French polls generally over estimate the support for Le Pen.
Pensioners who as we’ve seen in the UK turnout in much higher numbers will finish off her chances . We see the reverse effect from the UK . In France pensioners are more pro EU and anti the far right .
As long as Philippe gets in the top 2 then I expect him to beat Le Pen .
But, as remainers love to inform us, pensioners are dying off...
He needed to to get the majority, but he still did it and won handsomely
Could Burnham even win ugly?
Boris did NOT call an election after he was appointed Prime Minister in July 2019. Instead he pro-rogued Parliament as soon as he was able, lost two or three MPs to the Lib Dems, then in September kicked out 20 MPs to leave the Conservatives 42 seats SHORT of a majority.
An election was forced upon him, not the other way around.
He still went to the people
There was no Divine Right, like Burnham appears to have
He had no option. Boris Johnson commanded just 288 MPs by the end of September 2019. He had to call an election. Whilst I completely agree that incoming Prime Ministers should go to the country, the fact is, they never do unless they are either forced to, or see huge political advantage in doing so.
Eden - took over in early 1955 - went for a spring election in 1955 following the usual four year cycle since 1951. MacMillan - same - Took over in 1957, waited till 1959. Home - Took over in late 1963 - waited till the death in 1964. Callaghan - Took over in March 1976, lost a vote of confidence in March 1979 and was forced to the country by the opposition. Was probably going to hang on till the autumn otherwise. Major - Took over in November 1990. Hung on to the death in April 1992. Brown - Took over in July 2007 - hung on to the death in May 2010. May - Took over in July 2016 but had a thredbare majority of about 10. Looked at polls saying Con 48, Lab 24 and rolled the dice. She wouldn't have done it otherwise. Still took her a year to decide that. Johnson - Took over in July 2019 without a majority. Made the situation worse by kicking out 20 MPs. Forced to the country - you can't govern with 288MPs. Truss - I'll give you Truss. I reckon she was about to announce a General Election, but she fucked it up and resigned in error. Sunak - Appointed in November 2022 and hung on to nearly the death in 2024.
Incoming PMs DON'T call GE. They should, but the history is they never do.
Burnham won't call a GE.
Johnson did not "make things worse" and "get forced" to go to the polls.
He opted to go to the polls. The opposition voted against it and was dragged kicking and screaming to the election.
Think what you want. You cannot govern with 288MPs. Labour didn't want an election, they knew Magic Grandpa's day was up and they'd lose. But just because Labour didn't want one, doesn't mean Johnson was some high and holy democratic champion who wanted the people to confirm his appointment. If Johnson had 388MPs on his appointment, you can damn well be sure he'd have hung on till 2022 like we were all talking about in 2019. Don't argue with me. Argue with Boris' namesake, Lyndon Baines Johnson.
You are separating the removal of the MPs and going to the polls as if they are separate events, they were not.
Boris could have chosen to keep the MPs that were in the party and govern as a minority like May did.
Instead he removed the 20 MPs and called an election at the exact same time. It was one action.
3rd September he booted the MPs out. The election was called on 29th October 2019. If that's 'the same time', six... seven weeks apart, you have a funny definition of the same time. In fact 10 of those MPs were reinstated just before the dissolution.
French polls generally over estimate the support for Le Pen.
Pensioners who as we’ve seen in the UK turnout in much higher numbers will finish off her chances . We see the reverse effect from the UK . In France pensioners are more pro EU and anti the far right .
As long as Philippe gets in the top 2 then I expect him to beat Le Pen .
The French system is designed such that the candidate people hate the least wins on the second round. So far more people have hated Le Pen more than any of her challengers. I would expect the same with Philippe who is an affable chap. But scope for things to go wrong.
He needed to to get the majority, but he still did it and won handsomely
Could Burnham even win ugly?
Boris did NOT call an election after he was appointed Prime Minister in July 2019. Instead he pro-rogued Parliament as soon as he was able, lost two or three MPs to the Lib Dems, then in September kicked out 20 MPs to leave the Conservatives 42 seats SHORT of a majority.
An election was forced upon him, not the other way around.
He still went to the people
There was no Divine Right, like Burnham appears to have
He had no option. Boris Johnson commanded just 288 MPs by the end of September 2019. He had to call an election. Whilst I completely agree that incoming Prime Ministers should go to the country, the fact is, they never do unless they are either forced to, or see huge political advantage in doing so.
