war. A war with a damned big provocation.
War has casualties, including civilian casualties. Cold blooded murder is something entirely different.
What Iran has done, which Israel has not, is the latter.
Evil is evil, be that Khamani evil or Bibi evil. Grading evil on a sliding scale is a difficult dark art.
'A prison inmate has been charged with the murder of Soham killer Ian Huntley, police have said.
Anthony Russell, 43, will appear at Newton Aycliffe Magistrates' Court via video link on Wednesday, a spokesman for Durham Constabulary said.' Though given Russell is already serving a whole life order not really any sentence they can add further https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvg8ll4l7d9o
In a way it’s a little surprising that this doesn’t happen more often.
If you put a group of the worst scumbags in the country in one place, those who are never getting out, they have little to lose by going for each other.
Russell committed three murders, one of which was preceded by rape, in 2020. One more murder makes no difference to him.
Stick 200 of the worst rats in a mega high security prison
Ease solitary and offer the last one standing a pardon.
Rinse and repeat
Ease overcrowding
Doesn't sound very civilised to me.
What's civil about mass murder, rape, child abuse.
Haven't they lost the right to civility
Which is why it’s a credit to the British State that they still treat people as humans, even when the scumbags have abdicated themselves from society.
It's more humane to execute someone than to lock them up with someone who will bash their skull in.
The state should never, ever be given the power to kill as punishment for crime. They are neither competent nor trustworthy enough to have that power.
100% agreed.
If a prisoner wishes to terminate their own life, I would allow them to do so (as I would for all adults) - that is their choice and their prerogative over their life.
The state must never, ever, under any circumstances have the right to kill prisoners in cold blood.
Killing people as a last resort in the cross-fire eg the Police killing an active shooter or terrorist, is something completely different again.
The main point on which Starmer and Badenoch publicly disagreed was on whether we should have allowed the USA the use of UK bases when asked. Starmer appears internally to have taken the same 'deranged, warmongering, X-brained' view as Badenoch on this, but was outvoted by the cabinet.
In any event, UK bases were still attacked, and our ability to defend our own territory, as well as to assist countries we are supposed to be close to (the Gulf States and the Europeans, most notably Cyprus) has been shown to be inadequate, which - needless to say - appears to have damaged our diplomatic reputation among those countries - a blunder for a Prime Minister who prides himself on his foreign policy acumen. This is where the opposition needs to focus its criticism - not on whether we should have supported a conflict that was happening anyway, but whether we have responded well to the fallout.
The main point on which Starmer and Badenoch publicly disagreed was on whether we should have allowed the USA the use of UK bases when asked. Starmer appears internally to have taken the same 'deranged, warmongering, X-brained' view as Badenoch on this, but was outvoted by the cabinet.
In any event, UK bases were still attacked, and our ability to defend our own territory, as well as to assist countries we are supposed to be close to (the Gulf States and the Europeans, most notably Cyprus) has been shown to be inadequate, which - needless to say - appears to have damaged our diplomatic reputation among those countries - a blunder for a Prime Minister who prides himself on his foreign policy acumen. This is where the opposition needs to focus its criticism - not on whether we should have supported a conflict that was happening anyway, but whether we have responded well to the fallout.
Kemi is on completely the wrong side of public opinion.
Her comments this morning have dug the hole deeper still.
She has no off button.
Totally out of control.
How can the Tories attack Labour with a straight face when in 14 years to July 2024 they reduced defence spending by 22%,hollowed out all Services, recruitment, procurement.
To compound this they let Armed Forces Housing to rot, allowed veterans to rot.
Never in British history has so much wilful damage been done to our Armed Forces and Global reputation by so few.
These disastrous policies will take a decade to correct.
The Tories are shameful and treacherous on this issue.
If Badenoch had one slither or decency backbone contrition or respect she would apologise and apologise daily.
Replying to yourself now
Your invective would have more salience if you didn't want Tel Aviv flattened along with US oilfields and called out Iran ot slaughtering 40,000 of their own citizens
It's Beirut being flattened right now, and Israel did slaughter 50,000 Palestinians.
I do not argue that and both Netanyahu and Hamas are pure evil
However, Iran slaughted 40,000 of their own citizens for wanting to protest
This is how things escalate. I have heard the figure 30,000 but you are ther first to make it 40,000. Apparently it was less than 10,000 (but that isn't something to shout about) I strogly suggest you to read the Oborne piece. You might get a better perspective without having your prejudices tampererd with in any way.
The Ayatollah was an evil murderous bastard. In the interest of BBC style balance do we know Bibi's body count?
On a like-for-like basis of unarmed civilians murdered in cold blood without provocation?
AFAIK it is zero. If you know otherwise, I would be curious.
For starters 80,000 civilians, about half of whom women and children. We can add the bombings in Lebanon, Iraq and Iran. Although my question was how many deaths has he been responsible for over the last 40 years.
80,000 casualties was the total, there is no breakdown on civilians versus non-civilians in that figure.
And that is not murdered in cold blood without provocation, it is casualties in war. A war with a damned big provocation.
War has casualties, including civilian casualties. Cold blooded murder is something entirely different.
What Iran has done, which Israel has not, is the latter.
No, what Israel has done has also often been cold blooded murder. They and you might pretend otherwise but that is the truth.
How?
It was war. People die in war.
Our invasion of Iraq led to up to a million deaths by some estimates. Gaza was 8% of that figure.
How was our invasion just war while theirs with 8% of the casualties of ours was cold blooded murder?
The main point on which Starmer and Badenoch publicly disagreed was on whether we should have allowed the USA the use of UK bases when asked. Starmer appears internally to have taken the same 'deranged, warmongering, X-brained' view as Badenoch on this, but was outvoted by the cabinet.
In any event, UK bases were still attacked, and our ability to defend our own territory, as well as to assist countries we are supposed to be close to (the Gulf States and the Europeans, most notably Cyprus) has been shown to be inadequate, which - needless to say - appears to have damaged our diplomatic reputation among those countries - a blunder for a Prime Minister who prides himself on his foreign policy acumen. This is where the opposition needs to focus its criticism - not on whether we should have supported a conflict that was happening anyway, but whether we have responded well to the fallout.
Kemi is on completely the wrong side of public opinion.
Her comments this morning have dug the hole deeper still.
She has no off button.
Totally out of control.
How can the Tories attack Labour with a straight face when in 14 years to July 2024 they reduced defence spending by 22%,hollowed out all Services, recruitment, procurement.
To compound this they let Armed Forces Housing to rot, allowed veterans to rot.
Never in British history has so much wilful damage been done to our Armed Forces and Global reputation by so few.
These disastrous policies will take a decade to correct.
The Tories are shameful and treacherous on this issue.
If Badenoch had one slither or decency backbone contrition or respect she would apologise and apologise daily.
Replying to yourself now
Your invective would have more salience if you didn't want Tel Aviv flattened along with US oilfields and called out Iran ot slaughtering 40,000 of their own citizens
It's Beirut being flattened right now, and Israel did slaughter 50,000 Palestinians.
I do not argue that and both Netanyahu and Hamas are pure evil
However, Iran slaughted 40,000 of their own citizens for wanting to protest
This is how things escalate. I have heard the figure 30,000 but you are ther first to make it 40,000. Apparently it was less than 10,000 (but that isn't something to shout about) I strogly suggest you to read the Oborne piece. You might get a better perspective without having your prejudices tampererd with in any way.
The Ayatollah was an evil murderous bastard. In the interest of BBC style balance do we know Bibi's body count?
On a like-for-like basis of unarmed civilians murdered in cold blood without provocation?
AFAIK it is zero. If you know otherwise, I would be curious.
For starters 80,000 civilians, about half of whom women and children. We can add the bombings in Lebanon, Iraq and Iran. Although my question was how many deaths has he been responsible for over the last 40 years.
80,000 casualties was the total, there is no breakdown on civilians versus non-civilians in that figure.
And that is not murdered in cold blood without provocation, it is casualties in war. A war with a damned big provocation.
War has casualties, including civilian casualties. Cold blooded murder is something entirely different.
What Iran has done, which Israel has not, is the latter.
Evil is evil, be that Khamani evil or Bibi evil. Grading evil on a sliding scale is a difficult dark art.
Khamenei is evil, Bibi is corrupt (so criminal) but not evil.
Fundamental problem is all the models used by British state (economic model, energy model) are deterministic.
They don't take into account the value of options or sovereign capability.
They essentially bake in globalist assumptions (migration is a positive, Britain will always be able to get goods/commodities at affordable price, history has ended).
These models are hard wired into legislation and unaccountable bodies (such as the OBR and CCC).
It's one of the reasons it is so hard to get policies like fracking/migration cuts/defence projects through, you are fighting these projections.
We need to start from scratch. We should be basing policy on what Britain needs to thrive in all scenarios - not just the globalist utopian one.
I don't even know where to start with this.
She does have at least half a point. I was listening to a IFS (so hardly right wing extremist) podcast, and they noted that the OBR's migration modeling works roughly as follows: Take projected number of immigrants, calculate their projected incomes, calculate tax due, add to projected government tax receipts. All projected costs of this immigration are assumed to already be included in the government's spending plans, thus no adjustment is made for these costs.
Now, in a "steady state" sort of a way, this kind of works - if departmental spending has the correct amount in to cover the cost of immigration, one has to include the additional tax generated from immigration somewhere.
However, it means that plugging in different numbers of immigrants into the OBR model is meaningless, as it changes the projected tax take, but not the projected costs. This pretty much bakes into the forecasting model a presumption that lots of immigration is double plus good, and low immigration is very bad.
Obviously, it tells us nothing at-all about if migration is actually good news for the exchequer, but it means the treasury definitely wants lots of it anyway...
Here's the square that needs circling (so to speak). Got my analogy wrong.
Here's the circle you need to square:
We're all living longer. We have a birthrate well below replacement. The cost of looking after the old falls on those of working age. And a 80 year old has something like 10x the costs to the NHS of a 30 year old.
The greater the number of retirees relative to the number of workers, the more of each worker's output needs to be spent on retirees.
'A prison inmate has been charged with the murder of Soham killer Ian Huntley, police have said.
Anthony Russell, 43, will appear at Newton Aycliffe Magistrates' Court via video link on Wednesday, a spokesman for Durham Constabulary said.' Though given Russell is already serving a whole life order not really any sentence they can add further https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvg8ll4l7d9o
In a way it’s a little surprising that this doesn’t happen more often.
If you put a group of the worst scumbags in the country in one place, those who are never getting out, they have little to lose by going for each other.
Russell committed three murders, one of which was preceded by rape, in 2020. One more murder makes no difference to him.
Stick 200 of the worst rats in a mega high security prison
Ease solitary and offer the last one standing a pardon.
Rinse and repeat
Ease overcrowding
Doesn't sound very civilised to me.
What's civil about mass murder, rape, child abuse.
Haven't they lost the right to civility
Which is why it’s a credit to the British State that they still treat people as humans, even when the scumbags have abdicated themselves from society.
It's more humane to execute someone than to lock them up with someone who will bash their skull in.
The state should never, ever be given the power to kill as punishment for crime. They are neither competent nor trustworthy enough to have that power.
