And we are still doing that today and Gordon Brown hasn't been Chancellor since 2007.
Why not ?
Brown keeps resurfacing, looking more like the undead every time.
Given that half the people I worked with at the time lost their jobs I'll keep a flicker of resentment glowing against the self-styled saviour of the world.
My sentence was very cumbersome. I was trying to say that economic activity is still predicated on house price inflation.
I think the sweet spot is house prices rising in nominal terms but falling in real terms.
Leading to housing becoming more affordable but without the negative effects of negative equity.
Such a sweet spot is easier to meet with inflation, and pay rises, at 5% than when they are at 2%.
Hence London house prices are now down 25% in real terms since the pandemic
The GOP media posting clips of Talarico as attacks on him. And he keeps replying, yes, I approve this message.
JAMES TALARICO: “Christ is the immigrant deported without due process. Christ is the senior deprived of their Social Security benefits. Christ is the protestor kidnapped in an unmarked vehicle by plain clothes officers.”.. https://x.com/NRSC/status/2031442594983498169
It will be fascinating to see how it plays out.
Can Texas handle a genuine Christian?
Would they recognise one?
Well. Several megachurch pastors have denounced him as "Satanic". His crime? Using scripture to raise difficulty questions. And "campaigning on the Bible". Irony gone to heaven.
I’m sure there’s a bit in the bible about satan being clever enough to twist holy texts to confuse the unwary.
Let me tell them. The end result of all this is the creation of an aggressive "white" identity in the UK. If you are white, you will vote for the "White People's Party", so you are not crushed, nor your kids, by official "anti-white-racism". Thus Britain will become a new South Africa
I am genuinely confused as to why so many erstwhile intelligent people fail to see that playing identity politics drives, err, identity politics.
So moves to reduce the over-representation of white males on company boards (where they're doing an epic job judging from UK productivity) will result in a revolt of white males to maintain their current privileged position?
Ex-lads mag journos with brains rotted by coke don't half lose the plot when they're over the hill and devoid of #metoo opportunities....
It is inevitable that the proportion of white male company directors and executives will fall as more women and ethnic minorities pursue successful careers. Indeed it would be astonishing if we didn't make the best use of the talents in the workforce.
This should be an unremarkeable phenomenon and has happened already across many other sectors including medicine, politics, law, academia etc.
It isn't some sort of culture war, but simply the removal of barriers that have kept people down.
What’s important with boards is diversity of thought and perspectives - unfortunately activists always like a box checking approach because that’s easy. But boards are better when they are not packed with dull middle aged old Harrovians.
But someone posted a worry article on here about a year ago (Atlantic?) about the creative industries in the US. What’s happened is that 10 years ago the white men at the top decided to achieve balance. But none of them or their friends could go. So they massively and disproportionately hired juniors from alternative backgrounds to the exclusion of (potentially better) white straight males. That counter-distortion is now working through the system but it has led to a generation of talented people who were unable to pursue the career they wanted
Defence spending, the politics of it. In PMQs on Wednesday, if Kemi mentions “emergency for more defence spending now, after the fiasco of the last 10 days, leaving Cyprus exposed and unprotected” Starmer will rip her to shreds - in the last year before the GE Conservatives cut taxes 3 times without Badenoch saying military spending needs that money or some of it.
In the last few years of Con government nearly £100BN money handed out to everyone, including Rishi Sunak and King Charles, to help with cost of household bills, largely paid for by borrowing, and Liz Truss won the membership vote in leadership election attacking her own party’s record on bloated state spending. Defence budget emergency wasn’t a thing.
Starmer always says “when you were in power, your fault blah blah” but this time he’s actually going to have a point, isn’t he 😒
Kemi should stick to “when were you told” “when did you decide” type questions about military deployments and operational decisions in my opinion. “You must raise defence spending now!” Is not the open goal she thinks it is.
If defence spending has been poor for a long while, meaning takes a while for results, Starmer inherited that to some extent. Even BigG’s favourite on Sky Debbie Haynes would be pointing that out all afternoon after PMQs, wouldn’t she?