Eden - took over in early 1955 - went for a spring election in 1955 following the usual four year cycle since 1951. MacMillan - same - Took over in 1957, waited till 1959. Home - Took over in late 1963 - waited till the death in 1964. Callaghan - Took over in March 1976, lost a vote of confidence in March 1979 and was forced to the country by the opposition. Was probably going to hang on till the autumn otherwise. Major - Took over in November 1990. Hung on to the death in April 1992. Brown - Took over in July 2007 - hung on to the death in May 2010. May - Took over in July 2016 but had a thredbare majority of about 10. Looked at polls saying Con 48, Lab 24 and rolled the dice. She wouldn't have done it otherwise. Still took her a year to decide that. Johnson - Took over in July 2019 without a majority. Made the situation worse by kicking out 20 MPs. Forced to the country - you can't govern with 288MPs. Truss - I'll give you Truss. I reckon she was about to announce a General Election, but she fucked it up and resigned in error. Sunak - Appointed in November 2022 and hung on to nearly the death in 2024.
Incoming PMs DON'T call GE. They should, but the history is they never do.
Burnham won't call a GE.
Johnson did not "make things worse" and "get forced" to go to the polls.
He opted to go to the polls. The opposition voted against it and was dragged kicking and screaming to the election.
Think what you want. You cannot govern with 288MPs. Labour didn't want an election, they knew Magic Grandpa's day was up and they'd lose. But just because Labour didn't want one, doesn't mean Johnson was some high and holy democratic champion who wanted the people to confirm his appointment. If Johnson had 388MPs on his appointment, you can damn well be sure he'd have hung on till 2022 like we were all talking about in 2019. Don't argue with me. Argue with Boris' namesake, Lyndon Baines Johnson.
You are separating the removal of the MPs and going to the polls as if they are separate events, they were not.
Boris could have chosen to keep the MPs that were in the party and govern as a minority like May did.
Instead he removed the 20 MPs and called an election at the exact same time. It was one action.
Brass tacks - he engineered an election to get a majority in parliament not to get a mandate from the public. If he already had a majority big enough to govern - including Getting Brexit Done - he wouldn't have needed the 2019 election and there wouldn't have been one.
Zeitgeist shift. About three minutes ago the reason why Burnham must stay at Manchester was because Reform would walk the Manchester mayor byelection. IMHO the shift is a straw in the wind about the future of Reform more generally.
@williamglenn informed is that it was a tactical masterstroke to lose Makerfield as it allowed Farage to win the mayoralty. I’m sure that’s still correct
I struggle with Roman Numerals until I get to 159.
Then it just CLIX.
I tend to MIX up my Roman numerals when I get to 1009.
I can't remember how to write 1, 1000, 51, 6 and 500 in Roman Numerals.
I M LIVID
That’s 1,1000, 50, 4 and 499
ID for 499 would be at best nonstandard. Subtractive numerals normally only go within the same order of magnitude - so IV, IX, XL, XC, CD and CM are the only standard subtractives.
Burnham gets the gig, and he didn't even have to get a single telephone line installed.
I didn't want him, but now we've got him I wish him well.
Yes he might disappoint and if he does let's all be disappointed. But given how much of life is taken up by disappointment it's perverse to embrace more of it before it's actually happened. The logical sentiment at this point for people of all persuasions is 'cmon Andy, you can do it'.
This is wild. Apparently firm NY Times story former Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was an Israeli agent prepped to be new ruler after Khamenei was knocked out. It all went wrong of course
Zeitgeist shift. About three minutes ago the reason why Burnham must stay at Manchester was because Reform would walk the Manchester mayor byelection. IMHO the shift is a straw in the wind about the future of Reform more generally.
@williamglenn informed is that it was a tactical masterstroke to lose Makerfield as it allowed Farage to win the mayoralty. I’m sure that’s still correct
Is he going to stand for Manc mayor after he loses Clacton then?
This is wild. Apparently firm NY Times story former Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was an Israeli agent prepped to be new ruler after Khamenei was knocked out. It all went wrong of course
He needed to to get the majority, but he still did it and won handsomely
Could Burnham even win ugly?
Boris did NOT call an election after he was appointed Prime Minister in July 2019. Instead he pro-rogued Parliament as soon as he was able, lost two or three MPs to the Lib Dems, then in September kicked out 20 MPs to leave the Conservatives 42 seats SHORT of a majority.
An election was forced upon him, not the other way around.
He still went to the people
There was no Divine Right, like Burnham appears to have
He had no option. Boris Johnson commanded just 288 MPs by the end of September 2019. He had to call an election. Whilst I completely agree that incoming Prime Ministers should go to the country, the fact is, they never do unless they are either forced to, or see huge political advantage in doing so.
