Had our 2026 pension statements and how absurd my wife and I get 25p a week more because we are 80+
The whole scheme needs radical overhaul and not just ending the triple lock
Don’t spend it all in the one shop! I assume the 25p (5/-) was originally to cover the additional costs of being older and having to pay for more help. It’s as daft as the £10 Christmas bonus.
Incidentally, it looks like Dubai got hit quite badly hit last night. It’s difficult to be sure with their brutal censorship but it looks like the biggest Iranian attack yet
I thought they were meant to be running out of missiles and drones? This has echoes of all the “Putin has no more ammunition” stories, from the PB Dads, back in 2024
I hope Sandpit is OK. Perhaps he can give us an honest update
I hope he doesn't - wouldn't want him to end up on the wrong side of the law.
I can be honest. Those finding themselves in trouble are either posting fake news or taking photographs of military activity.
One example from yesterday, someone posting a six-year-old video of a marketplace fire in the city of Ajman, but saying that it was a current event in Dubai caused by a missile attack.
There is a verified video from Al Jazeera of drones (I think) being intercepted right over Dubai. People forget that interceptions don't take away the entire problem, the intercepted drone falls to the ground
I experienced exactly this in Odessa. I was strolling back to my hotel and I heard - honestly - the loudest, most frightening noise I have ever heard in my life. Everyone on the street reflexively ducked (never a good sign in Odessa, where they shrug off air sirens)
We turned around and saw a puff of smoke and a lot of crushed metal. It was an intercepted drone and it had fallen on to a kid's playground, obliterating the swings - happily the playground was empty at the time (there aren't many small children left in Odessa). The metal smouldered and did not burn. We all got on with the day, I immediately went into the next shop and bought a load of jamon iberica de bellota, having been reminded that life is short
However, I really would not like to live in a city where "interceptions" like this happen all the time. Once, is an anecdote, twice or thrice and it's a sign to get the fuck out
Well we’d all rather be living somewhere without flying bombs around the place, but we are where we are.
No-one is quitting jobs and getting out, although tourism is abviously down with Western governments advising against travel to the region. But day-to-day, life goes on. There’s fewer fatalities than days in the conflict so far, in a country of 11m people, so the chance of being affected is tiny. We’re working from home as much as possible, and not hanging around outside when the alerts go off, but apart from that we continue as usual.
The Greens are a party of protest under Polanski growing by winning over Corbynites from Labour disillusioned with Starmer. However, as the poll shows voters also have reservations about their management of defence, immigration and the national finances as they did with Corbyn which will likely see swing voters still not vote for them
Corbyn needed to get 35% or so to be in with a hot at Downing Street. The Greens only need to get 20% to get lots of seats and aplace at the government table, especially with no other party doing much better. I think (regrettably) that you're right about how most voters will see the Greens if the media swing the spotlight on them. But not more than 75-80%.
The Greens most likely role is junior partner propping up a Labour minority government as you say, Polanski won't challenge for No 10 directly as Corbyn did. However as you also say the more it looks like Labour could only get back into power propped up by the Greens, the more centrist swing voters who don't like the Greens anymore than Reform might switch back to the Tories and LDs
Rayner in a speech says '"the very survival of the Labour Party is at stake – as a party and a movement we cannot hide, we cannot go through the motions in the face of decline. We are running out of time."
She also said "the Labour Party is at its best when we are bold," a line reminiscent of a restless Gordon Brown in 2003, appealing to what he called Labour's "soul" and arguing the party was "best when we are boldest."
The Labour Party does best when it is a pale imitation of the Conservatives, as it was for Blair's first two terms. In fact, its major blunder during those years, the Iraq War, was a bit of uncharacteristic boldness from Blair.
It does terribly when it is bold, basically because its ideology doesn't work so its boldness always blows up in its face in one way or another. Corbyn was the boldest recent Labour leader, and lost both times. Most obvious more recent examples are the Winter Fuel Allowance, Rayner's labour market reforms and raising the minimum wage, which have increased unemployment amongst those they were supposed to help, or energy market reforms which have increased the price of energy not reduced it.
I'd wish that Labour were always that bold but unfortunately when it is it tends to take the country down with it.
"The Labour Party does best when it is a pale imitation of the Conservatives, as it was for Blair's first two terms."
No, not really, it does best when it has focus, and you know what it stands for. Clem Attlee's government (1945-51) was hardly a pale imitation of the Conservatives and it set the tone until Mrs T in 1979.
Blair won 2 landslide victories and won sizeable majority though, Attlee only 1 won landslide, lost 2 general elections and scraped him in a 4th.
In electoral terms Blair was more successful, in changing the country though as you say Attlee was more significant
Polanski is a man whose ambitions exceed his talents.
He is a deeply unserious figure, and will eventually be tested and found wanting.
Being unserious hasn't inhibited other politicians. Which party leader is serious right now? Maybe Starmer somewhat. But only somewhat.
Having seen Badenoch yesterday I'd say Polanski is considerably more appealing. People like politicians who can think on their feet and who are articulate. He fits both she fits neither
On the other hand, he’s a geeky, quite ugly man; Badenoch is notably attractive
As a trivial lightweight person who spent a career in tampon advertising, you should know the importance of that
Notably is of course in the eye of the beholder but in any case polling doesn't seem to support the attractivness dividend. Farage increasingly resembles a scrotum with a 40 Kensitas Club a day habit but it doesn't seem to be the factor shrinking his lead.
Ooh, back in the scissors drawer Mrs McSharp!
Farage doesn’t look that bad. Nor does he look that good. He’s getting on. The one leader who is going to seed is Starmer. He was a very handsome man into his 50s. Now he’s fat red and puffy
I also dispute the idea that attractiveness is irrelevant in politics. I’m fairly sure there’s polling to prove it does play a role, albeit not decisive. eg voters really don’t like bald male leaders
It is a truth universally acknowledged. Leaders of parties we agree with are handsome/pretty. Leaders of parties we dislike are ugly.
In one Greek (I think Athenian) court case, the defence lawyer literally disrobed his stunningly beautiful client and asked how could someone who is so clearly the handmaiden of Aphrodite be guilty? She was found innocent, and the prosecuting lawyer resigned from the profession in disgust.
Here, a few years ago, a beautiful blonde woman who was a medical undergraduate attacked her boyfriend with a knife and was not sent to prison by the judge as it might 'harm her career'.
Yes. It’s been proven that attractive defendants are more likely to be acquitted for serious crimes, compared to ugly defendants. All I can say is thank God I was quite dashing back in the 1980s
Yep. Attractiveness, sex, wealth, and skin colour all play a role.
A beautiful rich white woman has to work bloody hard to go to prison.
An ugly homeless black guy is going to have a rather tougher time avoiding it.
Didn't help Ghislaine Maxwell though, she was a noted beauty in her Oxford days but is still in jail
Sorry but it's a fantasy to think that Europe can wash its hands of the crisis in Iran and the gulf.
It has the potential to wreck the global economy. Cause starvation among the world's poor. If our own economies could head south with Russia friendly politicians who want sanctions removed gaining ground. Meanwhile the main beneficiary of the war is Vladimir Putin who gets more money by the day to continue his war in Europe.
So pressure Trump to try and end the war ASAP whatever the conditions? Well do we want to be dealing with an Iranian leadership arguably even more fanatical and emboldened because they think they've seen off the great satan? That's doesn't look too inviting either.
I agree this is one of the decisions facing Europe and the answer is Yes.
For the reasons implied in your question.
How do you think Europe can stop the war?
It's all very well to say that a war isn't in our interests so there shouldn't be a war, but there is a war. Wishing it away won't change anything.
Polanski is a man whose ambitions exceed his talents.
He is a deeply unserious figure, and will eventually be tested and found wanting.
Being unserious hasn't inhibited other politicians. Which party leader is serious right now? Maybe Starmer somewhat. But only somewhat.
Having seen Badenoch yesterday I'd say Polanski is considerably more appealing. People like politicians who can think on their feet and who are articulate. He fits both she fits neither
On the other hand, he’s a geeky, quite ugly man; Badenoch is notably attractive
As a trivial lightweight person who spent a career in tampon advertising, you should know the importance of that
Notably is of course in the eye of the beholder but in any case polling doesn't seem to support the attractivness dividend. Farage increasingly resembles a scrotum with a 40 Kensitas Club a day habit but it doesn't seem to be the factor shrinking his lead.
Ooh, back in the scissors drawer Mrs McSharp!
Farage doesn’t look that bad. Nor does he look that good. He’s getting on. The one leader who is going to seed is Starmer. He was a very handsome man into his 50s. Now he’s fat red and puffy
I also dispute the idea that attractiveness is irrelevant in politics. I’m fairly sure there’s polling to prove it does play a role, albeit not decisive. eg voters really don’t like bald male leaders
Yes Hague had a 1st class PPE degree, was President of the Oxford Union and OUCA, had a successful business career before politics with McKinsey but he still lost to Blair by a landslide as Blair was more attractive and charismatic despite being less intelligent than Hague.
John Howard and Churchill did manage to win despite being old and bald but they both lost elections before the voters decided to elect them at a general election
Polanski is a man whose ambitions exceed his talents.
He is a deeply unserious figure, and will eventually be tested and found wanting.
Being unserious hasn't inhibited other politicians. Which party leader is serious right now? Maybe Starmer somewhat. But only somewhat.
Having seen Badenoch yesterday I'd say Polanski is considerably more appealing. People like politicians who can think on their feet and who are articulate. He fits both she fits neither
On the other hand, he’s a geeky, quite ugly man; Badenoch is notably attractive
As a trivial lightweight person who spent a career in tampon advertising, you should know the importance of that
Notably is of course in the eye of the beholder but in any case polling doesn't seem to support the attractivness dividend. Farage increasingly resembles a scrotum with a 40 Kensitas Club a day habit but it doesn't seem to be the factor shrinking his lead.
Ooh, back in the scissors drawer Mrs McSharp!
Farage doesn’t look that bad. Nor does he look that good. He’s getting on. The one leader who is going to seed is Starmer. He was a very handsome man into his 50s. Now he’s fat red and puffy
I also dispute the idea that attractiveness is irrelevant in politics. I’m fairly sure there’s polling to prove it does play a role, albeit not decisive. eg voters really don’t like bald male leaders
Yes Hague had a 1st class PPE degree, was President of the Oxford Union and OUCA, had a successful business career before politics with McKinsey but he still lost to Blair by a landslide as Blair was more attractive and charismatic despite being less intelligent than Hague.