How we will all throw our hair back in exasperation when 30 years after Home Secretary Tice executes Lucy Letby evidence comes to light that David Davis was right and she was fitted up.
The main point on which Starmer and Badenoch publicly disagreed was on whether we should have allowed the USA the use of UK bases when asked. Starmer appears internally to have taken the same 'deranged, warmongering, X-brained' view as Badenoch on this, but was outvoted by the cabinet.
In any event, UK bases were still attacked, and our ability to defend our own territory, as well as to assist countries we are supposed to be close to (the Gulf States and the Europeans, most notably Cyprus) has been shown to be inadequate, which - needless to say - appears to have damaged our diplomatic reputation among those countries - a blunder for a Prime Minister who prides himself on his foreign policy acumen. This is where the opposition needs to focus its criticism - not on whether we should have supported a conflict that was happening anyway, but whether we have responded well to the fallout.
Kemi is on completely the wrong side of public opinion.
Her comments this morning have dug the hole deeper still.
She has no off button.
Totally out of control.
How can the Tories attack Labour with a straight face when in 14 years to July 2024 they reduced defence spending by 22%,hollowed out all Services, recruitment, procurement.
To compound this they let Armed Forces Housing to rot, allowed veterans to rot.
Never in British history has so much wilful damage been done to our Armed Forces and Global reputation by so few.
These disastrous policies will take a decade to correct.
The Tories are shameful and treacherous on this issue.
If Badenoch had one slither or decency backbone contrition or respect she would apologise and apologise daily.
Replying to yourself now
Your invective would have more salience if you didn't want Tel Aviv flattened along with US oilfields and called out Iran ot slaughtering 40,000 of their own citizens
It's Beirut being flattened right now, and Israel did slaughter 50,000 Palestinians.
I do not argue that and both Netanyahu and Hamas are pure evil
However, Iran slaughted 40,000 of their own citizens for wanting to protest
This is how things escalate. I have heard the figure 30,000 but you are ther first to make it 40,000. Apparently it was less than 10,000 (but that isn't something to shout about) I strogly suggest you to read the Oborne piece. You might get a better perspective without having your prejudices tampererd with in any way.
The Ayatollah was an evil murderous bastard. In the interest of BBC style balance do we know Bibi's body count?
On a like-for-like basis of unarmed civilians murdered in cold blood without provocation?
AFAIK it is zero. If you know otherwise, I would be curious.
For starters 80,000 civilians, about half of whom women and children. We can add the bombings in Lebanon, Iraq and Iran. Although my question was how many deaths has he been responsible for over the last 40 years.
80,000 casualties was the total, there is no breakdown on civilians versus non-civilians in that figure.
And that is not murdered in cold blood without provocation, it is casualties in war. A war with a damned big provocation.
War has casualties, including civilian casualties. Cold blooded murder is something entirely different.
What Iran has done, which Israel has not, is the latter.
No, what Israel has done has also often been cold blooded murder. They and you might pretend otherwise but that is the truth.
How?
It was war. People die in war.
Our invasion of Iraq led to up to a million deaths by some estimates. Gaza was 8% of that figure.
How was our invasion just war while theirs with 8% of the casualties of ours was cold blooded murder?
The direct and deliberate targeting of civilians. That is murder. Indeed in Iraq the US prosecuted soldiers for exactly that. Not happened in Israel of course because it has been Government policy.
Fundamental problem is all the models used by British state (economic model, energy model) are deterministic.
They don't take into account the value of options or sovereign capability.
They essentially bake in globalist assumptions (migration is a positive, Britain will always be able to get goods/commodities at affordable price, history has ended).
These models are hard wired into legislation and unaccountable bodies (such as the OBR and CCC).
It's one of the reasons it is so hard to get policies like fracking/migration cuts/defence projects through, you are fighting these projections.
We need to start from scratch. We should be basing policy on what Britain needs to thrive in all scenarios - not just the globalist utopian one.
I don't even know where to start with this.
She does have at least half a point. I was listening to a IFS (so hardly right wing extremist) podcast, and they noted that the OBR's migration modeling works roughly as follows: Take projected number of immigrants, calculate their projected incomes, calculate tax due, add to projected government tax receipts. All projected costs of this immigration are assumed to already be included in the government's spending plans, thus no adjustment is made for these costs.
Now, in a "steady state" sort of a way, this kind of works - if departmental spending has the correct amount in to cover the cost of immigration, one has to include the additional tax generated from immigration somewhere.
However, it means that plugging in different numbers of immigrants into the OBR model is meaningless, as it changes the projected tax take, but not the projected costs. This pretty much bakes into the forecasting model a presumption that lots of immigration is double plus good, and low immigration is very bad.
Obviously, it tells us nothing at-all about if migration is actually good news for the exchequer, but it means the treasury definitely wants lots of it anyway...
Here's the square that needs circling (so to speak).
We're all living longer. We have a birthrate well below replacement. The cost of looking after the old falls on those of working age. And a 80 year old has something like 10x the costs to the NHS of a 30 year old.
The greater the number of retirees relative to the number of workers, the more of each worker's output needs to be spent on retirees.
We need to square that with productivity, which can be encouraged via highly skilled migration as countries like Switzerland seek.
We do not square that with unproductive minimum wage jobs.
The main point on which Starmer and Badenoch publicly disagreed was on whether we should have allowed the USA the use of UK bases when asked. Starmer appears internally to have taken the same 'deranged, warmongering, X-brained' view as Badenoch on this, but was outvoted by the cabinet.
In any event, UK bases were still attacked, and our ability to defend our own territory, as well as to assist countries we are supposed to be close to (the Gulf States and the Europeans, most notably Cyprus) has been shown to be inadequate, which - needless to say - appears to have damaged our diplomatic reputation among those countries - a blunder for a Prime Minister who prides himself on his foreign policy acumen. This is where the opposition needs to focus its criticism - not on whether we should have supported a conflict that was happening anyway, but whether we have responded well to the fallout.
Kemi is on completely the wrong side of public opinion.
Her comments this morning have dug the hole deeper still.
She has no off button.
Totally out of control.
How can the Tories attack Labour with a straight face when in 14 years to July 2024 they reduced defence spending by 22%,hollowed out all Services, recruitment, procurement.
To compound this they let Armed Forces Housing to rot, allowed veterans to rot.
Never in British history has so much wilful damage been done to our Armed Forces and Global reputation by so few.
These disastrous policies will take a decade to correct.
The Tories are shameful and treacherous on this issue.
If Badenoch had one slither or decency backbone contrition or respect she would apologise and apologise daily.
Replying to yourself now
Your invective would have more salience if you didn't want Tel Aviv flattened along with US oilfields and called out Iran ot slaughtering 40,000 of their own citizens
It's Beirut being flattened right now, and Israel did slaughter 50,000 Palestinians.
I do not argue that and both Netanyahu and Hamas are pure evil
However, Iran slaughted 40,000 of their own citizens for wanting to protest
This is how things escalate. I have heard the figure 30,000 but you are ther first to make it 40,000. Apparently it was less than 10,000 (but that isn't something to shout about) I strogly suggest you to read the Oborne piece. You might get a better perspective without having your prejudices tampererd with in any way.
The Ayatollah was an evil murderous bastard. In the interest of BBC style balance do we know Bibi's body count?
On a like-for-like basis of unarmed civilians murdered in cold blood without provocation?
AFAIK it is zero. If you know otherwise, I would be curious.
For starters 80,000 civilians, about half of whom women and children. We can add the bombings in Lebanon, Iraq and Iran. Although my question was how many deaths has he been responsible for over the last 40 years.
80,000 casualties was the total, there is no breakdown on civilians versus non-civilians in that figure.
And that is not murdered in cold blood without provocation, it is casualties in war. A war with a damned big provocation.
War has casualties, including civilian casualties. Cold blooded murder is something entirely different.
What Iran has done, which Israel has not, is the latter.
No, what Israel has done has also often been cold blooded murder. They and you might pretend otherwise but that is the truth.
How?
It was war. People die in war.
Our invasion of Iraq led to up to a million deaths by some estimates. Gaza was 8% of that figure.
How was our invasion just war while theirs with 8% of the casualties of ours was cold blooded murder?
The direct and deliberate targeting of civilians. That is murder. Indeed in Iraq the US prosecuted soldiers for exactly that. Not happened in Israel of course because it has been Government policy.
What evidence is there of direct and deliberate targeting of civilians?
As opposed to civilians dying in conflict?
Simply saying "this is the death toll" is not evidence.
Fundamental problem is all the models used by British state (economic model, energy model) are deterministic.
They don't take into account the value of options or sovereign capability.
They essentially bake in globalist assumptions (migration is a positive, Britain will always be able to get goods/commodities at affordable price, history has ended).
These models are hard wired into legislation and unaccountable bodies (such as the OBR and CCC).
It's one of the reasons it is so hard to get policies like fracking/migration cuts/defence projects through, you are fighting these projections.
We need to start from scratch. We should be basing policy on what Britain needs to thrive in all scenarios - not just the globalist utopian one.
I don't even know where to start with this.
She does have at least half a point. I was listening to a IFS (so hardly right wing extremist) podcast, and they noted that the OBR's migration modeling works roughly as follows: Take projected number of immigrants, calculate their projected incomes, calculate tax due, add to projected government tax receipts. All projected costs of this immigration are assumed to already be included in the government's spending plans, thus no adjustment is made for these costs.
Now, in a "steady state" sort of a way, this kind of works - if departmental spending has the correct amount in to cover the cost of immigration, one has to include the additional tax generated from immigration somewhere.
However, it means that plugging in different numbers of immigrants into the OBR model is meaningless, as it changes the projected tax take, but not the projected costs. This pretty much bakes into the forecasting model a presumption that lots of immigration is double plus good, and low immigration is very bad.
Obviously, it tells us nothing at-all about if migration is actually good news for the exchequer, but it means the treasury definitely wants lots of it anyway...
Here's the square that needs circling (so to speak).
We're all living longer. We have a birthrate well below replacement. The cost of looking after the old falls on those of working age. And a 80 year old has something like 10x the costs to the NHS of a 30 year old.
The greater the number of retirees relative to the number of workers, the more of each worker's output needs to be spent on retirees.
We need to square that with productivity, which can be encouraged via highly skilled migration as countries like Switzerland seek.
We do not square that with unproductive minimum wage jobs.
Switzerland and Singapore imports lots of minimum wage people too: the cooks in restaurants and the nannies and the cleaners, they're not Swiss nationals.
What they do a really good job in doing is making sure that their own citizens have better skills.
Fundamental problem is all the models used by British state (economic model, energy model) are deterministic.
They don't take into account the value of options or sovereign capability.
They essentially bake in globalist assumptions (migration is a positive, Britain will always be able to get goods/commodities at affordable price, history has ended).
These models are hard wired into legislation and unaccountable bodies (such as the OBR and CCC).
It's one of the reasons it is so hard to get policies like fracking/migration cuts/defence projects through, you are fighting these projections.
We need to start from scratch. We should be basing policy on what Britain needs to thrive in all scenarios - not just the globalist utopian one.
I don't even know where to start with this.