Eden - took over in early 1955 - went for a spring election in 1955 following the usual four year cycle since 1951. MacMillan - same - Took over in 1957, waited till 1959. Home - Took over in late 1963 - waited till the death in 1964. Callaghan - Took over in March 1976, lost a vote of confidence in March 1979 and was forced to the country by the opposition. Was probably going to hang on till the autumn otherwise. Major - Took over in November 1990. Hung on to the death in April 1992. Brown - Took over in July 2007 - hung on to the death in May 2010. May - Took over in July 2016 but had a thredbare majority of about 10. Looked at polls saying Con 48, Lab 24 and rolled the dice. She wouldn't have done it otherwise. Still took her a year to decide that. Johnson - Took over in July 2019 without a majority. Made the situation worse by kicking out 20 MPs. Forced to the country - you can't govern with 288MPs. Truss - I'll give you Truss. I reckon she was about to announce a General Election, but she fucked it up and resigned in error. Sunak - Appointed in November 2022 and hung on to nearly the death in 2024.
Incoming PMs DON'T call GE. They should, but the history is they never do.
Burnham won't call a GE.
Johnson did not "make things worse" and "get forced" to go to the polls.
He opted to go to the polls. The opposition voted against it and was dragged kicking and screaming to the election.
Think what you want. You cannot govern with 288MPs. Labour didn't want an election, they knew Magic Grandpa's day was up and they'd lose. But just because Labour didn't want one, doesn't mean Johnson was some high and holy democratic champion who wanted the people to confirm his appointment. If Johnson had 388MPs on his appointment, you can damn well be sure he'd have hung on till 2022 like we were all talking about in 2019. Don't argue with me. Argue with Boris' namesake, Lyndon Baines Johnson.
You are separating the removal of the MPs and going to the polls as if they are separate events, they were not.
Boris could have chosen to keep the MPs that were in the party and govern as a minority like May did.
Instead he removed the 20 MPs and called an election at the exact same time. It was one action.
3rd September he booted the MPs out. The election was called on 29th October 2019. If that's 'the same time', six... seven weeks apart, you have a funny definition of the same time. In fact 10 of those MPs were reinstated just before the dissolution.
No you are totally misremembering.
He called for an election on 3 September, frit opposition MPs opposed it.
[Trump] has also formally notified Congress that fighting with Iran has resumed, a recognition that the cease-fire has broken down, and one that stokes a struggle over vital war powers. Congress has directed the president to either end the war or seek approval to continue it, but Mr. Trump insists he has the sole authority to make that call. The notification letter, dated Friday, was obtained by The New York Times on Monday.
[Trump] has also formally notified Congress that fighting with Iran has resumed, a recognition that the cease-fire has broken down, and one that stokes a struggle over vital war powers. Congress has directed the president to either end the war or seek approval to continue it, but Mr. Trump insists he has the sole authority to make that call. The notification letter, dated Friday, was obtained by The New York Times on Monday.
NY Times live blog
Yeah right, he'll taco again.
We need regime change in Iran.
Continual ceasefires and splashes of conflict that don't change anything, all while Hormuz remains closed is the worst of all outcomes.
He needed to to get the majority, but he still did it and won handsomely
Could Burnham even win ugly?
Boris did NOT call an election after he was appointed Prime Minister in July 2019. Instead he pro-rogued Parliament as soon as he was able, lost two or three MPs to the Lib Dems, then in September kicked out 20 MPs to leave the Conservatives 42 seats SHORT of a majority.
An election was forced upon him, not the other way around.
He still went to the people
There was no Divine Right, like Burnham appears to have
He had no option. Boris Johnson commanded just 288 MPs by the end of September 2019. He had to call an election. Whilst I completely agree that incoming Prime Ministers should go to the country, the fact is, they never do unless they are either forced to, or see huge political advantage in doing so.
Eden - took over in early 1955 - went for a spring election in 1955 following the usual four year cycle since 1951. MacMillan - same - Took over in 1957, waited till 1959. Home - Took over in late 1963 - waited till the death in 1964. Callaghan - Took over in March 1976, lost a vote of confidence in March 1979 and was forced to the country by the opposition. Was probably going to hang on till the autumn otherwise. Major - Took over in November 1990. Hung on to the death in April 1992. Brown - Took over in July 2007 - hung on to the death in May 2010. May - Took over in July 2016 but had a thredbare majority of about 10. Looked at polls saying Con 48, Lab 24 and rolled the dice. She wouldn't have done it otherwise. Still took her a year to decide that. Johnson - Took over in July 2019 without a majority. Made the situation worse by kicking out 20 MPs. Forced to the country - you can't govern with 288MPs. Truss - I'll give you Truss. I reckon she was about to announce a General Election, but she fucked it up and resigned in error. Sunak - Appointed in November 2022 and hung on to nearly the death in 2024.