We should all be very afraid when a Tory talks about emergency spending.
Firstly of course any 5 year old knows you can't buy a ship or a plane off ebay like dim Kemi seems to think.
Secondly, the corruption and mismanagement of the Dido Hardings and Michelle Money springs to mind. Don't even mention Dennis and Mark Thatcher.
Poor Klueless Kemi might be better to talk about something else, the farmers moaning about the cost of red diesel, the private schools moaning about less Arab clients, the taxation on petrol on which the Tories have such a great record, or even the Courts backlog.
She can regail us with great Tory achievement, her intimate knowledge and may be get a peado, zombie, or some other embarrassing word in, as she has her weekly temper tantrum.
Better still, cry off sick and allow Cleverly to give her a masterclass in how to be an effective politician
I think your phrasing there linking “corruption and mismanagement” to both those individuals gets close to putting OGH at legal risk.
There is an arguable case that one of the individuals is corrupt and the other incompetent (although she’s nice), but i would be careful about implying “corruption” applies to both
The Georgia special election results for MTGs seat are coming in .
The Dem Harris and Fuller from the GOP go through to the run off .
The GOP candidate would be heavily favoured then but the real interest is really in Whitfield county which has one of the highest shares of Latino voters in the state.
Alarm bells will be ringing for the GOP as the Dem is hugely over performing there compared to 2024 .
A hefty swing to the Dems, but not remotely hefty enough to take the seat unless something dramatic happens between now and the runoff.
Waging war with no fixed purpose means victory can be declared at any point. Regime change was the plan, but Trump finds it easier to change plans than regimes.
The White House seems not to have anticipated the predictable economic repercussions of war in the Middle East – soaring oil prices, falling stock markets, disrupted supply chains feeding inflation and choking growth. A tacit deal has come into view. Forget freedom. Iranians can still be repressed as long as shipping through the strait of Hormuz is unmolested. Another push for regime change is possible, but no one should be surprised by retreat to lesser goals. This is the Trump method.
The biggest non-combatant beneficiary from Operation Epic Fury has been Vladimir Putin. [Although] It isn’t all upside for the Kremlin. Iranian drones, a vital part of Putin’s arsenal, won’t be shipped to Moscow if they are needed closer to home. It is humiliating for the Russian president to stand impotently by while an old ally takes a sustained aerial battering. [But] In the longer term, Putin is served by reinforcement of the geopolitical doctrine that big countries can do whatever they like to nations against which they have grudges.
Kemi Badenoch’s eagerness to involve Britain in an open-ended conflict and dread of losing Trump’s favour preclude any wariness of a notoriously unreliable president. She believes the prime minister owes him not just military assistance but unquestioning obedience. Nigel Farage was similarly gung-ho at first, but the Reform UK leader’s political antennae are well enough tuned to public opinion that he has since adjusted his message to a more sceptical frequency. Is it official Conservative policy that Britain should always submit to the whims of a venal narcissist surrounded by kleptocrats, sycophants and ultranationalist maniacs? Or is it only when they beat the drum for war that we must follow? Neither position makes sense as a blueprint for British foreign policy.
Making Trump feel great is the undoing of American greatness. In arrogating power to himself, the president undermines the foundations of his country’s strength in the world and damages its allies. To define Britain’s national interest as loyalty to the White House administration is absurd when the US’s own national interest would most be served by regime change in Washington.
Waging war with no fixed purpose means victory can be declared at any point. Regime change was the plan, but Trump finds it easier to change plans than regimes.
I'm not sure he's on the money there, actually. Insofar as Trump had a plan, it was to distract from the revelations about his sexual crimes in the Epstein files.
This is one reason why I am not convinced there will be a rapid peace deal. Sure, if oil prices at the pump go up 50% the Republicans will be pounded at the midterms. But if a proper analysis of the Epstein files happens they'll be pounded anyway. At least with an active shooting war going on Trump has distraction (or perhaps 'destruction') therapy to try and limit the damage.
We'd probably end up with a better military by having a serious reform of the procurement processes, and spending 2% of GDP wisely, rather than spending 4% of GDP via the current processes.