She does have at least half a point. I was listening to a IFS (so hardly right wing extremist) podcast, and they noted that the OBR's migration modeling works roughly as follows: Take projected number of immigrants, calculate their projected incomes, calculate tax due, add to projected government tax receipts. All projected costs of this immigration are assumed to already be included in the government's spending plans, thus no adjustment is made for these costs.
Now, in a "steady state" sort of a way, this kind of works - if departmental spending has the correct amount in to cover the cost of immigration, one has to include the additional tax generated from immigration somewhere.
However, it means that plugging in different numbers of immigrants into the OBR model is meaningless, as it changes the projected tax take, but not the projected costs. This pretty much bakes into the forecasting model a presumption that lots of immigration is double plus good, and low immigration is very bad.
Obviously, it tells us nothing at-all about if migration is actually good news for the exchequer, but it means the treasury definitely wants lots of it anyway...
Here's the square that needs circling (so to speak).
We're all living longer. We have a birthrate well below replacement. The cost of looking after the old falls on those of working age. And a 80 year old has something like 10x the costs to the NHS of a 30 year old.
The greater the number of retirees relative to the number of workers, the more of each worker's output needs to be spent on retirees.
They should start teaching this from age 5, because however many times adults get told this the vast majority have a complete aversion to understanding a simple truth that is key to understanding the political, economic and social structure of our country.
The only way regime change in Iran is going to happen is if 95% of the Republican Guards are taken out of service. So it'll be interesting to see if the USA/Israel try to make that happen.
Fundamental problem is all the models used by British state (economic model, energy model) are deterministic.
They don't take into account the value of options or sovereign capability.
They essentially bake in globalist assumptions (migration is a positive, Britain will always be able to get goods/commodities at affordable price, history has ended).
These models are hard wired into legislation and unaccountable bodies (such as the OBR and CCC).
It's one of the reasons it is so hard to get policies like fracking/migration cuts/defence projects through, you are fighting these projections.
We need to start from scratch. We should be basing policy on what Britain needs to thrive in all scenarios - not just the globalist utopian one.
I don't even know where to start with this.
She does have at least half a point. I was listening to a IFS (so hardly right wing extremist) podcast, and they noted that the OBR's migration modeling works roughly as follows: Take projected number of immigrants, calculate their projected incomes, calculate tax due, add to projected government tax receipts. All projected costs of this immigration are assumed to already be included in the government's spending plans, thus no adjustment is made for these costs.
Now, in a "steady state" sort of a way, this kind of works - if departmental spending has the correct amount in to cover the cost of immigration, one has to include the additional tax generated from immigration somewhere.
However, it means that plugging in different numbers of immigrants into the OBR model is meaningless, as it changes the projected tax take, but not the projected costs. This pretty much bakes into the forecasting model a presumption that lots of immigration is double plus good, and low immigration is very bad.
Obviously, it tells us nothing at-all about if migration is actually good news for the exchequer, but it means the treasury definitely wants lots of it anyway...
Here's the square that needs circling (so to speak).
We're all living longer. We have a birthrate well below replacement. The cost of looking after the old falls on those of working age. And a 80 year old has something like 10x the costs to the NHS of a 30 year old.
The greater the number of retirees relative to the number of workers, the more of each worker's output needs to be spent on retirees.
We need to square that with productivity, which can be encouraged via highly skilled migration as countries like Switzerland seek.
We do not square that with unproductive minimum wage jobs.
Switzerland and Singapore imports lots of minimum wage people too: the cooks in restaurants and the nannies and the cleaners, they're not Swiss nationals.
What they do a really good job in doing is making sure that their own citizens have better skills.
Switzerland offers no visa pathways AFAIK for minimum wage people.
And Singapore only does so with pathways that never lead to citizenship AFAIK.
Sarah Montague really is out on her own. She is still trying to blame Starmer for the failure of the special relationship.
She is talking to Sir John Scarlett and is trying to put words in his mouth. When he declines her assertions she threatens to curtail the interview because of time constraints.
Fundamental problem is all the models used by British state (economic model, energy model) are deterministic.
They don't take into account the value of options or sovereign capability.
They essentially bake in globalist assumptions (migration is a positive, Britain will always be able to get goods/commodities at affordable price, history has ended).
These models are hard wired into legislation and unaccountable bodies (such as the OBR and CCC).
It's one of the reasons it is so hard to get policies like fracking/migration cuts/defence projects through, you are fighting these projections.
We need to start from scratch. We should be basing policy on what Britain needs to thrive in all scenarios - not just the globalist utopian one.
I don't even know where to start with this.
She does have at least half a point. I was listening to a IFS (so hardly right wing extremist) podcast, and they noted that the OBR's migration modeling works roughly as follows: Take projected number of immigrants, calculate their projected incomes, calculate tax due, add to projected government tax receipts. All projected costs of this immigration are assumed to already be included in the government's spending plans, thus no adjustment is made for these costs.
Now, in a "steady state" sort of a way, this kind of works - if departmental spending has the correct amount in to cover the cost of immigration, one has to include the additional tax generated from immigration somewhere.
However, it means that plugging in different numbers of immigrants into the OBR model is meaningless, as it changes the projected tax take, but not the projected costs. This pretty much bakes into the forecasting model a presumption that lots of immigration is double plus good, and low immigration is very bad.
Obviously, it tells us nothing at-all about if migration is actually good news for the exchequer, but it means the treasury definitely wants lots of it anyway...
Here's the square that needs circling (so to speak). Got my analogy wrong.
Here's the circle you need to square:
We're all living longer. We have a birthrate well below replacement. The cost of looking after the old falls on those of working age. And a 80 year old has something like 10x the costs to the NHS of a 30 year old.
The greater the number of retirees relative to the number of workers, the more of each worker's output needs to be spent on retirees.
I hold my hand up that since turning 80 I have had a life saving operation, and on going care from 3 consultants and my GP which my wife and family will be forever grateful
Mind you I have paid a huge amount of tax as well !!!
The main point on which Starmer and Badenoch publicly disagreed was on whether we should have allowed the USA the use of UK bases when asked. Starmer appears internally to have taken the same 'deranged, warmongering, X-brained' view as Badenoch on this, but was outvoted by the cabinet.
In any event, UK bases were still attacked, and our ability to defend our own territory, as well as to assist countries we are supposed to be close to (the Gulf States and the Europeans, most notably Cyprus) has been shown to be inadequate, which - needless to say - appears to have damaged our diplomatic reputation among those countries - a blunder for a Prime Minister who prides himself on his foreign policy acumen. This is where the opposition needs to focus its criticism - not on whether we should have supported a conflict that was happening anyway, but whether we have responded well to the fallout.
Kemi is on completely the wrong side of public opinion.
Her comments this morning have dug the hole deeper still.
She has no off button.
Totally out of control.
How can the Tories attack Labour with a straight face when in 14 years to July 2024 they reduced defence spending by 22%,hollowed out all Services, recruitment, procurement.
To compound this they let Armed Forces Housing to rot, allowed veterans to rot.
Never in British history has so much wilful damage been done to our Armed Forces and Global reputation by so few.
These disastrous policies will take a decade to correct.
The Tories are shameful and treacherous on this issue.
If Badenoch had one slither or decency backbone contrition or respect she would apologise and apologise daily.
Replying to yourself now
Your invective would have more salience if you didn't want Tel Aviv flattened along with US oilfields and called out Iran ot slaughtering 40,000 of their own citizens
It's Beirut being flattened right now, and Israel did slaughter 50,000 Palestinians.
I do not argue that and both Netanyahu and Hamas are pure evil
However, Iran slaughted 40,000 of their own citizens for wanting to protest
This is how things escalate. I have heard the figure 30,000 but you are ther first to make it 40,000. Apparently it was less than 10,000 (but that isn't something to shout about) I strogly suggest you to read the Oborne piece. You might get a better perspective without having your prejudices tampererd with in any way.
The Ayatollah was an evil murderous bastard. In the interest of BBC style balance do we know Bibi's body count?
On a like-for-like basis of unarmed civilians murdered in cold blood without provocation?
AFAIK it is zero. If you know otherwise, I would be curious.
For starters 80,000 civilians, about half of whom women and children. We can add the bombings in Lebanon, Iraq and Iran. Although my question was how many deaths has he been responsible for over the last 40 years.
80,000 casualties was the total, there is no breakdown on civilians versus non-civilians in that figure.
And that is not murdered in cold blood without provocation, it is casualties in war. A war with a damned big provocation.
War has casualties, including civilian casualties. Cold blooded murder is something entirely different.
What Iran has done, which Israel has not, is the latter.
Evil is evil, be that Khamani evil or Bibi evil. Grading evil on a sliding scale is a difficult dark art.
Khamenei is evil, Bibi is corrupt (so criminal) but not evil.
The main point on which Starmer and Badenoch publicly disagreed was on whether we should have allowed the USA the use of UK bases when asked. Starmer appears internally to have taken the same 'deranged, warmongering, X-brained' view as Badenoch on this, but was outvoted by the cabinet.
In any event, UK bases were still attacked, and our ability to defend our own territory, as well as to assist countries we are supposed to be close to (the Gulf States and the Europeans, most notably Cyprus) has been shown to be inadequate, which - needless to say - appears to have damaged our diplomatic reputation among those countries - a blunder for a Prime Minister who prides himself on his foreign policy acumen. This is where the opposition needs to focus its criticism - not on whether we should have supported a conflict that was happening anyway, but whether we have responded well to the fallout.
Kemi is on completely the wrong side of public opinion.
Her comments this morning have dug the hole deeper still.
She has no off button.
Totally out of control.
How can the Tories attack Labour with a straight face when in 14 years to July 2024 they reduced defence spending by 22%,hollowed out all Services, recruitment, procurement.
To compound this they let Armed Forces Housing to rot, allowed veterans to rot.
Never in British history has so much wilful damage been done to our Armed Forces and Global reputation by so few.
These disastrous policies will take a decade to correct.
The Tories are shameful and treacherous on this issue.
If Badenoch had one slither or decency backbone contrition or respect she would apologise and apologise daily.
Replying to yourself now
Your invective would have more salience if you didn't want Tel Aviv flattened along with US oilfields and called out Iran ot slaughtering 40,000 of their own citizens
It's Beirut being flattened right now, and Israel did slaughter 50,000 Palestinians.
I do not argue that and both Netanyahu and Hamas are pure evil
However, Iran slaughted 40,000 of their own citizens for wanting to protest
This is how things escalate. I have heard the figure 30,000 but you are ther first to make it 40,000. Apparently it was less than 10,000 (but that isn't something to shout about) I strogly suggest you to read the Oborne piece. You might get a better perspective without having your prejudices tampererd with in any way.
The Ayatollah was an evil murderous bastard. In the interest of BBC style balance do we know Bibi's body count?
On a like-for-like basis of unarmed civilians murdered in cold blood without provocation?
AFAIK it is zero. If you know otherwise, I would be curious.
For starters 80,000 civilians, about half of whom women and children. We can add the bombings in Lebanon, Iraq and Iran. Although my question was how many deaths has he been responsible for over the last 40 years.
80,000 casualties was the total, there is no breakdown on civilians versus non-civilians in that figure.
And that is not murdered in cold blood without provocation, it is casualties in war. A war with a damned big provocation.