Incoming PMs DON'T call GE. They should, but the history is they never do.
Burnham won't call a GE.
Johnson did not "make things worse" and "get forced" to go to the polls.
He opted to go to the polls. The opposition voted against it and was dragged kicking and screaming to the election.
Think what you want. You cannot govern with 288MPs. Labour didn't want an election, they knew Magic Grandpa's day was up and they'd lose. But just because Labour didn't want one, doesn't mean Johnson was some high and holy democratic champion who wanted the people to confirm his appointment. If Johnson had 388MPs on his appointment, you can damn well be sure he'd have hung on till 2022 like we were all talking about in 2019. Don't argue with me. Argue with Boris' namesake, Lyndon Baines Johnson.
You are separating the removal of the MPs and going to the polls as if they are separate events, they were not.
Boris could have chosen to keep the MPs that were in the party and govern as a minority like May did.
Instead he removed the 20 MPs and called an election at the exact same time. It was one action.
Brass tacks - he engineered an election to get a majority in parliament not to get a mandate from the public. If he already had a majority big enough to govern - including Getting Brexit Done - he wouldn't have needed the 2019 election and there wouldn't have been one.
That's true, by getting rid of MPs from his own side who were technically part of his majority (inc DUP) yet were obstructionist in Parliament, and calling an election he was able to get a big enough majority to actually govern.
Starmer may have a majority but he's not been able to govern. Every major decision he's had to back down on due to an inability to carry Parliament.
Perhaps that's what Burnham needs then too, to avoid Starmer's fate? Kick out any MPs who rebel against a three line whip, then call an election to get MPs who will actually pass the legislation needed.
What's clearly untrue is Valiants timeline trying to separate the actions on 3 September and the decision to go for an early election which was announced on 3 September.
Aaron Rupar @atrupar · 1m Trump just now in the Oval Office confirmed the war with Iran is back on and said of the Strait of Hormuz, "I think in the end we'll end up controlling the whole thing."
[Trump] has also formally notified Congress that fighting with Iran has resumed, a recognition that the cease-fire has broken down, and one that stokes a struggle over vital war powers. Congress has directed the president to either end the war or seek approval to continue it, but Mr. Trump insists he has the sole authority to make that call. The notification letter, dated Friday, was obtained by The New York Times on Monday.
NY Times live blog
The guy is an imbecile.
We don't need control of Hormuz, nor can we have it so long as the Mullahs survive.
We need regime change. Nothing more, nothing less.
[Trump] has also formally notified Congress that fighting with Iran has resumed, a recognition that the cease-fire has broken down, and one that stokes a struggle over vital war powers. Congress has directed the president to either end the war or seek approval to continue it, but Mr. Trump insists he has the sole authority to make that call. The notification letter, dated Friday, was obtained by The New York Times on Monday.
NY Times live blog
Yeah right, he'll taco again.
We need regime change in Iran.
Continual ceasefires and splashes of conflict that don't change anything, all while Hormuz remains closed is the worst of all outcomes.
Trump daren't go all the way and try boots of the ground regime change because he knows the mid-terms are just around the corner.
Very few voters in America want boots on the ground never mind the on/off air war we have now.
[Trump] has also formally notified Congress that fighting with Iran has resumed, a recognition that the cease-fire has broken down, and one that stokes a struggle over vital war powers. Congress has directed the president to either end the war or seek approval to continue it, but Mr. Trump insists he has the sole authority to make that call. The notification letter, dated Friday, was obtained by The New York Times on Monday.
NY Times live blog
Yeah right, he'll taco again.
We need regime change in Iran.
Continual ceasefires and splashes of conflict that don't change anything, all while Hormuz remains closed is the worst of all outcomes.
Trump daren't go all the way and try boots of the ground regime change because he knows the mid-terms are just around the corner.
Very few voters in America want boots on the ground never mind the on/off air war we have now.
The whole thing is deeply unpopular.
Shit or get off the pot.
No point continuing to lob missiles every few weekends all the while Hormuz remains closed. Its been months of this shit now, where they've not been fighting Iran but nor has Hormuz reopened. Dumb, dumb, dumb.
Boots on the ground would be my preference, failing that a much heavier bombardment of Iran until they surrender unconditionally or get rendered incapable of fighting anymore. Destroy their military and energy facilities for starters.