Anybody who maintains that giving the MoD a lot more money will result in a significant output in military capability is just lying to themselves and everybody else. Giving them more is as close to a perfect waste of money as it's possible to imagine.
This is apparent by how much of the recent debate is driven by sentiment rather than a discussion about an appropriate response to an actual threat. We've seen people on here going on about "embarrassment", as if that's a reason to deploy a fucking warship. As long as defence is an emotion led business that leads to stupid decisions (like building ships in Belfast not Spain) we're going to get we always get because we're doing what we've always done.
I agree with everything you say, except I am inclear why ships should be built in Spain and what's wrong with Belfast.
Morning all. The missing YouGov is finally out.....
YouGov / Sky News / Times voting intention
RefUK 23%(nc) CON 19%(+3) GRN 19%(-2) LAB 17%(+1) LDEM 14%(nc)
Good for the Tories.
The above as NEV would make an interesting set of results in May
One would need to swap the Greens and Lib Dem’s, IMHO (the Lib Dem’s are plainly doing much better than the Greens in local by elections).
Such a result would give Reform +22% on 2022, Conservatives -11%, Labour -18%, Greens +3%.
I wasn't predicting what will happen, just that those numbers would make for a very interesting set of results
It’s interesting, how small the percentage difference is between the Conservatives coming first in seats (albeit far short of a majority), and being reduced to a fringe party.
We'd probably end up with a better military by having a serious reform of the procurement processes, and spending 2% of GDP wisely, rather than spending 4% of GDP via the current processes.
Anybody who maintains that giving the MoD a lot more money will result in a significant output in military capability is just lying to themselves and everybody else. Giving them more is as close to a perfect waste of money as it's possible to imagine.
This is apparent by how much of the recent debate is driven by sentiment rather than a discussion about an appropriate response to an actual threat. We've seen people on here going on about "embarrassment", as if that's a reason to deploy a fucking warship. As long as defence is an emotion led business that leads to stupid decisions (like building ships in Belfast not Spain) we're going to get we always get because we're doing what we've always done.
I agree with everything you say, except I am inclear why ships should be built in Spain and what's wrong with Belfast.
A shipbuilding city that uses the Titanic as a selling point.
@ChrisMurphyCT I was in a 2 hour briefing today on the Iran War. All the briefings are closed, because Trump can't defend this war in public.
I obviously can't disclose classified info, but you deserve to know how incoherent and incomplete these war plans are.
1/ Here's what I can share:
2/ Maybe the lead is that the war goals DO NOT involve destroying Iran's nuclear weapons program. This is, uh...surprising...since Trump says over and over this is a key goal.
But then of course we already know air strikes can't wipe out their nuclear material.
3/ Second, they confirmed "regime change" is also NOT on the list. So, they are going to spend hundreds of billions of your taxpayer dollars, get a whole bunch of Americans killed, and a hardline regime - probably a MORE anti-American hardline regime - will still be in charge.
4/ Ok, so what ARE the goals? It seems, primarily, destroying lots of missiles and boats and drone factories.
But the question that stumped them: what happens when you stop bombing and they restart production?
They hinted at more bombing. Which is, of course, endless war.
5/ And on the Strait of Hormuz, they had NO PLAN. I can't go into more detail about how Iran gums up the Strait, but suffice it say, right now, they don't know how to get it safely back open.
Which is unforgiveable, because this part of the disaster was 100% foreseeable.
We'd probably end up with a better military by having a serious reform of the procurement processes, and spending 2% of GDP wisely, rather than spending 4% of GDP via the current processes.
Anybody who maintains that giving the MoD a lot more money will result in a significant output in military capability is just lying to themselves and everybody else. Giving them more is as close to a perfect waste of money as it's possible to imagine.
This is apparent by how much of the recent debate is driven by sentiment rather than a discussion about an appropriate response to an actual threat. We've seen people on here going on about "embarrassment", as if that's a reason to deploy a fucking warship. As long as defence is an emotion led business that leads to stupid decisions (like building ships in Belfast not Spain) we're going to get we always get because we're doing what we've always done.