The intelligence of the potential PM is very low down on the criteria that most people use when deciding how to vote.
Polanski is a man whose ambitions exceed his talents.
He is a deeply unserious figure, and will eventually be tested and found wanting.
Being unserious hasn't inhibited other politicians. Which party leader is serious right now? Maybe Starmer somewhat. But only somewhat.
Having seen Badenoch yesterday I'd say Polanski is considerably more appealing. People like politicians who can think on their feet and who are articulate. He fits both she fits neither
On the other hand, he’s a geeky, quite ugly man; Badenoch is notably attractive
As a trivial lightweight person who spent a career in tampon advertising, you should know the importance of that
Notably is of course in the eye of the beholder but in any case polling doesn't seem to support the attractivness dividend. Farage increasingly resembles a scrotum with a 40 Kensitas Club a day habit but it doesn't seem to be the factor shrinking his lead.
Ooh, back in the scissors drawer Mrs McSharp!
Farage doesn’t look that bad. Nor does he look that good. He’s getting on. The one leader who is going to seed is Starmer. He was a very handsome man into his 50s. Now he’s fat red and puffy
I also dispute the idea that attractiveness is irrelevant in politics. I’m fairly sure there’s polling to prove it does play a role, albeit not decisive. eg voters really don’t like bald male leaders
Yes Hague had a 1st class PPE degree, was President of the Oxford Union and OUCA, had a successful business career before politics with McKinsey but he still lost to Blair by a landslide as Blair was more attractive and charismatic despite being less intelligent than Hague.
John Howard and Churchill did manage to win despite being old and bald but they both lost elections before the voters decided to elect them at a general election
Tories could have been led by Margot Robbie in 2000s and still would have lost to Blair.
Sorry but it's a fantasy to think that Europe can wash its hands of the crisis in Iran and the gulf.
It has the potential to wreck the global economy. Cause starvation among the world's poor. If our own economies could head south with Russia friendly politicians who want sanctions removed gaining ground. Meanwhile the main beneficiary of the war is Vladimir Putin who gets more money by the day to continue his war in Europe.
So pressure Trump to try and end the war ASAP whatever the conditions? Well do we want to be dealing with an Iranian leadership arguably even more fanatical and emboldened because they think they've seen off the great satan? That's doesn't look too inviting either.
I agree this is one of the decisions facing Europe and the answer is Yes.
For the reasons implied in your question.
How do you think Europe can stop the war?
It's all very well to say that a war isn't in our interests so there shouldn't be a war, but there is a war. Wishing it away won't change anything.
Difficult for any country to do anything until Israel consider Iran and their proxies to no longer be a threat. They are in the driving seat and don't believe Trump could persuade them from their target. So Trump's off-ramp is to get some other mug to patrol Hormuz and then blame them when it goes wrong.
Like Ukraine - Russia, it will eventually settle but at a cost
Sorry but it's a fantasy to think that Europe can wash its hands of the crisis in Iran and the gulf.
It has the potential to wreck the global economy. Cause starvation among the world's poor. If our own economies could head south with Russia friendly politicians who want sanctions removed gaining ground. Meanwhile the main beneficiary of the war is Vladimir Putin who gets more money by the day to continue his war in Europe.
So pressure Trump to try and end the war ASAP whatever the conditions? Well do we want to be dealing with an Iranian leadership arguably even more fanatical and emboldened because they think they've seen off the great satan? That's doesn't look too inviting either.
I agree this is one of the decisions facing Europe and the answer is Yes.
For the reasons implied in your question.
How do you think Europe can stop the war?
It's all very well to say that a war isn't in our interests so there shouldn't be a war, but there is a war. Wishing it away won't change anything.
Polanski is a man whose ambitions exceed his talents.
He is a deeply unserious figure, and will eventually be tested and found wanting.
Being unserious hasn't inhibited other politicians. Which party leader is serious right now? Maybe Starmer somewhat. But only somewhat.
Having seen Badenoch yesterday I'd say Polanski is considerably more appealing. People like politicians who can think on their feet and who are articulate. He fits both she fits neither
On the other hand, he’s a geeky, quite ugly man; Badenoch is notably attractive
As a trivial lightweight person who spent a career in tampon advertising, you should know the importance of that
Notably is of course in the eye of the beholder but in any case polling doesn't seem to support the attractivness dividend. Farage increasingly resembles a scrotum with a 40 Kensitas Club a day habit but it doesn't seem to be the factor shrinking his lead.
Ooh, back in the scissors drawer Mrs McSharp!
Farage doesn’t look that bad. Nor does he look that good. He’s getting on. The one leader who is going to seed is Starmer. He was a very handsome man into his 50s. Now he’s fat red and puffy
I also dispute the idea that attractiveness is irrelevant in politics. I’m fairly sure there’s polling to prove it does play a role, albeit not decisive. eg voters really don’t like bald male leaders
It is a truth universally acknowledged. Leaders of parties we agree with are handsome/pretty. Leaders of parties we dislike are ugly.
In one Greek (I think Athenian) court case, the defence lawyer literally disrobed his stunningly beautiful client and asked how could someone who is so clearly the handmaiden of Aphrodite be guilty? She was found innocent, and the prosecuting lawyer resigned from the profession in disgust.
Here, a few years ago, a beautiful blonde woman who was a medical undergraduate attacked her boyfriend with a knife and was not sent to prison by the judge as it might 'harm her career'.
Yes. It’s been proven that attractive defendants are more likely to be acquitted for serious crimes, compared to ugly defendants. All I can say is thank God I was quite dashing back in the 1980s
Yep. Attractiveness, sex, wealth, and skin colour all play a role.
A beautiful rich white woman has to work bloody hard to go to prison.
An ugly homeless black guy is going to have a rather tougher time avoiding it.
Didn't help Ghislaine Maxwell though, she was a noted beauty in her Oxford days but is still in jail
Polanski is a man whose ambitions exceed his talents.
He is a deeply unserious figure, and will eventually be tested and found wanting.
Being unserious hasn't inhibited other politicians. Which party leader is serious right now? Maybe Starmer somewhat. But only somewhat.
Having seen Badenoch yesterday I'd say Polanski is considerably more appealing. People like politicians who can think on their feet and who are articulate. He fits both she fits neither
On the other hand, he’s a geeky, quite ugly man; Badenoch is notably attractive
As a trivial lightweight person who spent a career in tampon advertising, you should know the importance of that
Notably is of course in the eye of the beholder but in any case polling doesn't seem to support the attractivness dividend. Farage increasingly resembles a scrotum with a 40 Kensitas Club a day habit but it doesn't seem to be the factor shrinking his lead.
Ooh, back in the scissors drawer Mrs McSharp!
Farage doesn’t look that bad. Nor does he look that good. He’s getting on. The one leader who is going to seed is Starmer. He was a very handsome man into his 50s. Now he’s fat red and puffy
I also dispute the idea that attractiveness is irrelevant in politics. I’m fairly sure there’s polling to prove it does play a role, albeit not decisive. eg voters really don’t like bald male leaders
Polanski is a man whose ambitions exceed his talents.
He is a deeply unserious figure, and will eventually be tested and found wanting.
Being unserious hasn't inhibited other politicians. Which party leader is serious right now? Maybe Starmer somewhat. But only somewhat.
Having seen Badenoch yesterday I'd say Polanski is considerably more appealing. People like politicians who can think on their feet and who are articulate. He fits both she fits neither
On the other hand, he’s a geeky, quite ugly man; Badenoch is notably attractive
As a trivial lightweight person who spent a career in tampon advertising, you should know the importance of that
Notably is of course in the eye of the beholder but in any case polling doesn't seem to support the attractivness dividend. Farage increasingly resembles a scrotum with a 40 Kensitas Club a day habit but it doesn't seem to be the factor shrinking his lead.
Ooh, back in the scissors drawer Mrs McSharp!
Farage doesn’t look that bad. Nor does he look that good. He’s getting on. The one leader who is going to seed is Starmer. He was a very handsome man into his 50s. Now he’s fat red and puffy
I also dispute the idea that attractiveness is irrelevant in politics. I’m fairly sure there’s polling to prove it does play a role, albeit not decisive. eg voters really don’t like bald male leaders
It is a truth universally acknowledged. Leaders of parties we agree with are handsome/pretty. Leaders of parties we dislike are ugly.
In one Greek (I think Athenian) court case, the defence lawyer literally disrobed his stunningly beautiful client and asked how could someone who is so clearly the handmaiden of Aphrodite be guilty? She was found innocent, and the prosecuting lawyer resigned from the profession in disgust.
Here, a few years ago, a beautiful blonde woman who was a medical undergraduate attacked her boyfriend with a knife and was not sent to prison by the judge as it might 'harm her career'.
Yes. It’s been proven that attractive defendants are more likely to be acquitted for serious crimes, compared to ugly defendants. All I can say is thank God I was quite dashing back in the 1980s
Yep. Attractiveness, sex, wealth, and skin colour all play a role.
A beautiful rich white woman has to work bloody hard to go to prison.
An ugly homeless black guy is going to have a rather tougher time avoiding it.
Didn't help Ghislaine Maxwell though, she was a noted beauty in her Oxford days but is still in jail
Sorry but it's a fantasy to think that Europe can wash its hands of the crisis in Iran and the gulf.
It has the potential to wreck the global economy. Cause starvation among the world's poor. If our own economies could head south with Russia friendly politicians who want sanctions removed gaining ground. Meanwhile the main beneficiary of the war is Vladimir Putin who gets more money by the day to continue his war in Europe.
So pressure Trump to try and end the war ASAP whatever the conditions? Well do we want to be dealing with an Iranian leadership arguably even more fanatical and emboldened because they think they've seen off the great satan? That's doesn't look too inviting either.
I agree this is one of the decisions facing Europe and the answer is Yes.
For the reasons implied in your question.
How do you think Europe can stop the war?
It's all very well to say that a war isn't in our interests so there shouldn't be a war, but there is a war. Wishing it away won't change anything.