[Trump] has also formally notified Congress that fighting with Iran has resumed, a recognition that the cease-fire has broken down, and one that stokes a struggle over vital war powers. Congress has directed the president to either end the war or seek approval to continue it, but Mr. Trump insists he has the sole authority to make that call. The notification letter, dated Friday, was obtained by The New York Times on Monday.
NY Times live blog
Yeah right, he'll taco again.
We need regime change in Iran.
Continual ceasefires and splashes of conflict that don't change anything, all while Hormuz remains closed is the worst of all outcomes.
Trump daren't go all the way and try boots of the ground regime change because he knows the mid-terms are just around the corner.
Very few voters in America want boots on the ground never mind the on/off air war we have now.
The whole thing is deeply unpopular.
The United States doesn't actually have sufficient soldiers (like they don't have sufficient ships) to invade in a ground war. Iran is a populace of 90 million, many of whom hate their own government ALMOST as much as they hate the United States. They will take up arms if invasion comes.
It's estimated the US needs 450,000 grounds troops minimum to invade Iran.... and that's touch and go as to whether it would truly be enough. A few more hundred thousand should do it. The US has 450,000 ground troops. Hurrah! But that means stripping everything, everywhere. Every base, every barracks, emptied. No idea if the US has the sea and air lift capacity (probably not).
And even this is going to take months to plan and arrange.
Alternatively, the US introduces conscription and moves to a wartime footing......
Alternatively, Trump doesn't worry about the fallout (literally) and just uses nukes. Lots of them. Hit Iran 100 times. They'll surrender then...... not sure I think that's a great plan.
[Trump] has also formally notified Congress that fighting with Iran has resumed, a recognition that the cease-fire has broken down, and one that stokes a struggle over vital war powers. Congress has directed the president to either end the war or seek approval to continue it, but Mr. Trump insists he has the sole authority to make that call. The notification letter, dated Friday, was obtained by The New York Times on Monday.
NY Times live blog
Yeah right, he'll taco again.
We need regime change in Iran.
Continual ceasefires and splashes of conflict that don't change anything, all while Hormuz remains closed is the worst of all outcomes.
Trump daren't go all the way and try boots of the ground regime change because he knows the mid-terms are just around the corner.
Very few voters in America want boots on the ground never mind the on/off air war we have now.
The whole thing is deeply unpopular.
The United States doesn't actually have sufficient soldiers (like they don't have sufficient ships) to invade in a ground war. Iran is a populace of 90 million, many of whom hate their own government ALMOST as much as they hate the United States. They will take up arms if invasion comes.
It's estimated the US needs 450,000 grounds troops minimum to invade Iran.... and that's touch and go as to whether it would truly be enough. A few more hundred thousand should do it. The US has 450,000 ground troops. Hurrah! But that means stripping everything, everywhere. Every base, every barracks, emptied. No idea if the US has the sea and air lift capacity (probably not).
And even this is going to take months to plan and arrange.
Alternatively, the US introduces conscription and moves to a wartime footing......
Alternatively, Trump doesn't worry about the fallout (literally) and just uses nukes. Lots of them. Hit Iran 100 times. They'll surrender then...... not sure I think that's a great plan.
The US is fucked. All Trump can do is surrender.
In some senses this is an unusual one.
The US has lost this war and yet we continue in groundhog day mode.
[Trump] has also formally notified Congress that fighting with Iran has resumed, a recognition that the cease-fire has broken down, and one that stokes a struggle over vital war powers. Congress has directed the president to either end the war or seek approval to continue it, but Mr. Trump insists he has the sole authority to make that call. The notification letter, dated Friday, was obtained by The New York Times on Monday.
NY Times live blog
Yeah right, he'll taco again.
We need regime change in Iran.
Continual ceasefires and splashes of conflict that don't change anything, all while Hormuz remains closed is the worst of all outcomes.
Trump daren't go all the way and try boots of the ground regime change because he knows the mid-terms are just around the corner.
Very few voters in America want boots on the ground never mind the on/off air war we have now.
The whole thing is deeply unpopular.
Shit or get off the pot.
No point continuing to lob missiles every few weekends all the while Hormuz remains closed. Its been months of this shit now, where they've not been fighting Iran but nor has Hormuz reopened. Dumb, dumb, dumb.
Boots on the ground would be my preference, failing that a much heavier bombardment of Iran until they surrender unconditionally or get rendered incapable of fighting anymore. Destroy their military and energy facilities for starters.
Or just go home and accept this is the greatest US foreign policy disaster in at least a hundred years.
At that point sounder minds can decide how to proceed.
Why are Reform members/supporters struggling so much with comprehension of the english language?