I agree with everything you say, except I am inclear why ships should be built in Spain and what's wrong with Belfast.
A shipbuilding city that uses the Titanic as a selling point.
Nothing particularly amiss with the build of the Titanic afaicr. An iceberg ripping through the hull wasn't covered by the warranty.
An interview on the Court of History podcast with MIchael Wolff. It's more serious / measured than usual coverage.
Michael Wolff talks with Sidney Blumenthal and Sean Wilentz Bill Clinton's testimony Hillary Clinton's testimony Trump's lies and what Epstein told Wolff about them
Morning all. The missing YouGov is finally out.....
YouGov / Sky News / Times voting intention
RefUK 23%(nc) CON 19%(+3) GRN 19%(-2) LAB 17%(+1) LDEM 14%(nc)
Good for the Tories.
The above as NEV would make an interesting set of results in May
One would need to swap the Greens and Lib Dem’s, IMHO (the Lib Dem’s are plainly doing much better than the Greens in local by elections).
Such a result would give Reform +22% on 2022, Conservatives -11%, Labour -18%, Greens +3%.
I wasn't predicting what will happen, just that those numbers would make for a very interesting set of results
It’s interesting, how small the percentage difference is between the Conservatives coming first in seats (albeit far short of a majority), and being reduced to a fringe party.
Isn't it?! Also hammers home how unpredictable 2029 still is If Reform drop below anout 25 to 26% more generally their ability to win swathes of seats crumbles away
It does seem like off loading Jenrick and Braverman was a work of genius by Badenoch.
Interesting that the 'senior tory source says Kemi is shit' briefings stopped the moment those two buggered off Divided parties drive away voters. Twas ever thus. Nigels problem now
Waging war with no fixed purpose means victory can be declared at any point. Regime change was the plan, but Trump finds it easier to change plans than regimes.
The White House seems not to have anticipated the predictable economic repercussions of war in the Middle East – soaring oil prices, falling stock markets, disrupted supply chains feeding inflation and choking growth. A tacit deal has come into view. Forget freedom. Iranians can still be repressed as long as shipping through the strait of Hormuz is unmolested. Another push for regime change is possible, but no one should be surprised by retreat to lesser goals. This is the Trump method.
The biggest non-combatant beneficiary from Operation Epic Fury has been Vladimir Putin. [Although] It isn’t all upside for the Kremlin. Iranian drones, a vital part of Putin’s arsenal, won’t be shipped to Moscow if they are needed closer to home. It is humiliating for the Russian president to stand impotently by while an old ally takes a sustained aerial battering. [But] In the longer term, Putin is served by reinforcement of the geopolitical doctrine that big countries can do whatever they like to nations against which they have grudges.
Kemi Badenoch’s eagerness to involve Britain in an open-ended conflict and dread of losing Trump’s favour preclude any wariness of a notoriously unreliable president. She believes the prime minister owes him not just military assistance but unquestioning obedience. Nigel Farage was similarly gung-ho at first, but the Reform UK leader’s political antennae are well enough tuned to public opinion that he has since adjusted his message to a more sceptical frequency. Is it official Conservative policy that Britain should always submit to the whims of a venal narcissist surrounded by kleptocrats, sycophants and ultranationalist maniacs? Or is it only when they beat the drum for war that we must follow? Neither position makes sense as a blueprint for British foreign policy.
Making Trump feel great is the undoing of American greatness. In arrogating power to himself, the president undermines the foundations of his country’s strength in the world and damages its allies. To define Britain’s national interest as loyalty to the White House administration is absurd when the US’s own national interest would most be served by regime change in Washington.
Putin is a massive loser, not a winner, from this conflict.
When he invaded Ukraine, the US, the UK and other western allies stood behind Ukraine offering assistance.
He has however been shown to be utterly impotent in the face of his ally getting pounded, has not been able to assist them at all, and worse has lost the supply of Shahed drones he was using to kill Ukrainians.