Difficult for any country to do anything until Israel consider Iran and their proxies to no longer be a threat. They are in the driving seat and don't believe Trump could persuade them from their target. So Trump's off-ramp is to get some other mug to patrol Hormuz and then blame them when it goes wrong.
Like Ukraine - Russia, it will eventually settle but at a cost
Not just Israel, but also the GCC states currently under attack by Iran for no reason at all.
They’re not about to back down, they would probably argue that a few weeks or even months of disruption is a price worth paying for getting rid of the cause of nearly half a century of regional instability.
Sorry but it's a fantasy to think that Europe can wash its hands of the crisis in Iran and the gulf.
It has the potential to wreck the global economy. Cause starvation among the world's poor. If our own economies could head south with Russia friendly politicians who want sanctions removed gaining ground. Meanwhile the main beneficiary of the war is Vladimir Putin who gets more money by the day to continue his war in Europe.
So pressure Trump to try and end the war ASAP whatever the conditions? Well do we want to be dealing with an Iranian leadership arguably even more fanatical and emboldened because they think they've seen off the great satan? That's doesn't look too inviting either.
I agree this is one of the decisions facing Europe and the answer is Yes.
For the reasons implied in your question.
How do you think Europe can stop the war?
It's all very well to say that a war isn't in our interests so there shouldn't be a war, but there is a war. Wishing it away won't change anything.
Difficult for any country to do anything until Israel consider Iran and their proxies to no longer be a threat. They are in the driving seat and don't believe Trump could persuade them from their target. So Trump's off-ramp is to get some other mug to patrol Hormuz and then blame them when it goes wrong.
Like Ukraine - Russia, it will eventually settle but at a cost
So we should support them to get Regime Change, then the threat will be gone.
It is also the right thing to do, for the Iranians.
Sorry but it's a fantasy to think that Europe can wash its hands of the crisis in Iran and the gulf.
It has the potential to wreck the global economy. Cause starvation among the world's poor. If our own economies could head south with Russia friendly politicians who want sanctions removed gaining ground. Meanwhile the main beneficiary of the war is Vladimir Putin who gets more money by the day to continue his war in Europe.
So pressure Trump to try and end the war ASAP whatever the conditions? Well do we want to be dealing with an Iranian leadership arguably even more fanatical and emboldened because they think they've seen off the great satan? That's doesn't look too inviting either.
I agree this is one of the decisions facing Europe and the answer is Yes.
For the reasons implied in your question.
How do you think Europe can stop the war?
It's all very well to say that a war isn't in our interests so there shouldn't be a war, but there is a war. Wishing it away won't change anything.
Blocking Hormuz isn't just a price signal; it creates a real shortage of oil and oil derived products and someone will need to do without. Someone being the poor. The price will settle at the point where rich countries such as those in Europe can outbid poor countries so the latter don't get oil under any circumstances. As @FrankBooth points out, this may well lead to famine.
Europe shouldn't be outbidding poor countries for limited and currently necessary products. In the medium term it needs to accelerate getting off fossil fuels (more Miliband basically). In the short term it should do whatever it can to keep oil flowing. This includes dealing with Iran.
Sorry but it's a fantasy to think that Europe can wash its hands of the crisis in Iran and the gulf.
It has the potential to wreck the global economy. Cause starvation among the world's poor. If our own economies could head south with Russia friendly politicians who want sanctions removed gaining ground. Meanwhile the main beneficiary of the war is Vladimir Putin who gets more money by the day to continue his war in Europe.
So pressure Trump to try and end the war ASAP whatever the conditions? Well do we want to be dealing with an Iranian leadership arguably even more fanatical and emboldened because they think they've seen off the great satan? That's doesn't look too inviting either.
I agree this is one of the decisions facing Europe and the answer is Yes.
For the reasons implied in your question.
How do you think Europe can stop the war?
It's all very well to say that a war isn't in our interests so there shouldn't be a war, but there is a war. Wishing it away won't change anything.
Difficult for any country to do anything until Israel consider Iran and their proxies to no longer be a threat. They are in the driving seat and don't believe Trump could persuade them from their target. So Trump's off-ramp is to get some other mug to patrol Hormuz and then blame them when it goes wrong.
Like Ukraine - Russia, it will eventually settle but at a cost
So we should support them to get Regime Change, then the threat will be gone.
It is also the right thing to do, for the Iranians.
Win/win.
We should support regime change
IN ISRAEL
As long as Netanyahu and his rabid Zionists are there, there will be no peace in the region
Got to be a chance Reform have been reeled in by Cons/Labour/both by the locals in May.
An NEV slightly tighter than the above would make for a lot of hung councils - most of the counties up, lots of London potentially etc Reform sliding to mid 20s nationally might make for a relative shocker of a night for them in Scotland and much of London
Sorry but it's a fantasy to think that Europe can wash its hands of the crisis in Iran and the gulf.
It has the potential to wreck the global economy. Cause starvation among the world's poor. If our own economies could head south with Russia friendly politicians who want sanctions removed gaining ground. Meanwhile the main beneficiary of the war is Vladimir Putin who gets more money by the day to continue his war in Europe.
So pressure Trump to try and end the war ASAP whatever the conditions? Well do we want to be dealing with an Iranian leadership arguably even more fanatical and emboldened because they think they've seen off the great satan? That's doesn't look too inviting either.
I agree this is one of the decisions facing Europe and the answer is Yes.
For the reasons implied in your question.
How do you think Europe can stop the war?
It's all very well to say that a war isn't in our interests so there shouldn't be a war, but there is a war. Wishing it away won't change anything.
Blocking Hormuz isn't just a price signal; it creates a real shortage of oil and oil derived products and someone will need to do without. Someone being the poor. The price will settle at the point where rich countries such as those in Europe can outbid poor countries so the latter don't get oil under any circumstances. As @FrankBooth points out, this may well lead to famine.
Europe shouldn't be outbidding poor countries for limited and currently necessary products. In the medium term it needs to accelerate getting off fossil fuels (more Miliband basically). In the short term it should do whatever it can to keep oil flowing. This includes dealing with Iran.
If reducing the global supply of oil is a bad thing that hits the poor most, isn't it immoral to restrict North Sea production artificially?
Andrew Lilico @andrew_lilico · 1h It seems very clear that the rise of the Greens in recent months could have been the rise of the Corbyn party had it not been for the chaos associated with that party's formation. Indeed, Corbyn's party might have done even better.
EDIT: and this follow up comment is worth mulling over:
theimperiumdidnothingwrong @imperimnowtwrng · 1h There is some interesting research to be done into why the Green Party factions can unite despite being fundamentally at odds about almost everything while Your Party's factions which agree about almost everything can't.
I wonder if a lot of Green types are newer to real politics than the older, battered war horses of the traditional ideological left, so they don't know what is coming their way.
If they get anywhere close to being taken seriously as a possible government (personally I don't think they will, unlike the deadly Reform) then they will discover that when looked at closely many voters don't believe in magic money, Marxism or miracles. They don't even believe in ground source heat pumps or EVs.
Had our 2026 pension statements and how absurd my wife and I get 25p a week more because we are 80+
The whole scheme needs radical overhaul and not just ending the triple lock
You can't buy a chocolate bar for 25p!
We could try to find one for 50p and share !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Or a fifth of a TimTam.
Penguins are £1.25 (Tesco clubcard price) for a pack of 7, that's a shade under 18p per Penguin...
The amount of chocolate in a Penguin has reduced to the point that the manufacturer can’t even call them chocolate biscuits any more. The Aldi rip-off Penguins have more chocolate in them than the “real” Penguins, taste better & cost less (13p / biscuit) to boot.
Sorry but it's a fantasy to think that Europe can wash its hands of the crisis in Iran and the gulf.
It has the potential to wreck the global economy. Cause starvation among the world's poor. If our own economies could head south with Russia friendly politicians who want sanctions removed gaining ground. Meanwhile the main beneficiary of the war is Vladimir Putin who gets more money by the day to continue his war in Europe.
So pressure Trump to try and end the war ASAP whatever the conditions? Well do we want to be dealing with an Iranian leadership arguably even more fanatical and emboldened because they think they've seen off the great satan? That's doesn't look too inviting either.
I agree this is one of the decisions facing Europe and the answer is Yes.
For the reasons implied in your question.
How do you think Europe can stop the war?
It's all very well to say that a war isn't in our interests so there shouldn't be a war, but there is a war. Wishing it away won't change anything.
Blocking Hormuz isn't just a price signal; it creates a real shortage of oil and oil derived products and someone will need to do without. Someone being the poor. The price will settle at the point where rich countries such as those in Europe can outbid poor countries so the latter don't get oil under any circumstances. As @FrankBooth points out, this may well lead to famine.
Europe shouldn't be outbidding poor countries for limited and currently necessary products. In the medium term it needs to accelerate getting off fossil fuels (more Miliband basically). In the short term it should do whatever it can to keep oil flowing. This includes dealing with Iran.
If reducing the global supply of oil is a bad thing that hits the poor most, isn't it immoral to restrict North Sea production artificially?
Notwithstanding your usual whataboutery, yes it would be. I think the government is U -Turning on this manifesto commitment, which to be fair was made before Trump went rogue with the result that Hormuz was closed. It is a medium term change, so doesn't help with the short term problem and it's highly marginal in the medium term anyway.
Had our 2026 pension statements and how absurd my wife and I get 25p a week more because we are 80+
The whole scheme needs radical overhaul and not just ending the triple lock
You can't buy a chocolate bar for 25p!
We could try to find one for 50p and share !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Or a fifth of a TimTam.
Penguins are £1.25 (Tesco clubcard price) for a pack of 7, that's a shade under 18p per Penguin...
The amount of chocolate in a Penguin has reduced to the point that the manufacturer can’t even call them chocolate biscuits any more. The Aldi rip-off Penguins have more chocolate in them than the “real” Penguins, taste better & cost less (13p / biscuit) to boot.
Sorry but it's a fantasy to think that Europe can wash its hands of the crisis in Iran and the gulf.
It has the potential to wreck the global economy. Cause starvation among the world's poor. If our own economies could head south with Russia friendly politicians who want sanctions removed gaining ground. Meanwhile the main beneficiary of the war is Vladimir Putin who gets more money by the day to continue his war in Europe.
So pressure Trump to try and end the war ASAP whatever the conditions? Well do we want to be dealing with an Iranian leadership arguably even more fanatical and emboldened because they think they've seen off the great satan? That's doesn't look too inviting either.