You would have thought as the supposedly England First party they could do the actual language.
But no.
So we have:
Police: "Assistant Chief Constable (ACC) Matt Longman had said officers remained "open-minded" about a potential motive" - BBC News
Reform supporter*: Why have they not said all avenues are open?
* In this case Essex PR but they are all at the same thing
This is disingenuous or stupid.
The police have been at pains to stress their view that the murder was not terror or politically motivated - of course there was some couching - they cannot pre-empt a trial, but they gave as strong an indication that there was no political motive as they possibly could.
That has now been found to be foolish and quite improper.
I can think of two reasons why they might have made such statements so rashly.
1. Culturally, leftist terrorism (if it was that) has no place in the police world view. Muslim terrorism cannot be denied, right-wing terrorism is a lesser factor but receives a great deal of attention and is trumpeted across the media. Leftist terrorism simply cannot be. The police culture regards left wing activists as allies in creating their new society. They were simply saying what they hoped was the truth.
2. It was a high profile investigation and they wanted to keep the overall responsibility and not give it up to counter terrorism.
3. There was no evidence that it was political and the victim was not a high profile serving politician so would not be considered an immediate target for such a political killing.
As such the police statements were neither couched nor pre-emptive. They were an accurate representation of the facts as understood at the time. When the facts changed so did the approach.
Not everything in this life has to be a conspiracy.
Saying "no evidence of political motive" is un-necessary though. One can just omit it. Except for public order management.
Not really. As soon as it was announced it was murder there was a huge amount of speculation that it was politically motivated - at least from the Right. As such it seems perfectly normal for the police to say they have found no evidence of that at that point in the enquiry.
You've rather stupidly blown up your own argument there. Your initial claim was that the police just gave the bald facts, but you have now acknowledged that the indication they gave as to the lack of a political motive was necessary to combat right wing speculation. So clearly you do think it was an intervention aimed at managing public opinion.
Of course, the inner monologue you've failed to conceal is correct. The police did try to promote a particular view of this crime and it was extremely foolish.
I note that Jonathan Hall KC, the Independent Reviewer of State Threats Legislation and Terrorism Legislation for the UK government has said that the police should not have made such comments - 'I don't understand why Devon and Cornwall police were steering the public away from the idea that this was a terrorist case...they broke one of the golden rules of a live investigation which is not to comment on live investigations in case new facts emerge...regrettable'
But I'm sure you know more than him about it.
tbh it sounds like the eminent KC has not thought it through unless he expects the public to solve cases for them. Sure there may be reasons for not releasing information but this is not one of them.
I don't understand your comment.
I'm saying that Hall is wrong and it does not matter if you tell the public one set of facts and then some more emerge because the public are not the detectives working on the case.
They didn't tell the public a set of facts. They presented the public with an unwarrantable assumption. They had no facts upon which to base that assumption, as has now become clear.
No, they did not present the public with an unwarrantable assumption. The narrative you are presenting is fundamentally flawed. The unwarrantable assumption is entirely yours.
In their statement on Friday afternoon the police said that the incident was not being treated as terrorism. That was a true statement about the way the investigation was progressing. The fact it is now being treated as terrorism does not in any way make that statement incorrect. The Sky journalist at that statement asked if they had any information that the murder was politically motivated, in response to which they said that they remained open minded but they had no information to indicate it was a politically motivated offence. Again, nothing that has happened since renders that statement in any way incorrect and it was a reasonable response to the question asked. Perhaps you think they should have refused to answer that question. But, contrary to the narrative you are trying to push, saying they had no information to indicate it was politically motivated is very different from saying definitively that it was not politically motivated.
[Trump] has also formally notified Congress that fighting with Iran has resumed, a recognition that the cease-fire has broken down, and one that stokes a struggle over vital war powers. Congress has directed the president to either end the war or seek approval to continue it, but Mr. Trump insists he has the sole authority to make that call. The notification letter, dated Friday, was obtained by The New York Times on Monday.
NY Times live blog
Yeah right, he'll taco again.
We need regime change in Iran.
Continual ceasefires and splashes of conflict that don't change anything, all while Hormuz remains closed is the worst of all outcomes.
Trump daren't go all the way and try boots of the ground regime change because he knows the mid-terms are just around the corner.
Very few voters in America want boots on the ground never mind the on/off air war we have now.
The whole thing is deeply unpopular.
Shit or get off the pot.
No point continuing to lob missiles every few weekends all the while Hormuz remains closed. Its been months of this shit now, where they've not been fighting Iran but nor has Hormuz reopened. Dumb, dumb, dumb.