As for "reinforcement of the geopolitical doctrine that big countries can do whatever they like to nations against which they have grudges" . . . Only an utter imbecile thinks Russia was not already living by that doctrine anyway.
We'd probably end up with a better military by having a serious reform of the procurement processes, and spending 2% of GDP wisely, rather than spending 4% of GDP via the current processes.
Anybody who maintains that giving the MoD a lot more money will result in a significant output in military capability is just lying to themselves and everybody else. Giving them more is as close to a perfect waste of money as it's possible to imagine.
This is apparent by how much of the recent debate is driven by sentiment rather than a discussion about an appropriate response to an actual threat. We've seen people on here going on about "embarrassment", as if that's a reason to deploy a fucking warship. As long as defence is an emotion led business that leads to stupid decisions (like building ships in Belfast not Spain) we're going to get we always get because we're doing what we've always done.
I agree with everything you say, except I am inclear why ships should be built in Spain and what's wrong with Belfast.
To build the new Fleet Solid Support ships (transports and replenishes at sea condoms and baked beans for the carriers) the UK government awarded the contract to a consortium led by the Spanish shipbuilder Navantia. Rather than having them built as quickly and as cost-effectively as possible in Navantia's Spanish yard they got Navatia to buy the old H&W yard on Belfast for reasons of national pride. Strong Ajax energy.
So now they are trying to regenerate capability from scratch in a yard that has not built a warship for 40 years with all that implies for cost and schedule. What is worse, the UK will now have a third surface combatant yard that will have to be kept of life support no matter what for the reason that created it; national pride.
Having three prime surface builders is a lot and worse for national security than just having Govan and Rosyth because new acquisitions will be have be parcelled out to keep all three going, resulting in less warship per pound spent due lack of scale and a decrease in military output.
Helium supplies are now running short due to the Iran war - and it’s no laughing matter
MRI scanners use approximately 1,500–2,000 liters of liquid helium to cool superconducting magnets to -269 C, enabling the high-strength magnetic fields necessary for imaging.
Because helium is non-renewable and subject to shortages, modern systems are shifting toward "zero-boil-off" technology or, more recently, helium-free, sealed magnets.
The GOP media posting clips of Talarico as attacks on him. And he keeps replying, yes, I approve this message.
JAMES TALARICO: “Christ is the immigrant deported without due process. Christ is the senior deprived of their Social Security benefits. Christ is the protestor kidnapped in an unmarked vehicle by plain clothes officers.”.. https://x.com/NRSC/status/2031442594983498169
It will be fascinating to see how it plays out.
Can Texas handle a genuine Christian?
Would they recognise one?
Usually the bloke being chased by the lynch mob, isn't it?
We'd probably end up with a better military by having a serious reform of the procurement processes, and spending 2% of GDP wisely, rather than spending 4% of GDP via the current processes.
Anybody who maintains that giving the MoD a lot more money will result in a significant output in military capability is just lying to themselves and everybody else. Giving them more is as close to a perfect waste of money as it's possible to imagine.
This is apparent by how much of the recent debate is driven by sentiment rather than a discussion about an appropriate response to an actual threat. We've seen people on here going on about "embarrassment", as if that's a reason to deploy a fucking warship. As long as defence is an emotion led business that leads to stupid decisions (like building ships in Belfast not Spain) we're going to get we always get because we're doing what we've always done.
I agree with everything you say, except I am inclear why ships should be built in Spain and what's wrong with Belfast.
To build the new Fleet Solid Support ships (transports and replenishes at sea condoms and baked beans for the carriers) the UK government awarded the contract to a consortium led by the Spanish shipbuilder Navantia. Rather than having them built as quickly and as cost-effectively as possible in Navantia's Spanish yard they got Navatia to buy the old H&W yard on Belfast for reasons of national pride. Strong Ajax energy.
So now they are trying to regenerate capability from scratch in a yard that has not built a warship for 40 years with all that implies for cost and schedule. What is worse, the UK will now have a third surface combatant yard that will have to be kept of life support no matter what for the reason that created it; national pride.