I agree this is one of the decisions facing Europe and the answer is Yes.
For the reasons implied in your question.
How do you think Europe can stop the war?
It's all very well to say that a war isn't in our interests so there shouldn't be a war, but there is a war. Wishing it away won't change anything.
Difficult for any country to do anything until Israel consider Iran and their proxies to no longer be a threat. They are in the driving seat and don't believe Trump could persuade them from their target. So Trump's off-ramp is to get some other mug to patrol Hormuz and then blame them when it goes wrong.
Like Ukraine - Russia, it will eventually settle but at a cost
So we should support them to get Regime Change, then the threat will be gone.
It is also the right thing to do, for the Iranians.
Win/win.
We should support regime change
IN ISRAEL
As long as Netanyahu and his rabid Zionists are there, there will be no peace in the region
Yeah, yeah, your hatred of Israel is well known.
Netanyahu's Israel has in recent years signed historic peace agreements with much of the region, and was close to it even with Saudi Arabia prior to the Hamas atrocity a few years ago.
Theocratic Iran are the problem, not democratic Israel.
ADS-B data shows that USAF bombers conducting strike missions on Iran from England are completely avoiding continental European airspace.
It’s rather amusing that they’re flying around with transponders on in the first place!
Yes countries can and do refuse overflight to foreign military aircraft carrying weapons, remember just before the Ukraine war kicked off when British transporters had to avoid Germany when flying to Kyiv?
Polanski is a man whose ambitions exceed his talents.
He is a deeply unserious figure, and will eventually be tested and found wanting.
Being unserious hasn't inhibited other politicians. Which party leader is serious right now? Maybe Starmer somewhat. But only somewhat.
Having seen Badenoch yesterday I'd say Polanski is considerably more appealing. People like politicians who can think on their feet and who are articulate. He fits both she fits neither
On the other hand, he’s a geeky, quite ugly man; Badenoch is notably attractive
As a trivial lightweight person who spent a career in tampon advertising, you should know the importance of that
Notably is of course in the eye of the beholder but in any case polling doesn't seem to support the attractivness dividend. Farage increasingly resembles a scrotum with a 40 Kensitas Club a day habit but it doesn't seem to be the factor shrinking his lead.
Ooh, back in the scissors drawer Mrs McSharp!
Farage doesn’t look that bad. Nor does he look that good. He’s getting on. The one leader who is going to seed is Starmer. He was a very handsome man into his 50s. Now he’s fat red and puffy
I also dispute the idea that attractiveness is irrelevant in politics. I’m fairly sure there’s polling to prove it does play a role, albeit not decisive. eg voters really don’t like bald male leaders
Yes Hague had a 1st class PPE degree, was President of the Oxford Union and OUCA, had a successful business career before politics with McKinsey but he still lost to Blair by a landslide as Blair was more attractive and charismatic despite being less intelligent than Hague.
John Howard and Churchill did manage to win despite being old and bald but they both lost elections before the voters decided to elect them at a general election
Tories could have been led by Margot Robbie in 2000s and still would have lost to Blair.
The brand was poison.
I suspect Margot Robbie would have got a lot of young male votes even against Blair
Mike Johnson: "We all understood there was clearly an imminent threat that Iran was very close to the enrichment of nuclear capability ... I don't know where Joe Kent is getting his information ... the president felt he had to strike first to prevent mass casualties" https://x.com/atrupar/status/2033919110749253641
Which again doesn't really square with this.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/mar/17/uk-security-adviser-attended-us-iran-talks-and-judged-deal-was-within-reach ...Powell’s presence at the talks, and his close knowledge of how they were progressing, was confirmed by three sources. One source said he was in the building at Oman’s ambassadorial residence in Cologny acting as an adviser, reflecting widespread concern about the US expertise on the talks represented by Donald Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff, Trump’s special envoy on several issues.
Kushner and Witkoff had invited Rafael Grossi, the director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), to the Geneva talks, to provide technical expertise, though Kushner would later claim that he and Witkoff had “a pretty deep understanding of the issues that matter in this”. Nuclear experts would later say that Witkoff’s pronouncements on the Iran nuclear programme were riddled with basic errors.
Powell has long experience as a mediator, and one source said Powell brought an expert from the UK Cabinet Office with him. One western diplomat said: “Jonathan thought there was a deal to be done, but Iran were not quite there yet, especially on the issue of UN inspections of its nuclear sites.”
A former official who was briefed on the Geneva talks by some of the participants said: “Witkoff and Kushner did not bring a US technical team with them. They used Grossi as their technical expert, but that is not his job. So Jonathan Powell took his own team.
“The UK team were surprised by what the Iranians put on the table,” the former official added. “It was not a complete deal, but it was progress and was unlikely to be the Iranians’ final offer. The British team expected the next round of negotiations to go ahead on the basis of the progress in Geneva.”
That next round of talks was due to take place in Vienna on Monday 2 March, but never happened. The US and Israel had launched their all-out attack two days earlier...
What Powell thought is moot, since Starmer chose not to get involved in operations. If you don't get involved, your judgment is irrelevant.
All that matters is if America and Israel were satisfied with the Iranian offer. They clearly weren't.
Yoire effectively arguinf the US and Israel can skip what they like, and can't be challenged. That is a deeply stupid and immoral position to take.
No, I am arguing that every independent, sovereign country has the right to make whatever decisions it chooses. Especially, democratic countries, have the right to have decisions made by their democratically-elected leaders.
The USA and Israel have neither elected Starmer, nor Powell. Just because Powell thought that progress was acceptable, does not mean either of those nations democratically-elected leaders are obliged to agree with them.
If Badenoch was our PM, then we might be making different choices to what Starmer and Powell are making, so why can't they?
That is democracy in action. It is profoundly illiberal and undemocratic to deny sovereign countries the right to make their own independent decisions.
The morality of the decisions is an entirely separate debate to the ability of independent, sovereign countries to make their own choices.
No one is questioning the ability of countries to "make their own decisions" What we're saying is that they very likely straight out lied about the negotiations; something you were denying.
Which is one of the reasons the UK has made its own sovereign independent decision to stay out of the mess.
Lmao. What pointless polling. 'Churchill or an Owl?'
What a waste of time.
BoE can't keep Churchill on as they need to change designs for security reasons. As they do every few years in the modern age.
You can argue for a different historical figure but not keeping Churchill.
Personally I think it is time one of the WWI war poets was on.
Benjamin Franklin has survived at least two security redesigns of the $100 bill, there’s no reason why Churchill can’t also survive.
Security redesigns don’t need to look massively different.
And even if they wanted to change the portrait, it would be just as good to use a different portrait of the incumbent. The design on the note is stylised, anyway, by an expert to work with the printing/engraving process.
Polanski is a man whose ambitions exceed his talents.
He is a deeply unserious figure, and will eventually be tested and found wanting.
Being unserious hasn't inhibited other politicians. Which party leader is serious right now? Maybe Starmer somewhat. But only somewhat.
Having seen Badenoch yesterday I'd say Polanski is considerably more appealing. People like politicians who can think on their feet and who are articulate. He fits both she fits neither
On the other hand, he’s a geeky, quite ugly man; Badenoch is notably attractive
As a trivial lightweight person who spent a career in tampon advertising, you should know the importance of that
Notably is of course in the eye of the beholder but in any case polling doesn't seem to support the attractivness dividend. Farage increasingly resembles a scrotum with a 40 Kensitas Club a day habit but it doesn't seem to be the factor shrinking his lead.
Ooh, back in the scissors drawer Mrs McSharp!
Farage doesn’t look that bad. Nor does he look that good. He’s getting on. The one leader who is going to seed is Starmer. He was a very handsome man into his 50s. Now he’s fat red and puffy
I also dispute the idea that attractiveness is irrelevant in politics. I’m fairly sure there’s polling to prove it does play a role, albeit not decisive. eg voters really don’t like bald male leaders
Yes Hague had a 1st class PPE degree, was President of the Oxford Union and OUCA, had a successful business career before politics with McKinsey but he still lost to Blair by a landslide as Blair was more attractive and charismatic despite being less intelligent than Hague.
The intelligence of the potential PM is very low down on the criteria that most people use when deciding how to vote.
It is normally the most charismatic party who wins rather than the most intelligent. Starmer is intelligent and dull but then Rishi was also pretty dull if equally intelligent
Lmao. What pointless polling. 'Churchill or an Owl?'
What a waste of time.
BoE can't keep Churchill on as they need to change designs for security reasons. As they do every few years in the modern age.
You can argue for a different historical figure but not keeping Churchill.
Personally I think it is time one of the WWI war poets was on.
Benjamin Franklin has survived at least two security redesigns of the $100 bill, there’s no reason why Churchill can’t also survive.
It's been general practice to change the figures on the banknotes every ten years. Hard to see how anyone could object to that.
The world has changed in this regard. You can't put a stoat on a banknote without an extensive consultation with a million people and the threat of judicial review, parliamentary debate and a trillion social media comments, some threatening death to banknote producers. On the plus side you can declare war on Iran closing down the world economy on the whim of a single individual who feels it in their bones. So there are pluses as well as minuses.
Truly depressing thread on the insane Afghan relocation scheme
"The National Audit Office has released a report into the Afghan resettlement scheme, the findings are grim.
37,950 Afghans have already been resettled in the UK and the Government expects a further 8,632 - 9,741 to be resettled by 2030, bringing the total to 46,582 - 47,691."
"The Government have already spent £3.1bn on the relocation schemes and expect to spend a total of £5.7bn by 2032-33.
By the time this scheme is finished, it works out to around £120,000~ per Afghan relocated to the UK."
80-90% live in social housing. Half can't speak English, and won't learn, so they will never pay taxes via work. Many will strive to bring wider families, one guy brought 22 relatives. Yes. 22. Local authorities are being "incentivised" to house them, all over the country
We will end up spending many many billions of YOUR tax money on this insane virtue signalling, which endangers us all, especially women. meanwhile our taxes go up and our borrowing goes up to make the Afghans happy
And yes, Robert Jenrick is implicated in this disaster, up to his eyeballs
Had our 2026 pension statements and how absurd my wife and I get 25p a week more because we are 80+
The whole scheme needs radical overhaul and not just ending the triple lock
You can't buy a chocolate bar for 25p!