War has casualties, including civilian casualties. Cold blooded murder is something entirely different.
What Iran has done, which Israel has not, is the latter.
No, what Israel has done has also often been cold blooded murder. They and you might pretend otherwise but that is the truth.
How?
It was war. People die in war.
Our invasion of Iraq led to up to a million deaths by some estimates. Gaza was 8% of that figure.
How was our invasion just war while theirs with 8% of the casualties of ours was cold blooded murder?
The direct and deliberate targeting of civilians. That is murder. Indeed in Iraq the US prosecuted soldiers for exactly that. Not happened in Israel of course because it has been Government policy.
What evidence is there of direct and deliberate targeting of civilians?
As opposed to civilians dying in conflict?
Simply saying "this is the death toll" is not evidence.
Mossad throwing Hamas Grandees out of Doha high rise windows is targeted action.
Carpet bombing a major hospital because there might be a Hamas sniper on the roof is not appropriate targeting.
Fundamental problem is all the models used by British state (economic model, energy model) are deterministic.
They don't take into account the value of options or sovereign capability.
They essentially bake in globalist assumptions (migration is a positive, Britain will always be able to get goods/commodities at affordable price, history has ended).
These models are hard wired into legislation and unaccountable bodies (such as the OBR and CCC).
It's one of the reasons it is so hard to get policies like fracking/migration cuts/defence projects through, you are fighting these projections.
We need to start from scratch. We should be basing policy on what Britain needs to thrive in all scenarios - not just the globalist utopian one.
I don't even know where to start with this.
She does have at least half a point. I was listening to a IFS (so hardly right wing extremist) podcast, and they noted that the OBR's migration modeling works roughly as follows: Take projected number of immigrants, calculate their projected incomes, calculate tax due, add to projected government tax receipts. All projected costs of this immigration are assumed to already be included in the government's spending plans, thus no adjustment is made for these costs.
Now, in a "steady state" sort of a way, this kind of works - if departmental spending has the correct amount in to cover the cost of immigration, one has to include the additional tax generated from immigration somewhere.
However, it means that plugging in different numbers of immigrants into the OBR model is meaningless, as it changes the projected tax take, but not the projected costs. This pretty much bakes into the forecasting model a presumption that lots of immigration is double plus good, and low immigration is very bad.
Obviously, it tells us nothing at-all about if migration is actually good news for the exchequer, but it means the treasury definitely wants lots of it anyway...
Here's the square that needs circling (so to speak).
We're all living longer. We have a birthrate well below replacement. The cost of looking after the old falls on those of working age. And a 80 year old has something like 10x the costs to the NHS of a 30 year old.
The greater the number of retirees relative to the number of workers, the more of each worker's output needs to be spent on retirees.
We need to square that with productivity, which can be encouraged via highly skilled migration as countries like Switzerland seek.
We do not square that with unproductive minimum wage jobs.
Switzerland and Singapore imports lots of minimum wage people too: the cooks in restaurants and the nannies and the cleaners, they're not Swiss nationals.
What they do a really good job in doing is making sure that their own citizens have better skills.
Switzerland offers no visa pathways AFAIK for minimum wage people.
And Singapore only does so with pathways that never lead to citizenship AFAIK.
Indeed. And I've said in the past that the UK is very unusual (and basically wrong) in not having two classes of visas: immigrant and non-immigrant. My current US visa (an O-1) is a non-immigrant one, with no path to permanent residency and/or citizenship.
But that doesn't stop the fact that the Switzerland and Singapore are absolutely full of low wage, low skill immigrants. It's just that they are going home aftter five years.
---
Of course, even with non-immigrant visas, some people are going to end up staying, thanks to marriage and the like.
And Singapore does have a path to citizenship (or for an immigrant visa that in turn leads there), but it does require you to get up to the level of education that you would need for an immigrant visa. So, what you have is a fair number of people who turn up on non-immigrant visas, and then take courses at Singapore University, and then change their status.
The main point on which Starmer and Badenoch publicly disagreed was on whether we should have allowed the USA the use of UK bases when asked. Starmer appears internally to have taken the same 'deranged, warmongering, X-brained' view as Badenoch on this, but was outvoted by the cabinet.
In any event, UK bases were still attacked, and our ability to defend our own territory, as well as to assist countries we are supposed to be close to (the Gulf States and the Europeans, most notably Cyprus) has been shown to be inadequate, which - needless to say - appears to have damaged our diplomatic reputation among those countries - a blunder for a Prime Minister who prides himself on his foreign policy acumen. This is where the opposition needs to focus its criticism - not on whether we should have supported a conflict that was happening anyway, but whether we have responded well to the fallout.
Kemi is on completely the wrong side of public opinion.
Her comments this morning have dug the hole deeper still.
She has no off button.
Totally out of control.
How can the Tories attack Labour with a straight face when in 14 years to July 2024 they reduced defence spending by 22%,hollowed out all Services, recruitment, procurement.
To compound this they let Armed Forces Housing to rot, allowed veterans to rot.
Never in British history has so much wilful damage been done to our Armed Forces and Global reputation by so few.
These disastrous policies will take a decade to correct.
The Tories are shameful and treacherous on this issue.
If Badenoch had one slither or decency backbone contrition or respect she would apologise and apologise daily.
Replying to yourself now
Your invective would have more salience if you didn't want Tel Aviv flattened along with US oilfields and called out Iran ot slaughtering 40,000 of their own citizens
It's Beirut being flattened right now, and Israel did slaughter 50,000 Palestinians.
I do not argue that and both Netanyahu and Hamas are pure evil
However, Iran slaughted 40,000 of their own citizens for wanting to protest
This is how things escalate. I have heard the figure 30,000 but you are ther first to make it 40,000. Apparently it was less than 10,000 (but that isn't something to shout about) I strogly suggest you to read the Oborne piece. You might get a better perspective without having your prejudices tampererd with in any way.
The Ayatollah was an evil murderous bastard. In the interest of BBC style balance do we know Bibi's body count?
On a like-for-like basis of unarmed civilians murdered in cold blood without provocation?
AFAIK it is zero. If you know otherwise, I would be curious.
For starters 80,000 civilians, about half of whom women and children. We can add the bombings in Lebanon, Iraq and Iran. Although my question was how many deaths has he been responsible for over the last 40 years.
80,000 casualties was the total, there is no breakdown on civilians versus non-civilians in that figure.
And that is not murdered in cold blood without provocation, it is casualties in war. A war with a damned big provocation.
War has casualties, including civilian casualties. Cold blooded murder is something entirely different.
What Iran has done, which Israel has not, is the latter.
No, what Israel has done has also often been cold blooded murder. They and you might pretend otherwise but that is the truth.
How?
It was war. People die in war.
Our invasion of Iraq led to up to a million deaths by some estimates. Gaza was 8% of that figure.
How was our invasion just war while theirs with 8% of the casualties of ours was cold blooded murder?
The direct and deliberate targeting of civilians. That is murder. Indeed in Iraq the US prosecuted soldiers for exactly that. Not happened in Israel of course because it has been Government policy.
What evidence is there of direct and deliberate targeting of civilians?
As opposed to civilians dying in conflict?
Simply saying "this is the death toll" is not evidence.
Mossad throwing Hamas Grandees out of Doha high rise windows is targeted action.
Carpet bombing a major hospital because there might be a Hamas sniper on the roof is not appropriate targeting.
Is that an event that you can give a link for? The hospital story in Gaza was a really odd one - the building didn't look that big for a start.
Fundamental problem is all the models used by British state (economic model, energy model) are deterministic.
They don't take into account the value of options or sovereign capability.
They essentially bake in globalist assumptions (migration is a positive, Britain will always be able to get goods/commodities at affordable price, history has ended).
These models are hard wired into legislation and unaccountable bodies (such as the OBR and CCC).
It's one of the reasons it is so hard to get policies like fracking/migration cuts/defence projects through, you are fighting these projections.
We need to start from scratch. We should be basing policy on what Britain needs to thrive in all scenarios - not just the globalist utopian one.
I don't even know where to start with this.
She does have at least half a point. I was listening to a IFS (so hardly right wing extremist) podcast, and they noted that the OBR's migration modeling works roughly as follows: Take projected number of immigrants, calculate their projected incomes, calculate tax due, add to projected government tax receipts. All projected costs of this immigration are assumed to already be included in the government's spending plans, thus no adjustment is made for these costs.
Now, in a "steady state" sort of a way, this kind of works - if departmental spending has the correct amount in to cover the cost of immigration, one has to include the additional tax generated from immigration somewhere.
However, it means that plugging in different numbers of immigrants into the OBR model is meaningless, as it changes the projected tax take, but not the projected costs. This pretty much bakes into the forecasting model a presumption that lots of immigration is double plus good, and low immigration is very bad.
Obviously, it tells us nothing at-all about if migration is actually good news for the exchequer, but it means the treasury definitely wants lots of it anyway...
Here's the square that needs circling (so to speak).
We're all living longer. We have a birthrate well below replacement. The cost of looking after the old falls on those of working age. And a 80 year old has something like 10x the costs to the NHS of a 30 year old.
The greater the number of retirees relative to the number of workers, the more of each worker's output needs to be spent on retirees.
We need to square that with productivity, which can be encouraged via highly skilled migration as countries like Switzerland seek.
We do not square that with unproductive minimum wage jobs.
Switzerland and Singapore imports lots of minimum wage people too: the cooks in restaurants and the nannies and the cleaners, they're not Swiss nationals.
What they do a really good job in doing is making sure that their own citizens have better skills.
Switzerland offers no visa pathways AFAIK for minimum wage people.
And Singapore only does so with pathways that never lead to citizenship AFAIK.
Same as the Gulf States.
The only way you avoid a pyramid scheme is to have low-skilled employees come on limited visas, and they are required to leave the country afterwards.
Alongside the ability to actually deport overstayers.
I will never be Emirati, and neither will my nephews who were born in Dubai.
The only way regime change in Iran is going to happen is if 95% of the Republican Guards are taken out of service. So it'll be interesting to see if the USA/Israel try to make that happen.
How did cutting off the head of the Hamas Hydra pan out?
My dad is in his 80s and still works full time. But it isn't a physical job. Maybe it's time to have different retirement ages depending on the type of job you do.
Fundamental problem is all the models used by British state (economic model, energy model) are deterministic.
They don't take into account the value of options or sovereign capability.
They essentially bake in globalist assumptions (migration is a positive, Britain will always be able to get goods/commodities at affordable price, history has ended).
These models are hard wired into legislation and unaccountable bodies (such as the OBR and CCC).
It's one of the reasons it is so hard to get policies like fracking/migration cuts/defence projects through, you are fighting these projections.
We need to start from scratch. We should be basing policy on what Britain needs to thrive in all scenarios - not just the globalist utopian one.
I don't even know where to start with this.
She does have at least half a point. I was listening to a IFS (so hardly right wing extremist) podcast, and they noted that the OBR's migration modeling works roughly as follows: Take projected number of immigrants, calculate their projected incomes, calculate tax due, add to projected government tax receipts. All projected costs of this immigration are assumed to already be included in the government's spending plans, thus no adjustment is made for these costs.