Boots on the ground would be my preference, failing that a much heavier bombardment of Iran until they surrender unconditionally or get rendered incapable of fighting anymore. Destroy their military and energy facilities for starters.
It sounds so simple. So why doesn't the US do this?
Well, they can't. They haven't the munitions or the doctrine. They're fighting the last war but one now. Missles that cost millions of dollars to fire one. Planes that cost 10s of millions.
And Iran (and Ukraine) make drones, lots of them for a tenth of the cost. And with up to 2000 mile range for the better ones.
Drones are the weapons now. Not bombs or rockets or missiles. Drones. Does the US have much in the way of drone making capacity? Genuine question? I don't know. But even if they do, the Pentagon love their multimillion dollar defence contracts for one plane which can fly once before needing another multimillion dollar service package.
Wrong weapons, wrong doctrine. Now the US knows what France must've felt in 1940. More troops, better tanks.... but doctrine totally unsuited to what they faced.
And of course, there is no way, no way, the US population would stomach the alternative of a ground invasion. No way at all.
[Trump] has also formally notified Congress that fighting with Iran has resumed, a recognition that the cease-fire has broken down, and one that stokes a struggle over vital war powers. Congress has directed the president to either end the war or seek approval to continue it, but Mr. Trump insists he has the sole authority to make that call. The notification letter, dated Friday, was obtained by The New York Times on Monday.
NY Times live blog
Yeah right, he'll taco again.
We need regime change in Iran.
Continual ceasefires and splashes of conflict that don't change anything, all while Hormuz remains closed is the worst of all outcomes.
Trump daren't go all the way and try boots of the ground regime change because he knows the mid-terms are just around the corner.
Very few voters in America want boots on the ground never mind the on/off air war we have now.
The whole thing is deeply unpopular.
The United States doesn't actually have sufficient soldiers (like they don't have sufficient ships) to invade in a ground war. Iran is a populace of 90 million, many of whom hate their own government ALMOST as much as they hate the United States. They will take up arms if invasion comes.
It's estimated the US needs 450,000 grounds troops minimum to invade Iran.... and that's touch and go as to whether it would truly be enough. A few more hundred thousand should do it. The US has 450,000 ground troops. Hurrah! But that means stripping everything, everywhere. Every base, every barracks, emptied. No idea if the US has the sea and air lift capacity (probably not). .
The US has theoretical amphibious landing ship capacity for around 60k soldiers and their equipment. 9 Amphibious Assault Ships, capacity about 2k soldiers each, 14 Amphibious Transport Docks, capacity 7-800 each, and 10 Dock Landing ships, about 500 men each.
So even if the US used everything it had and could get all those ships into place without the Iranians sinking any with drones (both extremely unlikely, because ships constantly need maintenance and Iranian drones are pretty good), it could get just over a tenth of the forces it would need for an invasion into place. And, more realistically, it could only use about half or two thirds of those, so 40k men at the most, or well under a tenth of the forces needed.
Not sure the Iranians would bother to send their army - with an American invasion force that small, they could probably just use their police to arrest them.
Worth reading: William Kristol explains why — if you want the Epstein files released — you will oppose Todd Blanche’s confirmation:
A year ago, on July 17, 2025, Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche hurried to an emergency evening meeting in the White House Situation Room with his fellow Trump administration apparatchiks. Its location might suggest it had to do with national security. It didn’t. It was about the political security of Donald Trump.
Ten days earlier, the Trump administration had tried to close the door on the Jeffrey Epstein matter. The Justice Department and the FBI had announced that the Epstein investigation was complete, that nothing further could or should be done, and no new documents would be made public. But that effort to stonewall was already falling apart. Now it had to be replaced with a more elaborate coverup.
Comments
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boris_Johnson#Premiership_(2019–2022)
3rd September he booted the MPs out. The election was called on 29th October 2019.
If that's 'the same time', six... seven weeks apart, you have a funny definition of the same time.
In fact 10 of those MPs were reinstated just before the dissolution.
I didn't want him, but now we've got him I wish him well.
Everybody from costars to fans seem to have loved him.
RIP indeed.
M = 1000
LI = 51
VI = 6
D = 500
Or you could have
I = 1
M = 1000
L = 50
IV = 4
ID = 499
Let's face it any Labour MP (other than Starmer) who hasn't backed Burnham by now is just too stupid to survive.
https://bsky.app/profile/judah-grunstein.bsky.social/post/3mqjq6i5cgc2i
(I avoided paywall by listening to the article)
One that really hurt like a family member was Father Ted. Never even in the same room as Dermot Morgan - but his passing was truly painful.