We could try to find one for 50p and share !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Or a fifth of a TimTam.
Penguins are £1.25 (Tesco clubcard price) for a pack of 7, that's a shade under 18p per Penguin...
The amount of chocolate in a Penguin has reduced to the point that the manufacturer can’t even call them chocolate biscuits any more. The Aldi rip-off Penguins have more chocolate in them than the “real” Penguins, taste better & cost less (13p / biscuit) to boot.
that is quality advice.
For milk chocolate fans who are not bothered about the biscuit aspect, IMO the best value around is Lidl's top tier (they have three, ranging from chocolate flavoured grit to pretty decent) milk chocolate in 200g bars, at around £1.20 per 100g.
Sorry but it's a fantasy to think that Europe can wash its hands of the crisis in Iran and the gulf.
It has the potential to wreck the global economy. Cause starvation among the world's poor. If our own economies could head south with Russia friendly politicians who want sanctions removed gaining ground. Meanwhile the main beneficiary of the war is Vladimir Putin who gets more money by the day to continue his war in Europe.
So pressure Trump to try and end the war ASAP whatever the conditions? Well do we want to be dealing with an Iranian leadership arguably even more fanatical and emboldened because they think they've seen off the great satan? That's doesn't look too inviting either.
I agree this is one of the decisions facing Europe and the answer is Yes.
For the reasons implied in your question.
How do you think Europe can stop the war?
It's all very well to say that a war isn't in our interests so there shouldn't be a war, but there is a war. Wishing it away won't change anything.
Difficult for any country to do anything until Israel consider Iran and their proxies to no longer be a threat. They are in the driving seat and don't believe Trump could persuade them from their target. So Trump's off-ramp is to get some other mug to patrol Hormuz and then blame them when it goes wrong.
Like Ukraine - Russia, it will eventually settle but at a cost
So we should support them to get Regime Change, then the threat will be gone.
It is also the right thing to do, for the Iranians.
Win/win.
You've ducked the earlier point of Trump looking for a mug. The US Navy could patrol Hormuz but declines to so as it's a kill zone. No amount of additional ships will remove the threat of dead servicemen turning up on politicians' doors. Israel and the US say they don't need help anyway and any UK help has been rejected as 'too little, too late'
Leave it to Israel as they seem to have quite a few 'spotter' moles in Iran.
Starmer struggled much more again when its Mandelson week. You can draw your own conclusions about why and what that means may be coming out, but it seems to be THE achilles heel
Sorry but it's a fantasy to think that Europe can wash its hands of the crisis in Iran and the gulf.
It has the potential to wreck the global economy. Cause starvation among the world's poor. If our own economies could head south with Russia friendly politicians who want sanctions removed gaining ground. Meanwhile the main beneficiary of the war is Vladimir Putin who gets more money by the day to continue his war in Europe.
So pressure Trump to try and end the war ASAP whatever the conditions? Well do we want to be dealing with an Iranian leadership arguably even more fanatical and emboldened because they think they've seen off the great satan? That's doesn't look too inviting either.
I agree this is one of the decisions facing Europe and the answer is Yes.
For the reasons implied in your question.
How do you think Europe can stop the war?
It's all very well to say that a war isn't in our interests so there shouldn't be a war, but there is a war. Wishing it away won't change anything.
Blocking Hormuz isn't just a price signal; it creates a real shortage of oil and oil derived products and someone will need to do without. Someone being the poor. The price will settle at the point where rich countries such as those in Europe can outbid poor countries so the latter don't get oil under any circumstances. As @FrankBooth points out, this may well lead to famine.
Europe shouldn't be outbidding poor countries for limited and currently necessary products. In the medium term it needs to accelerate getting off fossil fuels (more Miliband basically). In the short term it should do whatever it can to keep oil flowing. This includes dealing with Iran.
If reducing the global supply of oil is a bad thing that hits the poor most, isn't it immoral to restrict North Sea production artificially?
There's another factor I wonder about in this, namely a shift in transportation costs.
Aiui, we have around 10 million barrels per day going through the pipes on the Arabian Peninsula by-passing Hormuz. A bit is going further south into the UAE, which is neutral in terms of where it is shipped to, but the majority is going to the Red Sea, which favours shipment Westwards over Eastwards by a good 1000 miles or so.
What I don't know is how big a factor the shipping cost is in the overall oil cost, so how much that advantages Europe relative to Asia in terms of being a more attractive destination for the oil.
Sorry but it's a fantasy to think that Europe can wash its hands of the crisis in Iran and the gulf.
It has the potential to wreck the global economy. Cause starvation among the world's poor. If our own economies could head south with Russia friendly politicians who want sanctions removed gaining ground. Meanwhile the main beneficiary of the war is Vladimir Putin who gets more money by the day to continue his war in Europe.
So pressure Trump to try and end the war ASAP whatever the conditions? Well do we want to be dealing with an Iranian leadership arguably even more fanatical and emboldened because they think they've seen off the great satan? That's doesn't look too inviting either.
I agree this is one of the decisions facing Europe and the answer is Yes.
For the reasons implied in your question.
How do you think Europe can stop the war?
It's all very well to say that a war isn't in our interests so there shouldn't be a war, but there is a war. Wishing it away won't change anything.
Difficult for any country to do anything until Israel consider Iran and their proxies to no longer be a threat. They are in the driving seat and don't believe Trump could persuade them from their target. So Trump's off-ramp is to get some other mug to patrol Hormuz and then blame them when it goes wrong.
Like Ukraine - Russia, it will eventually settle but at a cost
So we should support them to get Regime Change, then the threat will be gone.
It is also the right thing to do, for the Iranians.
Win/win.
You've ducked the earlier point of Trump looking for a mug. The US Navy could patrol Hormuz but declines to so as it's a kill zone. No amount of additional ships will remove the threat of dead servicemen turning up on politicians' doors. Israel and the US say they don't need help anyway and any UK help has been rejected as 'too little, too late'
Leave it to Israel as they seem to have quite a few 'spotter' moles in Iran.
What America might usefully do is provide cheap insurance for cargo vessels in the Strait. It's about money as well as missiles.
Starmer struggled much more again when its Mandelson week. You can draw your own conclusions about why and what that means may be coming out, but it seems to be THE achilles heel
No body is interested in Mandelson
He answered He apologised
A shame Badenoch thinks that is the only issue people are interested in
Starmer struggled much more again when its Mandelson week. You can draw your own conclusions about why and what that means may be coming out, but it seems to be THE achilles heel
No body is interested in Mandelson
He answered He apologised
A shame Badenoch thinks that is the only issue people are interested in
Starmer struggled much more again when its Mandelson week. You can draw your own conclusions about why and what that means may be coming out, but it seems to be THE achilles heel
No body is interested in Mandelson
He answered He apologised
A shame Badenoch thinks that is the only issue people are interested in
Mike Johnson: "We all understood there was clearly an imminent threat that Iran was very close to the enrichment of nuclear capability ... I don't know where Joe Kent is getting his information ... the president felt he had to strike first to prevent mass casualties" https://x.com/atrupar/status/2033919110749253641
Which again doesn't really square with this.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/mar/17/uk-security-adviser-attended-us-iran-talks-and-judged-deal-was-within-reach ...Powell’s presence at the talks, and his close knowledge of how they were progressing, was confirmed by three sources. One source said he was in the building at Oman’s ambassadorial residence in Cologny acting as an adviser, reflecting widespread concern about the US expertise on the talks represented by Donald Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff, Trump’s special envoy on several issues.
Kushner and Witkoff had invited Rafael Grossi, the director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), to the Geneva talks, to provide technical expertise, though Kushner would later claim that he and Witkoff had “a pretty deep understanding of the issues that matter in this”. Nuclear experts would later say that Witkoff’s pronouncements on the Iran nuclear programme were riddled with basic errors.
Powell has long experience as a mediator, and one source said Powell brought an expert from the UK Cabinet Office with him. One western diplomat said: “Jonathan thought there was a deal to be done, but Iran were not quite there yet, especially on the issue of UN inspections of its nuclear sites.”
A former official who was briefed on the Geneva talks by some of the participants said: “Witkoff and Kushner did not bring a US technical team with them. They used Grossi as their technical expert, but that is not his job. So Jonathan Powell took his own team.
“The UK team were surprised by what the Iranians put on the table,” the former official added. “It was not a complete deal, but it was progress and was unlikely to be the Iranians’ final offer. The British team expected the next round of negotiations to go ahead on the basis of the progress in Geneva.”
That next round of talks was due to take place in Vienna on Monday 2 March, but never happened. The US and Israel had launched their all-out attack two days earlier...
What Powell thought is moot, since Starmer chose not to get involved in operations. If you don't get involved, your judgment is irrelevant.
All that matters is if America and Israel were satisfied with the Iranian offer. They clearly weren't.
Yoire effectively arguinf the US and Israel can skip what they like, and can't be challenged. That is a deeply stupid and immoral position to take.
No, I am arguing that every independent, sovereign country has the right to make whatever decisions it chooses. Especially, democratic countries, have the right to have decisions made by their democratically-elected leaders.
The USA and Israel have neither elected Starmer, nor Powell. Just because Powell thought that progress was acceptable, does not mean either of those nations democratically-elected leaders are obliged to agree with them.
If Badenoch was our PM, then we might be making different choices to what Starmer and Powell are making, so why can't they?
That is democracy in action. It is profoundly illiberal and undemocratic to deny sovereign countries the right to make their own independent decisions.
The morality of the decisions is an entirely separate debate to the ability of independent, sovereign countries to make their own choices.
So, sovereign countries have the right to make their own independent decisions… except Iran? If Iran decides to develop ballistic missiles technology or enrich uranium, that’s not acceptable?
Starmer struggled much more again when its Mandelson week. You can draw your own conclusions about why and what that means may be coming out, but it seems to be THE achilles heel
No body is interested in Mandelson
He answered He apologised
A shame Badenoch thinks that is the only issue people are interested in
No one is.
Brixian, that is just hand-waving.
People do care when a Prime Minister repeatedly looks uncomfortable around the same subject, especially when it concerns judgement, associates, and candour. You can dismiss Mandelson as irrelevant if you like, but Starmer plainly does not find it irrelevant, otherwise he would not keep sounding so awkward whenever it comes up.