Having three prime surface builders is a lot and worse for national security than just having Govan and Rosyth because new acquisitions will be have be parcelled out to keep all three going, resulting in less warship per pound spent due lack of scale and a decrease in military output.
Thanks. I dunno. I see why a make work scheme doesn't work for army procurement. But if we get serious about naval defence (haha) perhaps we will need that capacity.
We'd probably end up with a better military by having a serious reform of the procurement processes, and spending 2% of GDP wisely, rather than spending 4% of GDP via the current processes.
Anybody who maintains that giving the MoD a lot more money will result in a significant output in military capability is just lying to themselves and everybody else. Giving them more is as close to a perfect waste of money as it's possible to imagine.
This is apparent by how much of the recent debate is driven by sentiment rather than a discussion about an appropriate response to an actual threat. We've seen people on here going on about "embarrassment", as if that's a reason to deploy a fucking warship. As long as defence is an emotion led business that leads to stupid decisions (like building ships in Belfast not Spain) we're going to get we always get because we're doing what we've always done.
I agree with everything you say, except I am inclear why ships should be built in Spain and what's wrong with Belfast.
A shipbuilding city that uses the Titanic as a selling point.
I blame Smith for sailing full speed ahead into a known iceberg field.
The Georgia special election results for MTGs seat are coming in .
The Dem Harris and Fuller from the GOP go through to the run off .
The GOP candidate would be heavily favoured then but the real interest is really in Whitfield county which has one of the highest shares of Latino voters in the state.
Alarm bells will be ringing for the GOP as the Dem is hugely over performing there compared to 2024 .
A hefty swing to the Dems, but not remotely hefty enough to take the seat unless something dramatic happens between now and the runoff.
It’s not even a hefty swing to the Dems. It’s a small swing. They’ve done much better in other US by-elections.
Comments
MOE
Always read the small print…
https://x.com/stalman/status/2031507292454269171
Reviews starting to come out now.
But someone posted a worry article on here about a year ago (Atlantic?) about the creative industries in the US. What’s happened is that 10 years ago the white men at the top decided to achieve balance. But none of them or their friends could go. So they massively and disproportionately hired juniors from alternative backgrounds to the exclusion of (potentially better) white straight males. That counter-distortion is now working through the system but it has led to a generation of talented people who were unable to pursue the career they wanted
There is an arguable case that one of the individuals is corrupt and the other incompetent (although she’s nice), but i would be careful about implying “corruption” applies to both
Such a result would give Reform +22% on 2022, Conservatives -11%, Labour -18%, Greens +3%.
Waging war with no fixed purpose means victory can be declared at any point. Regime change was the plan, but Trump finds it easier to change plans than regimes.
The White House seems not to have anticipated the predictable economic repercussions of war in the Middle East – soaring oil prices, falling stock markets, disrupted supply chains feeding inflation and choking growth. A tacit deal has come into view. Forget freedom. Iranians can still be repressed as long as shipping through the strait of Hormuz is unmolested. Another push for regime change is possible, but no one should be surprised by retreat to lesser goals. This is the Trump method.
The biggest non-combatant beneficiary from Operation Epic Fury has been Vladimir Putin. [Although] It isn’t all upside for the Kremlin. Iranian drones, a vital part of Putin’s arsenal, won’t be shipped to Moscow if they are needed closer to home. It is humiliating for the Russian president to stand impotently by while an old ally takes a sustained aerial battering. [But] In the longer term, Putin is served by reinforcement of the geopolitical doctrine that big countries can do whatever they like to nations against which they have grudges.
Kemi Badenoch’s eagerness to involve Britain in an open-ended conflict and dread of losing Trump’s favour preclude any wariness of a notoriously unreliable president. She believes the prime minister owes him not just military assistance but unquestioning obedience. Nigel Farage was similarly gung-ho at first, but the Reform UK leader’s political antennae are well enough tuned to public opinion that he has since adjusted his message to a more sceptical frequency. Is it official Conservative policy that Britain should always submit to the whims of a venal narcissist surrounded by kleptocrats, sycophants and ultranationalist maniacs? Or is it only when they beat the drum for war that we must follow? Neither position makes sense as a blueprint for British foreign policy.