Now, in a "steady state" sort of a way, this kind of works - if departmental spending has the correct amount in to cover the cost of immigration, one has to include the additional tax generated from immigration somewhere.
However, it means that plugging in different numbers of immigrants into the OBR model is meaningless, as it changes the projected tax take, but not the projected costs. This pretty much bakes into the forecasting model a presumption that lots of immigration is double plus good, and low immigration is very bad.
Obviously, it tells us nothing at-all about if migration is actually good news for the exchequer, but it means the treasury definitely wants lots of it anyway...
Here's the square that needs circling (so to speak).
We're all living longer. We have a birthrate well below replacement. The cost of looking after the old falls on those of working age. And a 80 year old has something like 10x the costs to the NHS of a 30 year old.
The greater the number of retirees relative to the number of workers, the more of each worker's output needs to be spent on retirees.
We need to square that with productivity, which can be encouraged via highly skilled migration as countries like Switzerland seek.
We do not square that with unproductive minimum wage jobs.
Switzerland and Singapore imports lots of minimum wage people too: the cooks in restaurants and the nannies and the cleaners, they're not Swiss nationals.
What they do a really good job in doing is making sure that their own citizens have better skills.
Switzerland offers no visa pathways AFAIK for minimum wage people.
And Singapore only does so with pathways that never lead to citizenship AFAIK.
My dad is in his 80s and still works full time. But it isn't a physical job. Maybe it's time to have different retirement ages depending on the type of job you do.
Significant numbers retire in their 50s nowadays, others work into their 80s, reducing to 3/4 day weeks in 50s and 60s is very common. The time has come for a graduated pension rather than an arbitrary cut off date where you get all or zero.
The main point on which Starmer and Badenoch publicly disagreed was on whether we should have allowed the USA the use of UK bases when asked. Starmer appears internally to have taken the same 'deranged, warmongering, X-brained' view as Badenoch on this, but was outvoted by the cabinet.
In any event, UK bases were still attacked, and our ability to defend our own territory, as well as to assist countries we are supposed to be close to (the Gulf States and the Europeans, most notably Cyprus) has been shown to be inadequate, which - needless to say - appears to have damaged our diplomatic reputation among those countries - a blunder for a Prime Minister who prides himself on his foreign policy acumen. This is where the opposition needs to focus its criticism - not on whether we should have supported a conflict that was happening anyway, but whether we have responded well to the fallout.
Kemi is on completely the wrong side of public opinion.
Her comments this morning have dug the hole deeper still.
She has no off button.
Totally out of control.
How can the Tories attack Labour with a straight face when in 14 years to July 2024 they reduced defence spending by 22%,hollowed out all Services, recruitment, procurement.
To compound this they let Armed Forces Housing to rot, allowed veterans to rot.
Never in British history has so much wilful damage been done to our Armed Forces and Global reputation by so few.
These disastrous policies will take a decade to correct.
The Tories are shameful and treacherous on this issue.
If Badenoch had one slither or decency backbone contrition or respect she would apologise and apologise daily.
Replying to yourself now
Your invective would have more salience if you didn't want Tel Aviv flattened along with US oilfields and called out Iran ot slaughtering 40,000 of their own citizens
It's Beirut being flattened right now, and Israel did slaughter 50,000 Palestinians.
I do not argue that and both Netanyahu and Hamas are pure evil
However, Iran slaughted 40,000 of their own citizens for wanting to protest
This is how things escalate. I have heard the figure 30,000 but you are ther first to make it 40,000. Apparently it was less than 10,000 (but that isn't something to shout about) I strogly suggest you to read the Oborne piece. You might get a better perspective without having your prejudices tampererd with in any way.
The Ayatollah was an evil murderous bastard. In the interest of BBC style balance do we know Bibi's body count?
On a like-for-like basis of unarmed civilians murdered in cold blood without provocation?
AFAIK it is zero. If you know otherwise, I would be curious.
For starters 80,000 civilians, about half of whom women and children. We can add the bombings in Lebanon, Iraq and Iran. Although my question was how many deaths has he been responsible for over the last 40 years.
80,000 casualties was the total, there is no breakdown on civilians versus non-civilians in that figure.
And that is not murdered in cold blood without provocation, it is casualties in war. A war with a damned big provocation.
War has casualties, including civilian casualties. Cold blooded murder is something entirely different.
What Iran has done, which Israel has not, is the latter.
No, what Israel has done has also often been cold blooded murder. They and you might pretend otherwise but that is the truth.
How?
It was war. People die in war.
Our invasion of Iraq led to up to a million deaths by some estimates. Gaza was 8% of that figure.
How was our invasion just war while theirs with 8% of the casualties of ours was cold blooded murder?
The direct and deliberate targeting of civilians. That is murder. Indeed in Iraq the US prosecuted soldiers for exactly that. Not happened in Israel of course because it has been Government policy.
What evidence is there of direct and deliberate targeting of civilians?
As opposed to civilians dying in conflict?
Simply saying "this is the death toll" is not evidence.
Mossad throwing Hamas Grandees out of Doha high rise windows is targeted action.
Carpet bombing a major hospital because there might be a Hamas sniper on the roof is not appropriate targeting.
Is that an event that you can give a link for? The hospital story in Gaza was a really odd one - the building didn't look that big for a start.
You've tumbled my game. I am busted! No one except Hamas Grandees died in Gaza.
Fundamental problem is all the models used by British state (economic model, energy model) are deterministic.
They don't take into account the value of options or sovereign capability.
They essentially bake in globalist assumptions (migration is a positive, Britain will always be able to get goods/commodities at affordable price, history has ended).
These models are hard wired into legislation and unaccountable bodies (such as the OBR and CCC).
It's one of the reasons it is so hard to get policies like fracking/migration cuts/defence projects through, you are fighting these projections.
We need to start from scratch. We should be basing policy on what Britain needs to thrive in all scenarios - not just the globalist utopian one.
I don't even know where to start with this.
She does have at least half a point. I was listening to a IFS (so hardly right wing extremist) podcast, and they noted that the OBR's migration modeling works roughly as follows: Take projected number of immigrants, calculate their projected incomes, calculate tax due, add to projected government tax receipts. All projected costs of this immigration are assumed to already be included in the government's spending plans, thus no adjustment is made for these costs.
Now, in a "steady state" sort of a way, this kind of works - if departmental spending has the correct amount in to cover the cost of immigration, one has to include the additional tax generated from immigration somewhere.
However, it means that plugging in different numbers of immigrants into the OBR model is meaningless, as it changes the projected tax take, but not the projected costs. This pretty much bakes into the forecasting model a presumption that lots of immigration is double plus good, and low immigration is very bad.
Obviously, it tells us nothing at-all about if migration is actually good news for the exchequer, but it means the treasury definitely wants lots of it anyway...
The OBR does more detailed in house modelling on the revenue side, that is certainly true, and relies more on HMT estimates for spending I think. That makes sense, the revenue side is simpler and easier to model and effects come through more quickly. For the near to medium term forecasts in the EFO this approach is probably broadly fine, and probably captures well the near term position that higher net migration is a positive for the public finances in the first few years. The OBR also does long term modelling which focuses on spending as well as revenue. They make the case that it is largely the age structure not the size of the population which has the bigger affect on fiscal sustainability.
Fundamental problem is all the models used by British state (economic model, energy model) are deterministic.
They don't take into account the value of options or sovereign capability.
They essentially bake in globalist assumptions (migration is a positive, Britain will always be able to get goods/commodities at affordable price, history has ended).
These models are hard wired into legislation and unaccountable bodies (such as the OBR and CCC).
It's one of the reasons it is so hard to get policies like fracking/migration cuts/defence projects through, you are fighting these projections.
We need to start from scratch. We should be basing policy on what Britain needs to thrive in all scenarios - not just the globalist utopian one.
Who needs models when you can go with the vibes? My vibes actually. Lovely gold standard lettuce-tested vibes.
Tricky. What to do? Should the Conservatives back Reform on this one or side with the Libtards?
Finch said: "Those trying to remove me have offered no alternative council plan and no credible answer to what replaces the work already under way."
He added: "Residents can see what this is. It is not a serious alternative administration.
"It is an anti-Reform bloc held together by opposition to this administration and the change Warwickshire voted for."
If the Liberal Democrats, Greens, Labour and Restore Britain councillors support the motion of no confidence as expected, Finch's future will be in the hands of the Conservative group on the council.
If they support the motion or abstain, Reform would not have the numbers necessary to keep Finch in post.
My dad is in his 80s and still works full time. But it isn't a physical job. Maybe it's time to have different retirement ages depending on the type of job you do.
Yes, the retirement age needs to rise.
That doesn't -unfortunately- stop the cost of healthcare continuing to rise, but it at least partially ameliorates the issue.
Fundamental problem is all the models used by British state (economic model, energy model) are deterministic.
They don't take into account the value of options or sovereign capability.
They essentially bake in globalist assumptions (migration is a positive, Britain will always be able to get goods/commodities at affordable price, history has ended).
These models are hard wired into legislation and unaccountable bodies (such as the OBR and CCC).
It's one of the reasons it is so hard to get policies like fracking/migration cuts/defence projects through, you are fighting these projections.
We need to start from scratch. We should be basing policy on what Britain needs to thrive in all scenarios - not just the globalist utopian one.
I don't even know where to start with this.
She does have at least half a point. I was listening to a IFS (so hardly right wing extremist) podcast, and they noted that the OBR's migration modeling works roughly as follows: Take projected number of immigrants, calculate their projected incomes, calculate tax due, add to projected government tax receipts. All projected costs of this immigration are assumed to already be included in the government's spending plans, thus no adjustment is made for these costs.
Now, in a "steady state" sort of a way, this kind of works - if departmental spending has the correct amount in to cover the cost of immigration, one has to include the additional tax generated from immigration somewhere.
However, it means that plugging in different numbers of immigrants into the OBR model is meaningless, as it changes the projected tax take, but not the projected costs. This pretty much bakes into the forecasting model a presumption that lots of immigration is double plus good, and low immigration is very bad.
Obviously, it tells us nothing at-all about if migration is actually good news for the exchequer, but it means the treasury definitely wants lots of it anyway...
Here's the square that needs circling (so to speak).
We're all living longer. We have a birthrate well below replacement. The cost of looking after the old falls on those of working age. And a 80 year old has something like 10x the costs to the NHS of a 30 year old.
The greater the number of retirees relative to the number of workers, the more of each worker's output needs to be spent on retirees.
We need to square that with productivity, which can be encouraged via highly skilled migration as countries like Switzerland seek.
We do not square that with unproductive minimum wage jobs.
Switzerland and Singapore imports lots of minimum wage people too: the cooks in restaurants and the nannies and the cleaners, they're not Swiss nationals.
What they do a really good job in doing is making sure that their own citizens have better skills.
For some reason Britain is seeking to attract high-skilled immigrants so that the British can flip their burgers and clean their toilets, instead of going to university and gaining skills.
The immigration/education debate in Britain is weird.
'A prison inmate has been charged with the murder of Soham killer Ian Huntley, police have said.