“He answered” and “he apologised” is not some magic spell that makes the issue disappear. Politicians answer and apologise all the time without settling anything. The question is whether the answer was convincing and whether the apology closes the matter. In this case, clearly not, or it would not keep resurfacing.
And claiming “no one is interested” is just tribal wishful thinking. You may not be interested. Labour loyalists may not want to dwell on it. That is not the same thing as the issue having no political weight.
If Badenoch is raising it, it is because it speaks to a wider concern about Starmer: that beneath the lawyerly polish, voters are not always sure what he really thinks, who he is close to, or where the line is between pragmatism and expediency.
Sorry but it's a fantasy to think that Europe can wash its hands of the crisis in Iran and the gulf.
It has the potential to wreck the global economy. Cause starvation among the world's poor. If our own economies could head south with Russia friendly politicians who want sanctions removed gaining ground. Meanwhile the main beneficiary of the war is Vladimir Putin who gets more money by the day to continue his war in Europe.
So pressure Trump to try and end the war ASAP whatever the conditions? Well do we want to be dealing with an Iranian leadership arguably even more fanatical and emboldened because they think they've seen off the great satan? That's doesn't look too inviting either.
I agree this is one of the decisions facing Europe and the answer is Yes.
For the reasons implied in your question.
How do you think Europe can stop the war?
It's all very well to say that a war isn't in our interests so there shouldn't be a war, but there is a war. Wishing it away won't change anything.
Difficult for any country to do anything until Israel consider Iran and their proxies to no longer be a threat. They are in the driving seat and don't believe Trump could persuade them from their target. So Trump's off-ramp is to get some other mug to patrol Hormuz and then blame them when it goes wrong.
Like Ukraine - Russia, it will eventually settle but at a cost
So we should support them to get Regime Change, then the threat will be gone.
It is also the right thing to do, for the Iranians.
Win/win.
You've ducked the earlier point of Trump looking for a mug. The US Navy could patrol Hormuz but declines to so as it's a kill zone. No amount of additional ships will remove the threat of dead servicemen turning up on politicians' doors. Israel and the US say they don't need help anyway and any UK help has been rejected as 'too little, too late'
Leave it to Israel as they seem to have quite a few 'spotter' moles in Iran.
What America might usefully do is provide cheap insurance for cargo vessels in the Strait. It's about money as well as missiles.
I like that idea. Do you know where we can get a few end-of-life tankers that can be sent through (empty and uncrewed) with an inflated value?
ADS-B data shows that USAF bombers conducting strike missions on Iran from England are completely avoiding continental European airspace.
It’s rather amusing that they’re flying around with transponders on in the first place!
Yes countries can and do refuse overflight to foreign military aircraft carrying weapons, remember just before the Ukraine war kicked off when British transporters had to avoid Germany when flying to Kyiv?
The paperwork for this sort of thing gets fucked up all the time so strange routes are often just down to sheer incompetence.
I once had to get to Basra via Bahrain so they put me on an RAF Tristar ex Brize which was going to Kabul via Bahrain to drop off circa 250 Royal Marines. We got to Bahrain and the pot bellied RAF captain comes back and tells us they have no clearance to unload pax in Bahrain so I'll have to stay on for the Kabul legs and they'll drop me off at Bahrain on they way back after the clearances are sorted. Somewhere over the Hindu Kush we learn that Kabul Airport is being fucking mortared so we're not going there, we're diverting to Karachi. We have six hours on the ground in Karachi then back to Bahrain where to the surprise of nobody the paperwork is still fucked. The RAF give up at this point with the spirit of Per Ardua Ad Astra being missing in action. They do a crew change and fly us back to Brize. We spent 29 hours on that fucking Tristar to end up back where we started. The Marines were about ready to start stabbing RAF cabin crew and they asked me, as senior RN officer on board if I could control the Booties I replied that I wasn't even going to fucking try.
We clearly don't have many military assets available to secure the straight of Hormuz. The question is how do we support the countries of the region in getting it open?
Polanski is a man whose ambitions exceed his talents.
He is a deeply unserious figure, and will eventually be tested and found wanting.
Being unserious hasn't inhibited other politicians. Which party leader is serious right now? Maybe Starmer somewhat. But only somewhat.
Having seen Badenoch yesterday I'd say Polanski is considerably more appealing. People like politicians who can think on their feet and who are articulate. He fits both she fits neither
On the other hand, he’s a geeky, quite ugly man; Badenoch is notably attractive
As a trivial lightweight person who spent a career in tampon advertising, you should know the importance of that
Notably is of course in the eye of the beholder but in any case polling doesn't seem to support the attractivness dividend. Farage increasingly resembles a scrotum with a 40 Kensitas Club a day habit but it doesn't seem to be the factor shrinking his lead.
Ooh, back in the scissors drawer Mrs McSharp!
Farage doesn’t look that bad. Nor does he look that good. He’s getting on. The one leader who is going to seed is Starmer. He was a very handsome man into his 50s. Now he’s fat red and puffy
I also dispute the idea that attractiveness is irrelevant in politics. I’m fairly sure there’s polling to prove it does play a role, albeit not decisive. eg voters really don’t like bald male leaders
Yes Hague had a 1st class PPE degree, was President of the Oxford Union and OUCA, had a successful business career before politics with McKinsey but he still lost to Blair by a landslide as Blair was more attractive and charismatic despite being less intelligent than Hague.
The intelligence of the potential PM is very low down on the criteria that most people use when deciding how to vote.
It is normally the most charismatic party who wins rather than the most intelligent. Starmer is intelligent and dull but then Rishi was also pretty dull if equally intelligent
Theresa May was probably the last leader and only party leader and PM this century who beat her less intelligent but more charismatic opponent in a general election. Though then only as Corbyn was so far left and she relatively centrist and even then she barely scraped home with most seats and lost her majority
Starmer struggled much more again when its Mandelson week. You can draw your own conclusions about why and what that means may be coming out, but it seems to be THE achilles heel
No body is interested in Mandelson
He answered He apologised
A shame Badenoch thinks that is the only issue people are interested in
No one is.
Brixian, that is just hand-waving.
People do care when a Prime Minister repeatedly looks uncomfortable around the same subject, especially when it concerns judgement, associates, and candour. You can dismiss Mandelson as irrelevant if you like, but Starmer plainly does not find it irrelevant, otherwise he would not keep sounding so awkward whenever it comes up.
“He answered” and “he apologised” is not some magic spell that makes the issue disappear. Politicians answer and apologise all the time without settling anything. The question is whether the answer was convincing and whether the apology closes the matter. In this case, clearly not, or it would not keep resurfacing.
And claiming “no one is interested” is just tribal wishful thinking. You may not be interested. Labour loyalists may not want to dwell on it. That is not the same thing as the issue having no political weight.
If Badenoch is raising it, it is because it speaks to a wider concern about Starmer: that beneath the lawyerly polish, voters are not always sure what he really thinks, who he is close to, or where the line is between pragmatism and expediency.
Sensible response to attempt to close down a real sore for Starmer
The former undersecretary for Prisons and Youth Justice? Lived experience is vital.
It goes to show how far a Parliamentarian has to fall before being charged with drug use. We can all name MPs at a high level who are known to use illegal drugs and are not arrested for it
Sorry but it's a fantasy to think that Europe can wash its hands of the crisis in Iran and the gulf.
It has the potential to wreck the global economy. Cause starvation among the world's poor. If our own economies could head south with Russia friendly politicians who want sanctions removed gaining ground. Meanwhile the main beneficiary of the war is Vladimir Putin who gets more money by the day to continue his war in Europe.
So pressure Trump to try and end the war ASAP whatever the conditions? Well do we want to be dealing with an Iranian leadership arguably even more fanatical and emboldened because they think they've seen off the great satan? That's doesn't look too inviting either.
I agree this is one of the decisions facing Europe and the answer is Yes.
For the reasons implied in your question.
How do you think Europe can stop the war?
It's all very well to say that a war isn't in our interests so there shouldn't be a war, but there is a war. Wishing it away won't change anything.
Difficult for any country to do anything until Israel consider Iran and their proxies to no longer be a threat. They are in the driving seat and don't believe Trump could persuade them from their target. So Trump's off-ramp is to get some other mug to patrol Hormuz and then blame them when it goes wrong.
Like Ukraine - Russia, it will eventually settle but at a cost
Not just Israel, but also the GCC states currently under attack by Iran for no reason at all.
Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar and the UAE are hosting US forces that are knocking the shit out of Iran at the behest of Netanyahu. That's why they are getting the occasional knuckle shampoo.
Starmer struggled much more again when its Mandelson week. You can draw your own conclusions about why and what that means may be coming out, but it seems to be THE achilles heel
No body is interested in Mandelson
He answered He apologised
A shame Badenoch thinks that is the only issue people are interested in
No one is.
Starmer wanted Boris Johnson to resign over a birthday cake being delivered to a meeting.
‘Mandelson’ is an issue specifically about the PM, and his judgement in appointing him in the first place.
Starmer struggled much more again when its Mandelson week. You can draw your own conclusions about why and what that means may be coming out, but it seems to be THE achilles heel
No body is interested in Mandelson
He answered He apologised
A shame Badenoch thinks that is the only issue people are interested in
No one is.
Panic response
Kemi asked 3 times “did you speak to Mandy before appointing him” and each time Starmer did not answer the question. Then Kemi said “the evasion all points to the fact YOU DIDN’T speak to him yourself, before appointing him”
Wait! Does it? Does evasion point to the fact he didn’t?
I thought the evasion was all pointing to the fact he had spoken to him before appointment, to be honest. That - speaking to Mandy himself and getting answer he had met with Epstein after the conviction - surely is where the damage and danger is to Starmer.
Incidentally, it looks like Dubai got hit quite badly hit last night. It’s difficult to be sure with their brutal censorship but it looks like the biggest Iranian attack yet
I thought they were meant to be running out of missiles and drones? This has echoes of all the “Putin has no more ammunition” stories, from the PB Dads, back in 2024
I hope Sandpit is OK. Perhaps he can give us an honest update
I hope he doesn't - wouldn't want him to end up on the wrong side of the law.
I can be honest. Those finding themselves in trouble are either posting fake news or taking photographs of military activity.
One example from yesterday, someone posting a six-year-old video of a marketplace fire in the city of Ajman, but saying that it was a current event in Dubai caused by a missile attack.