Making Trump feel great is the undoing of American greatness. In arrogating power to himself, the president undermines the foundations of his country’s strength in the world and damages its allies. To define Britain’s national interest as loyalty to the White House administration is absurd when the US’s own national interest would most be served by regime change in Washington.
This is one reason why I am not convinced there will be a rapid peace deal. Sure, if oil prices at the pump go up 50% the Republicans will be pounded at the midterms. But if a proper analysis of the Epstein files happens they'll be pounded anyway. At least with an active shooting war going on Trump has distraction (or perhaps 'destruction') therapy to try and limit the damage.
Ref 268
Con 108
Green 94
LD 69
Lab 39
Interestingly the Greens would sweep most of London.
London seats:
Con 11
LD 6
Ref 6
Lab 4
And Greens would win everything else (bar Ilford North which goes to Ind).
https://x.com/heraldscotland/status/2031430470487970070
It looks okay from the inside, but there’s probably going to be an amount of smoke and water damage given the extent of the fire.
Kemi having a better war than Zack and Starmer.
I was in a 2 hour briefing today on the Iran War. All the briefings are closed, because Trump can't defend this war in public.
I obviously can't disclose classified info, but you deserve to know how incoherent and incomplete these war plans are.
1/ Here's what I can share:
2/ Maybe the lead is that the war goals DO NOT involve destroying Iran's nuclear weapons program. This is, uh...surprising...since Trump says over and over this is a key goal.
But then of course we already know air strikes can't wipe out their nuclear material.
3/ Second, they confirmed "regime change" is also NOT on the list. So, they are going to spend hundreds of billions of your taxpayer dollars, get a whole bunch of Americans killed, and a hardline regime - probably a MORE anti-American hardline regime - will still be in charge.
4/ Ok, so what ARE the goals? It seems, primarily, destroying lots of missiles and boats and drone factories.
But the question that stumped them: what happens when you stop bombing and they restart production?
They hinted at more bombing. Which is, of course, endless war.
5/ And on the Strait of Hormuz, they had NO PLAN. I can't go into more detail about how Iran gums up the Strait, but suffice it say, right now, they don't know how to get it safely back open.
Which is unforgiveable, because this part of the disaster was 100% foreseeable.
https://x.com/ChrisMurphyCT/status/2031531835453309125?s=20
An interview on the Court of History podcast with MIchael Wolff. It's more serious / measured than usual coverage.
Michael Wolff talks with Sidney Blumenthal and Sean Wilentz Bill Clinton's testimony Hillary Clinton's testimony Trump's lies and what Epstein told Wolff about them
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-jwIUgbmp10
Also hammers home how unpredictable 2029 still is
If Reform drop below anout 25 to 26% more generally their ability to win swathes of seats crumbles away
Divided parties drive away voters. Twas ever thus. Nigels problem now
When he invaded Ukraine, the US, the UK and other western allies stood behind Ukraine offering assistance.
He has however been shown to be utterly impotent in the face of his ally getting pounded, has not been able to assist them at all, and worse has lost the supply of Shahed drones he was using to kill Ukrainians.
As for "reinforcement of the geopolitical doctrine that big countries can do whatever they like to nations against which they have grudges" . . . Only an utter imbecile thinks Russia was not already living by that doctrine anyway.
They always have.
So now they are trying to regenerate capability from scratch in a yard that has not built a warship for 40 years with all that implies for cost and schedule. What is worse, the UK will now have a third surface combatant yard that will have to be kept of life support no matter what for the reason that created it; national pride.
Having three prime surface builders is a lot and worse for national security than just having Govan and Rosyth because new acquisitions will be have be parcelled out to keep all three going, resulting in less warship per pound spent due lack of scale and a decrease in military output.
-269 C, enabling the high-strength magnetic fields necessary for imaging.
Because helium is non-renewable and subject to shortages, modern systems are shifting toward "zero-boil-off" technology or, more recently, helium-free, sealed magnets.
At 05:00:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b037tb14/yes-prime-minister-series-2-8-the-tangled-web