Anthony Russell, 43, will appear at Newton Aycliffe Magistrates' Court via video link on Wednesday, a spokesman for Durham Constabulary said.' Though given Russell is already serving a whole life order not really any sentence they can add further https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvg8ll4l7d9o
In a way it’s a little surprising that this doesn’t happen more often.
If you put a group of the worst scumbags in the country in one place, those who are never getting out, they have little to lose by going for each other.
Russell committed three murders, one of which was preceded by rape, in 2020. One more murder makes no difference to him.
Stick 200 of the worst rats in a mega high security prison
Ease solitary and offer the last one standing a pardon.
Rinse and repeat
Ease overcrowding
Doesn't sound very civilised to me.
What's civil about mass murder, rape, child abuse.
Haven't they lost the right to civility
Which is why it’s a credit to the British State that they still treat people as humans, even when the scumbags have abdicated themselves from society.
It's more humane to execute someone than to lock them up with someone who will bash their skull in.
The point about the Fred Dostoevsky quote on prisons and civilisation isn’t that warehousing criminals nicely is good for them. It’s that it’s good for us.
Fundamental problem is all the models used by British state (economic model, energy model) are deterministic.
They don't take into account the value of options or sovereign capability.
They essentially bake in globalist assumptions (migration is a positive, Britain will always be able to get goods/commodities at affordable price, history has ended).
These models are hard wired into legislation and unaccountable bodies (such as the OBR and CCC).
It's one of the reasons it is so hard to get policies like fracking/migration cuts/defence projects through, you are fighting these projections.
We need to start from scratch. We should be basing policy on what Britain needs to thrive in all scenarios - not just the globalist utopian one.
I don't even know where to start with this.
She does have at least half a point. I was listening to a IFS (so hardly right wing extremist) podcast, and they noted that the OBR's migration modeling works roughly as follows: Take projected number of immigrants, calculate their projected incomes, calculate tax due, add to projected government tax receipts. All projected costs of this immigration are assumed to already be included in the government's spending plans, thus no adjustment is made for these costs.
Now, in a "steady state" sort of a way, this kind of works - if departmental spending has the correct amount in to cover the cost of immigration, one has to include the additional tax generated from immigration somewhere.
However, it means that plugging in different numbers of immigrants into the OBR model is meaningless, as it changes the projected tax take, but not the projected costs. This pretty much bakes into the forecasting model a presumption that lots of immigration is double plus good, and low immigration is very bad.
Obviously, it tells us nothing at-all about if migration is actually good news for the exchequer, but it means the treasury definitely wants lots of it anyway...
Here's the square that needs circling (so to speak).
We're all living longer. We have a birthrate well below replacement. The cost of looking after the old falls on those of working age. And a 80 year old has something like 10x the costs to the NHS of a 30 year old.
The greater the number of retirees relative to the number of workers, the more of each worker's output needs to be spent on retirees.
We need to square that with productivity, which can be encouraged via highly skilled migration as countries like Switzerland seek.
We do not square that with unproductive minimum wage jobs.
Switzerland and Singapore imports lots of minimum wage people too: the cooks in restaurants and the nannies and the cleaners, they're not Swiss nationals.
What they do a really good job in doing is making sure that their own citizens have better skills.
Switzerland offers no visa pathways AFAIK for minimum wage people.
And Singapore only does so with pathways that never lead to citizenship AFAIK.
Indeed. And I've said in the past that the UK is very unusual (and basically wrong) in not having two classes of visas: immigrant and non-immigrant. My current US visa (an O-1) is a non-immigrant one, with no path to permanent residency and/or citizenship.
But that doesn't stop the fact that the Switzerland and Singapore are absolutely full of low wage, low skill immigrants. It's just that they are going home aftter five years.
---
Of course, even with non-immigrant visas, some people are going to end up staying, thanks to marriage and the like.
And Singapore does have a path to citizenship (or for an immigrant visa that in turn leads there), but it does require you to get up to the level of education that you would need for an immigrant visa. So, what you have is a fair number of people who turn up on non-immigrant visas, and then take courses at Singapore University, and then change their status.
Immigrants also cannot claim benefits or use public services in Singapore, they have to support themselves
The worst the strategy can do is so devastate Iran with endless aerial bombardments that it becomes ungovernable for anyone. That would be a disaster of incalculable proportions.
Published on day Hegseth says air attack will be biggest yet.
Perhaps but there are plenty on here who have the view an anarchic Iran is preferable for the Iranian people than a theocratic Iran.
I understand the logic but I'm far from convinced - regime change isn't just about changing FROM what you currently have but it is also about changing TO something else.
The Iraq experience should caution against the assumption the Iranians will accept any old Tom, Dick or Reza dished up by Washington - they may want, for example, to be a socialist republic but the key part it should be their decision and all an outside force can or should do is maintain order and infrastructure until those actions are taken (hopefully freely and fairly via some form of election).
The Iraq war came very close to replacing the Baath Party with ISIS rule. Regime change is not always for the better as the Yazidi might agree.
From the news reports: Henry Morgan, 61, of Shepherd's Bush, was overtaking a bus when he hit the pedestrian on Uxbridge Road on 28 February 2025. The man, aged in his 60s, later died from a head injury.
Westminster Magistrates' Court heard Morgan had faced a criminal investigation over the death but it was found that he was not to blame for the crash.
Morgan admitted driving the vehicle without a licence or insurance, using an illegally enhanced e-bike, and failing to wear appropriate protective headgear. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ce82z6xnen5o
I have limited information, but I would suggest that that means the pedestrian stepped out late enough to prevent any avoiding action being taken - that is less than perhaps 1.5s before. We have no indication what speed he was doing.
The charges look correct - charged for not having the appropriate gear, insurance etc for a moped.
But how do we hold Lord Blencathra to account for misleading the Lords and defaming a member of the public from his platform in the Lords? And never mind his attack on the CPS.
If anyone has seen any more detailed reports, I'd be interested.
The main point on which Starmer and Badenoch publicly disagreed was on whether we should have allowed the USA the use of UK bases when asked. Starmer appears internally to have taken the same 'deranged, warmongering, X-brained' view as Badenoch on this, but was outvoted by the cabinet.
In any event, UK bases were still attacked, and our ability to defend our own territory, as well as to assist countries we are supposed to be close to (the Gulf States and the Europeans, most notably Cyprus) has been shown to be inadequate, which - needless to say - appears to have damaged our diplomatic reputation among those countries - a blunder for a Prime Minister who prides himself on his foreign policy acumen. This is where the opposition needs to focus its criticism - not on whether we should have supported a conflict that was happening anyway, but whether we have responded well to the fallout.
Kemi is on completely the wrong side of public opinion.
Her comments this morning have dug the hole deeper still.
She has no off button.
Totally out of control.
How can the Tories attack Labour with a straight face when in 14 years to July 2024 they reduced defence spending by 22%,hollowed out all Services, recruitment, procurement.
To compound this they let Armed Forces Housing to rot, allowed veterans to rot.
Never in British history has so much wilful damage been done to our Armed Forces and Global reputation by so few.
These disastrous policies will take a decade to correct.
The Tories are shameful and treacherous on this issue.
If Badenoch had one slither or decency backbone contrition or respect she would apologise and apologise daily.
Replying to yourself now
Your invective would have more salience if you didn't want Tel Aviv flattened along with US oilfields and called out Iran ot slaughtering 40,000 of their own citizens
It's Beirut being flattened right now, and Israel did slaughter 50,000 Palestinians.
I do not argue that and both Netanyahu and Hamas are pure evil
However, Iran slaughted 40,000 of their own citizens for wanting to protest
This is how things escalate. I have heard the figure 30,000 but you are ther first to make it 40,000. Apparently it was less than 10,000 (but that isn't something to shout about) I strogly suggest you to read the Oborne piece. You might get a better perspective without having your prejudices tampererd with in any way.
The Ayatollah was an evil murderous bastard. In the interest of BBC style balance do we know Bibi's body count?
On a like-for-like basis of unarmed civilians murdered in cold blood without provocation?
AFAIK it is zero. If you know otherwise, I would be curious.
For starters 80,000 civilians, about half of whom women and children. We can add the bombings in Lebanon, Iraq and Iran. Although my question was how many deaths has he been responsible for over the last 40 years.
80,000 casualties was the total, there is no breakdown on civilians versus non-civilians in that figure.
And that is not murdered in cold blood without provocation, it is casualties in war. A war with a damned big provocation.
War has casualties, including civilian casualties. Cold blooded murder is something entirely different.
What Iran has done, which Israel has not, is the latter.
No, what Israel has done has also often been cold blooded murder. They and you might pretend otherwise but that is the truth.
How?
It was war. People die in war.
Our invasion of Iraq led to up to a million deaths by some estimates. Gaza was 8% of that figure.
How was our invasion just war while theirs with 8% of the casualties of ours was cold blooded murder?
The direct and deliberate targeting of civilians. That is murder. Indeed in Iraq the US prosecuted soldiers for exactly that. Not happened in Israel of course because it has been Government policy.
What evidence is there of direct and deliberate targeting of civilians?
As opposed to civilians dying in conflict?
Simply saying "this is the death toll" is not evidence.
Mossad throwing Hamas Grandees out of Doha high rise windows is targeted action.
Carpet bombing a major hospital because there might be a Hamas sniper on the roof is not appropriate targeting.
Is that an event that you can give a link for? The hospital story in Gaza was a really odd one - the building didn't look that big for a start.
You've tumbled my game. I am busted! No one except Hamas Grandees died in Gaza.
I didn't say that. I am questioning the 'carpet bombing a major hospital' as I don't recall this.
My dad is in his 80s and still works full time. But it isn't a physical job. Maybe it's time to have different retirement ages depending on the type of job you do.
Yes, the retirement age needs to rise.
That doesn't -unfortunately- stop the cost of healthcare continuing to rise, but it at least partially ameliorates the issue.
In 1947 average male life expectancy was 64 years and 7 months. Retirement age was 65 (someone had a sense of humour) Today my life expectancy is 80 and my current retirement age is 67.
I doubt very much if I will retire at 67 but regardless, the current situation is untenable.
I have worked with people offshore who were in their early 70s.
We should raise retirement age to 70 with exceptions for physically demanding jobs. This is already the plan in Denmark.
My dad is in his 80s and still works full time. But it isn't a physical job. Maybe it's time to have different retirement ages depending on the type of job you do.
Yes, the retirement age needs to rise.
That doesn't -unfortunately- stop the cost of healthcare continuing to rise, but it at least partially ameliorates the issue.
Don't disagree but would suggest a variable age - related to the type of work and possibly to a health assessment if practicable.
Fundamental problem is all the models used by British state (economic model, energy model) are deterministic.
They don't take into account the value of options or sovereign capability.
They essentially bake in globalist assumptions (migration is a positive, Britain will always be able to get goods/commodities at affordable price, history has ended).
These models are hard wired into legislation and unaccountable bodies (such as the OBR and CCC).
It's one of the reasons it is so hard to get policies like fracking/migration cuts/defence projects through, you are fighting these projections.
We need to start from scratch. We should be basing policy on what Britain needs to thrive in all scenarios - not just the globalist utopian one.
I don't even know where to start with this.
The funny thing is that there is a kernel of truth in there somewhere.
The infamous Treasury Model that says that any investment outside London is a looser, for example.