There is a verified video from Al Jazeera of drones (I think) being intercepted right over Dubai. People forget that interceptions don't take away the entire problem, the intercepted drone falls to the ground
I experienced exactly this in Odessa. I was strolling back to my hotel and I heard - honestly - the loudest, most frightening noise I have ever heard in my life. Everyone on the street reflexively ducked (never a good sign in Odessa, where they shrug off air sirens)
We turned around and saw a puff of smoke and a lot of crushed metal. It was an intercepted drone and it had fallen on to a kid's playground, obliterating the swings - happily the playground was empty at the time (there aren't many small children left in Odessa). The metal smouldered and did not burn. We all got on with the day, I immediately went into the next shop and bought a load of jamon iberica de bellota, having been reminded that life is short
However, I really would not like to live in a city where "interceptions" like this happen all the time. Once, is an anecdote, twice or thrice and it's a sign to get the fuck out
Well we’d all rather be living somewhere without flying bombs around the place, but we are where we are.
No-one is quitting jobs and getting out, although tourism is abviously down with Western governments advising against travel to the region. But day-to-day, life goes on. There’s fewer fatalities than days in the conflict so far, in a country of 11m people, so the chance of being affected is tiny. We’re working from home as much as possible, and not hanging around outside when the alerts go off, but apart from that we continue as usual.
Ukraine was an order of magnitude worse.
Good to hear you are relatively safe.
Imagine if, instead of spending £12 billion plus of US military power on attacking Iran, Trump had spent £12 billion plus on supporting Ukraine. Then there’d be no bombs in Dubai and we’d be closer to there being no bombs in Ukraine.
Starmer has set up questions so he can have a dig at Kemi and Nigel immediately before their questions
He’s just a fucking cheat
Oh dear
It's been done since time began
Clearly poor old Kemi forgot she had 6 questions, isn't interested in the key issues of the day and isn't bothered that even Tommy Robinson is concerned she has taken the Tories to the gutter.
Trump: "I wonder what would happen if we 'finished off' what’s left of the Iranian Terror State, and let the Countries that use it, we don’t, be responsible for the so called 'Straight?' That would get some of our non-responsive 'Allies' in gear, and fast!!! President DJT"
Starmer struggled much more again when its Mandelson week. You can draw your own conclusions about why and what that means may be coming out, but it seems to be THE achilles heel
No body is interested in Mandelson
He answered He apologised
A shame Badenoch thinks that is the only issue people are interested in
No one is.
Panic response
Kemi asked 3 times “did you speak to Mandy before appointing him” and each time Starmer did not answer the question. Then Kemi said “the evasion all points to the fact YOU DIDN’T speak to him yourself, before appointing him”
Wait! Does it? Does evasion point to the fact he didn’t?
I thought the evasion was all pointing to the fact he had spoken to him before appointment, to be honest. That - speaking to Mandy himself and getting answer he had met with Epstein after the conviction - surely is where the damage and danger is to Starmer.
I think Kemi dropped the ball.
Stsrmer has put on record in the house that Mandelson lied to him personally. If she gets him to admit he did not speak to him its misleading the house time.
Lmao. What pointless polling. 'Churchill or an Owl?'
What a waste of time.
BoE can't keep Churchill on as they need to change designs for security reasons. As they do every few years in the modern age.
You can argue for a different historical figure but not keeping Churchill.
Personally I think it is time one of the WWI war poets was on.
Benjamin Franklin has survived at least two security redesigns of the $100 bill, there’s no reason why Churchill can’t also survive.
It's been general practice to change the figures on the banknotes every ten years. Hard to see how anyone could object to that.
The world has changed in this regard. You can't put a stoat on a banknote without an extensive consultation with a million people and the threat of judicial review, parliamentary debate and a trillion social media comments, some threatening death to banknote producers. On the plus side you can declare war on Iran closing down the world economy on the whim of a single individual who feels it in their bones. So there are pluses as well as minuses.
I suppose that it’s absurd ultra fascism to suggest that we could try the reverse… process?
Kemi getting a “war bounce” for last week asking the government “people are hurting with the cost of living, what are you actually doing about it.” Badenoch should have stuck with that at PMQs today, not switched to Mandelson.
The war causing huge pain to the cost of living, and the government doing little or nothing about it, has the most cut thru across all voter groups - that’s where the votes are for the Conservatives.
Starmer has set up questions so he can have a dig at Kemi and Nigel immediately before their questions
He’s just a fucking cheat
Oh dear
It's been done since time began
Clearly poor old Kemi forgot she had 6 questions, isn't interested in the key issues of the day and isn't bothered that even Tommy Robinson is concerned she has taken the Tories to the gutter.
I’m sure you’ll get those Starmtrooper stripes one day
Starmer struggled much more again when its Mandelson week. You can draw your own conclusions about why and what that means may be coming out, but it seems to be THE achilles heel
No body is interested in Mandelson
He answered He apologised
A shame Badenoch thinks that is the only issue people are interested in
No one is.
Brixian, that is just hand-waving.
People do care when a Prime Minister repeatedly looks uncomfortable around the same subject, especially when it concerns judgement, associates, and candour. You can dismiss Mandelson as irrelevant if you like, but Starmer plainly does not find it irrelevant, otherwise he would not keep sounding so awkward whenever it comes up.
“He answered” and “he apologised” is not some magic spell that makes the issue disappear. Politicians answer and apologise all the time without settling anything. The question is whether the answer was convincing and whether the apology closes the matter. In this case, clearly not, or it would not keep resurfacing.
And claiming “no one is interested” is just tribal wishful thinking. You may not be interested. Labour loyalists may not want to dwell on it. That is not the same thing as the issue having no political weight.
If Badenoch is raising it, it is because it speaks to a wider concern about Starmer: that beneath the lawyerly polish, voters are not always sure what he really thinks, who he is close to, or where the line is between pragmatism and expediency.
The vast majority of the general public could not give a fig about Mandelson
He's outlined what happened He's outlined what happened and when It's her chance to impress the electorate She wasted 6 questions Everyone will wonder why?
She's wrong on the war She has no policy on energy She hasn't the balls to sack Timothy.
She now has a massive problem if she doesn't sack Timothy today.
Sorry but it's a fantasy to think that Europe can wash its hands of the crisis in Iran and the gulf.
It has the potential to wreck the global economy. Cause starvation among the world's poor. If our own economies could head south with Russia friendly politicians who want sanctions removed gaining ground. Meanwhile the main beneficiary of the war is Vladimir Putin who gets more money by the day to continue his war in Europe.
So pressure Trump to try and end the war ASAP whatever the conditions? Well do we want to be dealing with an Iranian leadership arguably even more fanatical and emboldened because they think they've seen off the great satan? That's doesn't look too inviting either.
I agree this is one of the decisions facing Europe and the answer is Yes.
For the reasons implied in your question.
How do you think Europe can stop the war?
It's all very well to say that a war isn't in our interests so there shouldn't be a war, but there is a war. Wishing it away won't change anything.
Difficult for any country to do anything until Israel consider Iran and their proxies to no longer be a threat. They are in the driving seat and don't believe Trump could persuade them from their target. So Trump's off-ramp is to get some other mug to patrol Hormuz and then blame them when it goes wrong.
Like Ukraine - Russia, it will eventually settle but at a cost
So we should support them to get Regime Change, then the threat will be gone.
It is also the right thing to do, for the Iranians.
Win/win.
We should support regime change
IN ISRAEL
As long as Netanyahu and his rabid Zionists are there, there will be no peace in the region
Yeah, yeah, your hatred of Israel is well known.
Netanyahu's Israel has in recent years signed historic peace agreements with much of the region, and was close to it even with Saudi Arabia prior to the Hamas atrocity a few years ago.
Theocratic Iran are the problem, not democratic Israel.
Israel has also invaded two of its neighbours in recent years, and bombed a third. I don’t think Bibi is going to win the Nobel Peace Prize… although he’s probably favourite for the FIFA Peace Prize.
Starmer struggled much more again when its Mandelson week. You can draw your own conclusions about why and what that means may be coming out, but it seems to be THE achilles heel
No body is interested in Mandelson
He answered He apologised
A shame Badenoch thinks that is the only issue people are interested in
No one is.
Panic response
Kemi asked 3 times “did you speak to Mandy before appointing him” and each time Starmer did not answer the question. Then Kemi said “the evasion all points to the fact YOU DIDN’T speak to him yourself, before appointing him”
Wait! Does it? Does evasion point to the fact he didn’t?
I thought the evasion was all pointing to the fact he had spoken to him before appointment, to be honest. That - speaking to Mandy himself and getting answer he had met with Epstein after the conviction - surely is where the damage and danger is to Starmer.
I think Kemi dropped the ball.
Stsrmer has put on record in the house that Mandelson lied to him personally. If she gets him to admit he did not speak to him its misleading the house time.
Thats the point of it i think
It is and if he did not meet him he could not have been lied to
The conservative back bencher Andrew Snowden just let rip into Starmer’s non answers to Kemi and Starmer response should be watched by anyone who thinks Starmer is not in deep trouble and he knows it
Starmer struggled much more again when its Mandelson week. You can draw your own conclusions about why and what that means may be coming out, but it seems to be THE achilles heel
No body is interested in Mandelson
He answered He apologised
A shame Badenoch thinks that is the only issue people are interested in
No one is.
Panic response
Kemi asked 3 times “did you speak to Mandy before appointing him” and each time Starmer did not answer the question. Then Kemi said “the evasion all points to the fact YOU DIDN’T speak to him yourself, before appointing him”
Wait! Does it? Does evasion point to the fact he didn’t?
I thought the evasion was all pointing to the fact he had spoken to him before appointment, to be honest. That - speaking to Mandy himself and getting answer he had met with Epstein after the conviction - surely is where the damage and danger is to Starmer.
I think Kemi dropped the ball.
Stsrmer has put on record in the house that Mandelson lied to him personally. If she gets him to admit he did not speak to him its misleading the house time.
Thats the point of it i think
It’s an odd way for her to do it, answering the question herself, with her belief it was the opposite of what the truth is, opposite to where the danger to Starmer is.