Other memorable roles:
Dead Calm
Event Horizon
Hunt for Red October
RIP
Seriously??
My now wife took me. I think it was our third or fourth date.
He called for an election on 3 September, frit opposition MPs opposed it.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/sep/03/boris-johnson-suffers-commons-defeat-as-tories-turn-against-him
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49584907
How many weeks are there on your calendar between 3 September and 3 September?
NY Times live blog
Reilly
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5V15wNflslc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ozo-LKX0KY4
We need regime change in Iran.
Continual ceasefires and splashes of conflict that don't change anything, all while Hormuz remains closed is the worst of all outcomes.
Starmer may have a majority but he's not been able to govern. Every major decision he's had to back down on due to an inability to carry Parliament.
Perhaps that's what Burnham needs then too, to avoid Starmer's fate? Kick out any MPs who rebel against a three line whip, then call an election to get MPs who will actually pass the legislation needed.
What's clearly untrue is Valiants timeline trying to separate the actions on 3 September and the decision to go for an early election which was announced on 3 September.
Aaron Rupar
@atrupar
·
1m
Trump just now in the Oval Office confirmed the war with Iran is back on and said of the Strait of Hormuz, "I think in the end we'll end up controlling the whole thing."
We don't need control of Hormuz, nor can we have it so long as the Mullahs survive.
We need regime change. Nothing more, nothing less.
Very few voters in America want boots on the ground never mind the on/off air war we have now.
The whole thing is deeply unpopular.
No point continuing to lob missiles every few weekends all the while Hormuz remains closed. Its been months of this shit now, where they've not been fighting Iran but nor has Hormuz reopened. Dumb, dumb, dumb.
Boots on the ground would be my preference, failing that a much heavier bombardment of Iran until they surrender unconditionally or get rendered incapable of fighting anymore. Destroy their military and energy facilities for starters.
It's estimated the US needs 450,000 grounds troops minimum to invade Iran.... and that's touch and go as to whether it would truly be enough. A few more hundred thousand should do it. The US has 450,000 ground troops. Hurrah! But that means stripping everything, everywhere. Every base, every barracks, emptied. No idea if the US has the sea and air lift capacity (probably not).
And even this is going to take months to plan and arrange.
Alternatively, the US introduces conscription and moves to a wartime footing......
Alternatively, Trump doesn't worry about the fallout (literally) and just uses nukes. Lots of them. Hit Iran 100 times. They'll surrender then...... not sure I think that's a great plan.
The US is fucked. All Trump can do is surrender.
Is this a dozen times now? Maybe more. Who can keep track???
Trump: "They wanna make a deal."
TACO incoming.
The US has lost this war and yet we continue in groundhog day mode.
At that point sounder minds can decide how to proceed.
In their statement on Friday afternoon the police said that the incident was not being treated as terrorism. That was a true statement about the way the investigation was progressing. The fact it is now being treated as terrorism does not in any way make that statement incorrect. The Sky journalist at that statement asked if they had any information that the murder was politically motivated, in response to which they said that they remained open minded but they had no information to indicate it was a politically motivated offence. Again, nothing that has happened since renders that statement in any way incorrect and it was a reasonable response to the question asked. Perhaps you think they should have refused to answer that question. But, contrary to the narrative you are trying to push, saying they had no information to indicate it was politically motivated is very different from saying definitively that it was not politically motivated.
Well, they can't. They haven't the munitions or the doctrine. They're fighting the last war but one now. Missles that cost millions of dollars to fire one. Planes that cost 10s of millions.
And Iran (and Ukraine) make drones, lots of them for a tenth of the cost. And with up to 2000 mile range for the better ones.
Drones are the weapons now. Not bombs or rockets or missiles. Drones. Does the US have much in the way of drone making capacity? Genuine question? I don't know. But even if they do, the Pentagon love their multimillion dollar defence contracts for one plane which can fly once before needing another multimillion dollar service package.
Wrong weapons, wrong doctrine. Now the US knows what France must've felt in 1940. More troops, better tanks.... but doctrine totally unsuited to what they faced.
And of course, there is no way, no way, the US population would stomach the alternative of a ground invasion. No way at all.
So even if the US used everything it had and could get all those ships into place without the Iranians sinking any with drones (both extremely unlikely, because ships constantly need maintenance and Iranian drones are pretty good), it could get just over a tenth of the forces it would need for an invasion into place. And, more realistically, it could only use about half or two thirds of those, so 40k men at the most, or well under a tenth of the forces needed.
Not sure the Iranians would bother to send their army - with an American invasion force that small, they could probably just use their police to arrest them.