Many of the models are childishly linear. And many of the policies are reductionist and take no account of the inevitable effects.
For example - politicians handed the right to grant visas to companies. In effect.
Then were astonished when companies started selling visas. In a trade that escalated in criminality.
My dad is in his 80s and still works full time. But it isn't a physical job. Maybe it's time to have different retirement ages depending on the type of job you do.
Yes, the retirement age needs to rise.
That doesn't -unfortunately- stop the cost of healthcare continuing to rise, but it at least partially ameliorates the issue.
Trouble is that there are two bits to the retirement age, and they both affect the state's finances.
There's the age where people get a state pension, and yes, the government can control that.
The trickier one is when well-paid people conclude that they have enough money to live off, thank you very much, and they are frankly bored and tired of work, certainly full-time work. If you have a house you have paid for and no kids to support, it's remarkable how much less money you need. (Those pension people who say that a comfortable retirement costs £44k a year are talking out of their bottoms, aren't they?) I don't see how you stop them, or even that the government should try. But it's still work not being done, taxes not being paid and the dependency ratio being tilted unhelpfully.
Fundamental problem is all the models used by British state (economic model, energy model) are deterministic.
They don't take into account the value of options or sovereign capability.
They essentially bake in globalist assumptions (migration is a positive, Britain will always be able to get goods/commodities at affordable price, history has ended).
These models are hard wired into legislation and unaccountable bodies (such as the OBR and CCC).
It's one of the reasons it is so hard to get policies like fracking/migration cuts/defence projects through, you are fighting these projections.
We need to start from scratch. We should be basing policy on what Britain needs to thrive in all scenarios - not just the globalist utopian one.
I don't even know where to start with this.
She does have at least half a point. I was listening to a IFS (so hardly right wing extremist) podcast, and they noted that the OBR's migration modeling works roughly as follows: Take projected number of immigrants, calculate their projected incomes, calculate tax due, add to projected government tax receipts. All projected costs of this immigration are assumed to already be included in the government's spending plans, thus no adjustment is made for these costs.
Now, in a "steady state" sort of a way, this kind of works - if departmental spending has the correct amount in to cover the cost of immigration, one has to include the additional tax generated from immigration somewhere.
However, it means that plugging in different numbers of immigrants into the OBR model is meaningless, as it changes the projected tax take, but not the projected costs. This pretty much bakes into the forecasting model a presumption that lots of immigration is double plus good, and low immigration is very bad.
Obviously, it tells us nothing at-all about if migration is actually good news for the exchequer, but it means the treasury definitely wants lots of it anyway...
Here's the square that needs circling (so to speak).
We're all living longer. We have a birthrate well below replacement. The cost of looking after the old falls on those of working age. And a 80 year old has something like 10x the costs to the NHS of a 30 year old.
The greater the number of retirees relative to the number of workers, the more of each worker's output needs to be spent on retirees.
We need to square that with productivity, which can be encouraged via highly skilled migration as countries like Switzerland seek.
We do not square that with unproductive minimum wage jobs.
Switzerland and Singapore imports lots of minimum wage people too: the cooks in restaurants and the nannies and the cleaners, they're not Swiss nationals.
What they do a really good job in doing is making sure that their own citizens have better skills.
Switzerland offers no visa pathways AFAIK for minimum wage people.
And Singapore only does so with pathways that never lead to citizenship AFAIK.
Indeed. And I've said in the past that the UK is very unusual (and basically wrong) in not having two classes of visas: immigrant and non-immigrant. My current US visa (an O-1) is a non-immigrant one, with no path to permanent residency and/or citizenship.
But that doesn't stop the fact that the Switzerland and Singapore are absolutely full of low wage, low skill immigrants. It's just that they are going home aftter five years.
---
Of course, even with non-immigrant visas, some people are going to end up staying, thanks to marriage and the like.
And Singapore does have a path to citizenship (or for an immigrant visa that in turn leads there), but it does require you to get up to the level of education that you would need for an immigrant visa. So, what you have is a fair number of people who turn up on non-immigrant visas, and then take courses at Singapore University, and then change their status.
Immigrants also cannot claim benefits or use public services in Singapore, they have to support themselves
My wife's passport/visa when she first came to the UK contained the line: No Recourse To Public Services
The main point on which Starmer and Badenoch publicly disagreed was on whether we should have allowed the USA the use of UK bases when asked. Starmer appears internally to have taken the same 'deranged, warmongering, X-brained' view as Badenoch on this, but was outvoted by the cabinet.
In any event, UK bases were still attacked, and our ability to defend our own territory, as well as to assist countries we are supposed to be close to (the Gulf States and the Europeans, most notably Cyprus) has been shown to be inadequate, which - needless to say - appears to have damaged our diplomatic reputation among those countries - a blunder for a Prime Minister who prides himself on his foreign policy acumen. This is where the opposition needs to focus its criticism - not on whether we should have supported a conflict that was happening anyway, but whether we have responded well to the fallout.
Kemi is on completely the wrong side of public opinion.
Her comments this morning have dug the hole deeper still.
She has no off button.
Totally out of control.
How can the Tories attack Labour with a straight face when in 14 years to July 2024 they reduced defence spending by 22%,hollowed out all Services, recruitment, procurement.
To compound this they let Armed Forces Housing to rot, allowed veterans to rot.
Never in British history has so much wilful damage been done to our Armed Forces and Global reputation by so few.
These disastrous policies will take a decade to correct.
The Tories are shameful and treacherous on this issue.
If Badenoch had one slither or decency backbone contrition or respect she would apologise and apologise daily.
Replying to yourself now
Your invective would have more salience if you didn't want Tel Aviv flattened along with US oilfields and called out Iran ot slaughtering 40,000 of their own citizens
It's Beirut being flattened right now, and Israel did slaughter 50,000 Palestinians.
I do not argue that and both Netanyahu and Hamas are pure evil
However, Iran slaughted 40,000 of their own citizens for wanting to protest
This is how things escalate. I have heard the figure 30,000 but you are ther first to make it 40,000. Apparently it was less than 10,000 (but that isn't something to shout about) I strogly suggest you to read the Oborne piece. You might get a better perspective without having your prejudices tampererd with in any way.
The Ayatollah was an evil murderous bastard. In the interest of BBC style balance do we know Bibi's body count?
On a like-for-like basis of unarmed civilians murdered in cold blood without provocation?
AFAIK it is zero. If you know otherwise, I would be curious.
For starters 80,000 civilians, about half of whom women and children. We can add the bombings in Lebanon, Iraq and Iran. Although my question was how many deaths has he been responsible for over the last 40 years.
80,000 casualties was the total, there is no breakdown on civilians versus non-civilians in that figure.
And that is not murdered in cold blood without provocation, it is casualties in war. A war with a damned big provocation.
War has casualties, including civilian casualties. Cold blooded murder is something entirely different.
What Iran has done, which Israel has not, is the latter.
No, what Israel has done has also often been cold blooded murder. They and you might pretend otherwise but that is the truth.
How?
It was war. People die in war.
Our invasion of Iraq led to up to a million deaths by some estimates. Gaza was 8% of that figure.
How was our invasion just war while theirs with 8% of the casualties of ours was cold blooded murder?
Fundamental problem is all the models used by British state (economic model, energy model) are deterministic.
They don't take into account the value of options or sovereign capability.
They essentially bake in globalist assumptions (migration is a positive, Britain will always be able to get goods/commodities at affordable price, history has ended).
These models are hard wired into legislation and unaccountable bodies (such as the OBR and CCC).
It's one of the reasons it is so hard to get policies like fracking/migration cuts/defence projects through, you are fighting these projections.
We need to start from scratch. We should be basing policy on what Britain needs to thrive in all scenarios - not just the globalist utopian one.
I don't even know where to start with this.
She does have at least half a point. I was listening to a IFS (so hardly right wing extremist) podcast, and they noted that the OBR's migration modeling works roughly as follows: Take projected number of immigrants, calculate their projected incomes, calculate tax due, add to projected government tax receipts. All projected costs of this immigration are assumed to already be included in the government's spending plans, thus no adjustment is made for these costs.
Now, in a "steady state" sort of a way, this kind of works - if departmental spending has the correct amount in to cover the cost of immigration, one has to include the additional tax generated from immigration somewhere.
However, it means that plugging in different numbers of immigrants into the OBR model is meaningless, as it changes the projected tax take, but not the projected costs. This pretty much bakes into the forecasting model a presumption that lots of immigration is double plus good, and low immigration is very bad.
Obviously, it tells us nothing at-all about if migration is actually good news for the exchequer, but it means the treasury definitely wants lots of it anyway...
Here's the square that needs circling (so to speak).
We're all living longer. We have a birthrate well below replacement. The cost of looking after the old falls on those of working age. And a 80 year old has something like 10x the costs to the NHS of a 30 year old.
The greater the number of retirees relative to the number of workers, the more of each worker's output needs to be spent on retirees.
We need to square that with productivity, which can be encouraged via highly skilled migration as countries like Switzerland seek.
We do not square that with unproductive minimum wage jobs.
Switzerland and Singapore imports lots of minimum wage people too: the cooks in restaurants and the nannies and the cleaners, they're not Swiss nationals.
What they do a really good job in doing is making sure that their own citizens have better skills.
Switzerland offers no visa pathways AFAIK for minimum wage people.
And Singapore only does so with pathways that never lead to citizenship AFAIK.
Indeed. And I've said in the past that the UK is very unusual (and basically wrong) in not having two classes of visas: immigrant and non-immigrant. My current US visa (an O-1) is a non-immigrant one, with no path to permanent residency and/or citizenship.
But that doesn't stop the fact that the Switzerland and Singapore are absolutely full of low wage, low skill immigrants. It's just that they are going home aftter five years.
---
Of course, even with non-immigrant visas, some people are going to end up staying, thanks to marriage and the like.
And Singapore does have a path to citizenship (or for an immigrant visa that in turn leads there), but it does require you to get up to the level of education that you would need for an immigrant visa. So, what you have is a fair number of people who turn up on non-immigrant visas, and then take courses at Singapore University, and then change their status.
Immigrants also cannot claim benefits or use public services in Singapore, they have to support themselves
My wife's passport/visa when she first came to the UK contained the line: No Recourse To Public Services
No recourse to public funds doesn’t mean what it says because many things provided by the state are not treated as being financed by public funds.
In a remarkable display of either amnesia, carelessness or crassness, Reform’s campaign slogan, on display at last night IOW rally, is “Reform Will Fix It”….
Comments
https://x.com/trussliz/status/2030958767278272838
Fundamental problem is all the models used by British state (economic model, energy model) are deterministic.
They don't take into account the value of options or sovereign capability.
They essentially bake in globalist assumptions (migration is a positive, Britain will always be able to get goods/commodities at affordable price, history has ended).
These models are hard wired into legislation and unaccountable bodies (such as the OBR and CCC).
It's one of the reasons it is so hard to get policies like fracking/migration cuts/defence projects through, you are fighting these projections.
We need to start from scratch. We should be basing policy on what Britain needs to thrive in all scenarios - not just the globalist utopian one.
- Steve Buscemi in Con Air.
Colm Meaney: What's that supposed to mean?