Starmer struggled much more again when its Mandelson week. You can draw your own conclusions about why and what that means may be coming out, but it seems to be THE achilles heel
No body is interested in Mandelson
He answered He apologised
A shame Badenoch thinks that is the only issue people are interested in
No one is.
Brixian, that is just hand-waving.
People do care when a Prime Minister repeatedly looks uncomfortable around the same subject, especially when it concerns judgement, associates, and candour. You can dismiss Mandelson as irrelevant if you like, but Starmer plainly does not find it irrelevant, otherwise he would not keep sounding so awkward whenever it comes up.
“He answered” and “he apologised” is not some magic spell that makes the issue disappear. Politicians answer and apologise all the time without settling anything. The question is whether the answer was convincing and whether the apology closes the matter. In this case, clearly not, or it would not keep resurfacing.
And claiming “no one is interested” is just tribal wishful thinking. You may not be interested. Labour loyalists may not want to dwell on it. That is not the same thing as the issue having no political weight.
If Badenoch is raising it, it is because it speaks to a wider concern about Starmer: that beneath the lawyerly polish, voters are not always sure what he really thinks, who he is close to, or where the line is between pragmatism and expediency.
The vast majority of the general public could not give a fig about Mandelson
He's outlined what happened He's outlined what happened and when It's her chance to impress the electorate She wasted 6 questions Everyone will wonder why?
She's wrong on the war She has no policy on energy She hasn't the balls to sack Timothy.
She now has a massive problem if she doesn't sack Timothy today.
It's a bold try, and you should be applauded for the effort. So well done for that.
Comments
No-one is quitting jobs and getting out, although tourism is abviously down with Western governments advising against travel to the region. But day-to-day, life goes on. There’s fewer fatalities than days in the conflict so far, in a country of 11m people, so the chance of being affected is tiny. We’re working from home as much as possible, and not hanging around outside when the alerts go off, but apart from that we continue as usual.
Ukraine was an order of magnitude worse.
In electoral terms Blair was more successful, in changing the country though as you say Attlee was more significant
Lmao. What pointless polling. 'Churchill or an Owl?'
It's all very well to say that a war isn't in our interests so there shouldn't be a war, but there is a war. Wishing it away won't change anything.
John Howard and Churchill did manage to win despite being old and bald but they both lost elections before the voters decided to elect them at a general election
The brand was poison.
Like Ukraine - Russia, it will eventually settle but at a cost
BoE can't keep Churchill on as they need to change designs for security reasons. As they do every few years in the modern age.
You can argue for a different historical figure but not keeping Churchill.
Personally I think it is time one of the WWI war poets was on.
Iran's South Pars petrochemical facilities hit
They’re not about to back down, they would probably argue that a few weeks or even months of disruption is a price worth paying for getting rid of the cause of nearly half a century of regional instability.
It is also the right thing to do, for the Iranians.
Win/win.
Europe shouldn't be outbidding poor countries for limited and currently necessary products. In the medium term it needs to accelerate getting off fossil fuels (more Miliband basically). In the short term it should do whatever it can to keep oil flowing. This includes dealing with Iran.
IN ISRAEL
As long as Netanyahu and his rabid Zionists are there, there will be no peace in the region
Reform sliding to mid 20s nationally might make for a relative shocker of a night for them in Scotland and much of London
I suggest the 4x pack of Wispa on offer at £1.75 (also clubcard price I think), you can almost afford a pack each per month on that even after tax.
ADS-B data shows that USAF bombers conducting strike missions on Iran from England are completely avoiding continental European airspace.
If they get anywhere close to being taken seriously as a possible government (personally I don't think they will, unlike the deadly Reform) then they will discover that when looked at closely many voters don't believe in magic money, Marxism or miracles. They don't even believe in ground source heat pumps or EVs.
Netanyahu's Israel has in recent years signed historic peace agreements with much of the region, and was close to it even with Saudi Arabia prior to the Hamas atrocity a few years ago.
Theocratic Iran are the problem, not democratic Israel.
Yes countries can and do refuse overflight to foreign military aircraft carrying weapons, remember just before the Ukraine war kicked off when British transporters had to avoid Germany when flying to Kyiv?
What we're saying is that they very likely straight out lied about the negotiations; something you were denying.
Which is one of the reasons the UK has made its own sovereign independent decision to stay out of the mess.
And even if they wanted to change the portrait, it would be just as good to use a different portrait of the incumbent. The design on the note is stylised, anyway, by an expert to work with the printing/engraving process.
Getting Starmer tied in knots on whether he actually spoke to Mandelson. Which he clearly didn't.
And then again...
Starmer's having a mare
https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/former-uk-lawmaker-crispin-blunt-charged-with-drugs-offences-2026-03-18/
Leave it to Israel as they seem to have quite a few 'spotter' moles in Iran.
Aiui, we have around 10 million barrels per day going through the pipes on the Arabian Peninsula by-passing Hormuz. A bit is going further south into the UAE, which is neutral in terms of where it is shipped to, but the majority is going to the Red Sea, which favours shipment Westwards over Eastwards by a good 1000 miles or so.
What I don't know is how big a factor the shipping cost is in the overall oil cost, so how much that advantages Europe relative to Asia in terms of being a more attractive destination for the oil.
War
Cost of living
Meningitis
Trump
No Mandelson
Pure inside Westminster bubble crap
She then exacerbates this issue by leaving a clear open goal with vile Nick Timothy sat on her front bench.
Three times she's so immersed in her notes she sits down forgetting she's actually got to ask a question.
Kemi
Clueless
Gutless
Irrelevant
Will she have the backbone to sack Timothy?
Kemi did show he misspoke in the HOC about Mandelson and speaking to him
He simply did not and 'it never crossed my desk' is an absurd disregard to his responsibility
'We’ve now reached the point Keir Starmer is so toxified by the Mandelson scandal he can’t even lie about it properly any more.'
He answered
He apologised
A shame Badenoch thinks that is the only issue people are interested in
No one is.
It's a farce
Ridiculed 3 times.
Lived experience is vital.
People do care when a Prime Minister repeatedly looks uncomfortable around the same subject, especially when it concerns judgement, associates, and candour. You can dismiss Mandelson as irrelevant if you like, but Starmer plainly does not find it irrelevant, otherwise he would not keep sounding so awkward whenever it comes up.
“He answered” and “he apologised” is not some magic spell that makes the issue disappear. Politicians answer and apologise all the time without settling anything. The question is whether the answer was convincing and whether the apology closes the matter. In this case, clearly not, or it would not keep resurfacing.
And claiming “no one is interested” is just tribal wishful thinking. You may not be interested. Labour loyalists may not want to dwell on it. That is not the same thing as the issue having no political weight.
If Badenoch is raising it, it is because it speaks to a wider concern about Starmer: that beneath the lawyerly polish, voters are not always sure what he really thinks, who he is close to, or where the line is between pragmatism and expediency.
I once had to get to Basra via Bahrain so they put me on an RAF Tristar ex Brize which was going to Kabul via Bahrain to drop off circa 250 Royal Marines. We got to Bahrain and the pot bellied RAF captain comes back and tells us they have no clearance to unload pax in Bahrain so I'll have to stay on for the Kabul legs and they'll drop me off at Bahrain on they way back after the clearances are sorted. Somewhere over the Hindu Kush we learn that Kabul Airport is being fucking mortared so we're not going there, we're diverting to Karachi. We have six hours on the ground in Karachi then back to Bahrain where to the surprise of nobody the paperwork is still fucked. The RAF give up at this point with the spirit of Per Ardua Ad Astra being missing in action. They do a crew change and fly us back to Brize. We spent 29 hours on that fucking Tristar to end up back where we started. The Marines were about ready to start stabbing RAF cabin crew and they asked me, as senior RN officer on board if I could control the Booties I replied that I wasn't even going to fucking try.
https://x.com/networkrailglc/status/2034146595948622044
It does appear that there’s only a few platforms available though, this train left from the one furthest from the fire.
He’s just a fucking cheat
@PolliticsUK
🚨 Westminster Voting Intention:
➡️ REF: 28% (-2)
🌳 CON: 21% (+2)
🌹 LAB: 20% (-2)
🟢 GRN: 13% +2)
🔶 LDEM: 12% (-1]
☑️ OTHER: 4% (+1)
From @Moreincommon_
From 13th - 16th March
Changes with 9th March"
http://x.com/PolliticsUK/status/2034189718938656857
‘Mandelson’ is an issue specifically about the PM, and his judgement in appointing him in the first place.
Then Kemi said “the evasion all points to the fact YOU DIDN’T speak to him yourself, before appointing him”
Wait! Does it? Does evasion point to the fact he didn’t?
I thought the evasion was all pointing to the fact he had spoken to him before appointment, to be honest. That - speaking to Mandy himself and getting answer he had met with Epstein after the conviction - surely is where the damage and danger is to Starmer.
I think Kemi dropped the ball.
Imagine if, instead of spending £12 billion plus of US military power on attacking Iran, Trump had spent £12 billion plus on supporting Ukraine. Then there’d be no bombs in Dubai and we’d be closer to there being no bombs in Ukraine.
It's been done since time began
Clearly poor old Kemi forgot she had 6 questions, isn't interested in the key issues of the day and isn't bothered that even Tommy Robinson is concerned she has taken the Tories to the gutter.
Trump: "I wonder what would happen if we 'finished off' what’s left of the Iranian Terror State, and let the Countries that use it, we don’t, be responsible for the so called 'Straight?' That would get some of our non-responsive 'Allies' in gear, and fast!!! President DJT"
https://bsky.app/profile/atrupar.com/post/3mhdgwofpl22o
Only one thing for sure, I won't be spreading my sympathy onto both of them.....
If she gets him to admit he did not speak to him its misleading the house time.
Thats the point of it i think
The war causing huge pain to the cost of living, and the government doing little or nothing about it, has the most cut thru across all voter groups - that’s where the votes are for the Conservatives.
He's outlined what happened
He's outlined what happened and when
It's her chance to impress the electorate
She wasted 6 questions
Everyone will wonder why?
She's wrong on the war
She has no policy on energy
She hasn't the balls to sack Timothy.
She now has a massive problem if she doesn't sack Timothy today.
The conservative back bencher Andrew Snowden just let rip into Starmer’s non answers to Kemi and Starmer response should be watched by anyone who thinks Starmer is not in deep trouble and he knows it
Nah. She dropped the ball.