[to a co-worker]
Colm Meaney: What is he, one of these sociology majors who thinks we're responsible for breeding these animals?
John Cusack: No, but I can point a few fingers if it would make you feel comfortable.
Your invective would have more salience if you didn't want Tel Aviv flattened along with US oilfields and called out Iran ot slaughtering 40,000 of their own citizens
I’m concentrating on racing now for rest of week. Sod it.
However, Iran slaughted 40,000 of their own citizens for wanting to protest
The apparent impossibility of getting batshit crazy policies enacted is, however, reassuring in the event of a Reform or Green government!
https://www.patreon.com/posts/peter-oborne-war-152598960?utm_campaign=patron_engagement&utm_source=post_link&post_id=152598960&utm_id=f7876c4e-f943-4702-9f6d-f0655d58ff00&utm_medium=email
(1) There is no evidence that fracking in the UK is economic. None of the well drilled by Cuadrilla or iGas found commercial quantities of natural gas. Now, should there have been a ban? Nope. But that doesn't change the fundamental problem that (a) costs would be massively higher than the US because we're a small, densely populated country, and fracking takes a lot of space and equipment, and (b) there are no formations that look like being even vaguely close in terms of prospects to the ones that are economic.
(2) Defence cuts happened because there is financial pressure on the government. There is financial pressure on the government principally because we have an ageing population. Old people need to recieve pensions, and they cost a lot of money to look after via the social care network and the NHS. This pressure is not going away. And the ratio between the number of workers are the number of retirees is going to keep getting worse (especially in a world with zero or negative migration).
(3) We are not a rich country in terms of commodities. Now, we could have done a much better job managing the North Sea (and been more Norwegian), but even if we had done, it is highly unlikely that we could be anywhere near self sufficient in terms of energy currently. (That will change with renewables over time, but that is a twenty year story, not a two year one.) Irrespective, we are always going to need to import aluminium, copper, tungsten, and a million other things. And that has always been the case. What exactly is Ms Truss proposing that solves our dependence on getting commodities from abroad?
Now, did the UK government -particularly the one which Ms Truss was a leading member of- let immigration get completely out of control? Yes, it did.
But that doesn't stop the rest of her tweet from being utterly absurd.
Westminster Voting Intention:
RFM: 27% (+1)
LAB: 20% (-1)
CON: 18% (-2)
LDM: 14% (=)
GRN: 13% (+3)
SNP: 2% (-1)
RES: 2% (New)
YRP: 0% (New)
Via @focaldataHQ, 6-10 Mar.
Changes w/ 16-19 Jan.
They are hanging around.
Our allies are getting stuck in, fighting our enemy. Ours are not.
That's not our troops fault. Our troops aren't allowed to fight unless they're given the order to do so, an order that is lacking from the very top.
That is the PM's fault, not theirs. It is not unreasonable to point that out.
But Steve Buscemi and John Cusack have never, I don't think, been in a bad film. They are both at the very least both very good indicators of a good film.
AFAIK it is zero. If you know otherwise, I would be curious.
The worst the strategy can do is so devastate Iran with endless aerial bombardments that it becomes ungovernable for anyone. That would be a disaster of incalculable proportions.
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/09/opinion/iran-israel-united-states-bombing.html
Published on day Hegseth says air attack will be biggest yet.
Vote Green, Get Farage has to be the message from Labour.
I accept we should maximise (where possible) our own energy resources and that means fracking, nuclear and renewable to name but three.
As for "migration cuts", I've no clue what that means (well, I do, I think). If she wants to reduce the migration of largely unskilled young men from various parts of the world, let's hear her solution. Presumably, as a loyal member of the Johnson Government, she supported the post-Brexit changes to immigration which boosted non-European immigration post Freedom of Movement within the EU because the feeling then was the economy added labour to grow.
"Defence Projects" - again, she presumably supported the Conservative Governments (starting with the Coalition) which cut defence in order to restore the public finances. Such projects takes years if not decades to reach fruition and we are dealing with the consequences of previous Government's defence policies.
As Farage and Jenrick look like going wobbly wet lettuces on Iran, Kemi will hope her continued send the RAF to bomb the Ayatollahs and Iranian regime to bits raw steak uber hawk line can get the Tories back up to 20%+ and gain some of the 57% of Reform voters who Yougov has supporting the US strikes on Iran for the Tories
Labour have no positive offer
And that is not murdered in cold blood without provocation, it is casualties in war. A war with a damned big provocation.
War has casualties, including civilian casualties. Cold blooded murder is something entirely different.
What Iran has done, which Israel has not, is the latter.
I understand the logic but I'm far from convinced - regime change isn't just about changing FROM what you currently have but it is also about changing TO something else.
The Iraq experience should caution against the assumption the Iranians will accept any old Tom, Dick or Reza dished up by Washington - they may want, for example, to be a socialist republic but the key part it should be their decision and all an outside force can or should do is maintain order and infrastructure until those actions are taken (hopefully freely and fairly via some form of election).
Take projected number of immigrants, calculate their projected incomes, calculate tax due, add to projected government tax receipts.
All projected costs of this immigration are assumed to already be included in the government's spending plans, thus no adjustment is made for these costs.
Now, in a "steady state" sort of a way, this kind of works - if departmental spending has the correct amount in to cover the cost of immigration, one has to include the additional tax generated from immigration somewhere.
However, it means that plugging in different numbers of immigrants into the OBR model is meaningless, as it changes the projected tax take, but not the projected costs. This pretty much bakes into the forecasting model a presumption that lots of immigration is double plus good, and low immigration is very bad.
Obviously, it tells us nothing at-all about if migration is actually good news for the exchequer, but it means the treasury definitely wants lots of it anyway...
If a prisoner wishes to terminate their own life, I would allow them to do so (as I would for all adults) - that is their choice and their prerogative over their life.
The state must never, ever, under any circumstances have the right to kill prisoners in cold blood.
Killing people as a last resort in the cross-fire eg the Police killing an active shooter or terrorist, is something completely different again.
Lies have to be refuted as lies
It was war. People die in war.
Our invasion of Iraq led to up to a million deaths by some estimates. Gaza was 8% of that figure.
How was our invasion just war while theirs with 8% of the casualties of ours was cold blooded murder?
Here's the circle you need to square:
We're all living longer. We have a birthrate well below replacement. The cost of looking after the old falls on those of working age. And a 80 year old has something like 10x the costs to the NHS of a 30 year old.
The greater the number of retirees relative to the number of workers, the more of each worker's output needs to be spent on retirees.
We do not square that with unproductive minimum wage jobs.
As opposed to civilians dying in conflict?
Simply saying "this is the death toll" is not evidence.
What they do a really good job in doing is making sure that their own citizens have better skills.
And Singapore only does so with pathways that never lead to citizenship AFAIK.
She is talking to Sir John Scarlett and is trying to put words in his mouth. When he declines her assertions she threatens to curtail the interview because of time constraints.
Mind you I have paid a huge amount of tax as well !!!
It's mass murder on a heinous scale
What's his plan for Tehran
500,000?
Carpet bombing a major hospital because there might be a Hamas sniper on the roof is not appropriate targeting.
But that doesn't stop the fact that the Switzerland and Singapore are absolutely full of low wage, low skill immigrants. It's just that they are going home aftter five years.
---
Of course, even with non-immigrant visas, some people are going to end up staying, thanks to marriage and the like.
And Singapore does have a path to citizenship (or for an immigrant visa that in turn leads there), but it does require you to get up to the level of education that you would need for an immigrant visa. So, what you have is a fair number of people who turn up on non-immigrant visas, and then take courses at Singapore University, and then change their status.
The only way you avoid a pyramid scheme is to have low-skilled employees come on limited visas, and they are required to leave the country afterwards.
Alongside the ability to actually deport overstayers.
I will never be Emirati, and neither will my nephews who were born in Dubai.
"Would you like to know more?"
The OBR also does long term modelling which focuses on spending as well as revenue. They make the case that it is largely the age structure not the size of the population which has the bigger affect on fiscal sustainability.
He added: "Residents can see what this is. It is not a serious alternative administration.
"It is an anti-Reform bloc held together by opposition to this administration and the change Warwickshire voted for."
If the Liberal Democrats, Greens, Labour and Restore Britain councillors support the motion of no confidence as expected, Finch's future will be in the hands of the Conservative group on the council.
If they support the motion or abstain, Reform would not have the numbers necessary to keep Finch in post.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c043yre6l2ro
That doesn't -unfortunately- stop the cost of healthcare continuing to rise, but it at least partially ameliorates the issue.
The immigration/education debate in Britain is weird.
Last week, a judge sentenced a man who killed a pedestrian while riding a bike at 27 miles per hour. He sentenced him to a six-month driving ban and a £240 fine. That cycling killer claimed he did not know his bike could go at that speed. Well, dearie me. Of course, our wonderful CPS did not even charge him with the killing. That shows what the law thinks of pedestrians, does it not? There was a manslaughter of a pedestrian and the killer got a six-month driving ban.
https://hansard.parliament.uk/lords/2026-03-04/debates/68F04E21-F11B-4486-B1ED-75896DB74920/CrimeAndPolicingBill#contribution-F9D14A11-5425-437A-A07B-CFB870B2F4FB
From the news reports:
Henry Morgan, 61, of Shepherd's Bush, was overtaking a bus when he hit the pedestrian on Uxbridge Road on 28 February 2025. The man, aged in his 60s, later died from a head injury.
Westminster Magistrates' Court heard Morgan had faced a criminal investigation over the death but it was found that he was not to blame for the crash.
Morgan admitted driving the vehicle without a licence or insurance, using an illegally enhanced e-bike, and failing to wear appropriate protective headgear.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ce82z6xnen5o
I have limited information, but I would suggest that that means the pedestrian stepped out late enough to prevent any avoiding action being taken - that is less than perhaps 1.5s before. We have no indication what speed he was doing.
The charges look correct - charged for not having the appropriate gear, insurance etc for a moped.
But how do we hold Lord Blencathra to account for misleading the Lords and defaming a member of the public from his platform in the Lords? And never mind his attack on the CPS.
If anyone has seen any more detailed reports, I'd be interested.
Today my life expectancy is 80 and my current retirement age is 67.
I doubt very much if I will retire at 67 but regardless, the current situation is untenable.
I have worked with people offshore who were in their early 70s.
We should raise retirement age to 70 with exceptions for physically demanding jobs. This is already the plan in Denmark.
The infamous Treasury Model that says that any investment outside London is a looser, for example.
Many of the models are childishly linear. And many of the policies are reductionist and take no account of the inevitable effects.
For example - politicians handed the right to grant visas to companies. In effect.
Then were astonished when companies started selling visas. In a trade that escalated in criminality.
There's the age where people get a state pension, and yes, the government can control that.
The trickier one is when well-paid people conclude that they have enough money to live off, thank you very much, and they are frankly bored and tired of work, certainly full-time work. If you have a house you have paid for and no kids to support, it's remarkable how much less money you need. (Those pension people who say that a comfortable retirement costs £44k a year are talking out of their bottoms, aren't they?) I don't see how you stop them, or even that the government should try. But it's still work not being done, taxes not being paid and the dependency ratio being tilted unhelpfully.