As a stopped clock is right twice a day, Jeremy Corbyn, for all the fact that he is being ignored over Iran (he is indeed hopelessly morally compromised on the subject), has a really important point about the use of assassination as a tool of foreign policy. Donald Trump has legitimised this. This development is unlikely to be in Britain's interests in the short, medium or long term.
It was a decision made without any consultation of Britain. Good to see that international influence being brought to bear by this Brexity government.
The only people the US "informed" was Israel....and it is believed because it was their intel that led to the strike, so it wasn't exactly them being informed, as Israel informing US there was an immediate opportunity, do you want to take it.
Nowt to do with Brexit.
Yes, it's nothing to do with Brexit. The world is a place where Britain is increasingly irrelevant, and getting haplessly dragged into crises without any agency.
“ Yesterday morning, after eleven mostly unhappy and pointless years, I left Twitter. It’s no biggie. Nor is it because of something that has happened on there but rather something that happened in the real world (IRL).
You see, as 2019 turned into 2020, the topic that was trending number one in the UK was not #NYE or even #StormzyHootenanny, but #GilesCoren. Because a piece in The Times carried a quote from me about a Labour activist and Guardian writer called Owen Jones, whom I didn’t know was gay, that Jones declared on Twitter to be homophobic. He has a million followers. They agreed with him. They piled on. That’s fine, I guess. It’s what Twitter is for. And anyway by the end of the following day I had been replaced by #WW3 — phew!
But over the weekend Jones’s followers tweeted “we’ve found your address” and yesterday morning a group of them went round to my house, while I was at work, and started haranguing my wife and children.”
Pity he isn't retiring from the Times too. Talentless supercilious hack employed mainly because of who is father was.
"Did not know that Jones was gay" - I should coco.
Caveat -
Nothing wrong with his food columns. Quite good actually. Always read them.
Rubbish, Giles Coren is one of the most interesting and amusing journalists put there, far more so than the partisan rants of Owen Jones
"Journalist"?
IIUC, he writes restaurant reviews and opinion pieces. I appreciate some think that's journalism, but not me. Interestingly, the same applies to Owen Jones...
I went off on a rant the other day to @NorthernPowerhouse about various publications being care homes for unemployable wealthy people who, if not for nepotism and corruption, would be in a sleeping bag outside the station ranting at passers by. So I am not that distressed.
I am however distressed at the threatening people turning up at their homes, which is just plain wrong.
He writes brilliantly and originally, though I appreciate humourless bores might not be fans.
Given his late father was a millionaire I also doubt he would be homeless even if he never worked a day in his life
I had my sense of humour surgically removed. But I don't think I'm boring. Pause. At least, not very. Um.
At least she's not scared to argue with Muslims about homophobia, even as MP for a constituency that's around one third Muslim. https://youtu.be/Zy9FAko75hE?t=15
But what did she achieve there? She provided gratification for us who are angry with the protesters. She raised her own personal profile. She also raised the temperature of a fractious situation and entrenched opinion among people who we disagree with. She even talked them down after they had stayed quiet while she had her say. Did she really think that would do any good? Of course not.
The right thing to do would have been to visit the protesters and listen carefully to their point of view, and then respond in a way that does not compromise her principles but also does not deliberately stoke the flames. That's something that any councillor, or for that matter anyone with managerial responsibilities in their local supermarket, should understand.
It's illustrative. I'm working on the basis that the 2020s will be dominated by a culture war, (which, if we're unlucky, will turn into a hot war, but let's not catastrophise). It will be conducted by attacking approved targets - the EU, transsexuals, Moslems and - I was distressed but not surprised to learn - civil servants, and whoever else gets added to the list of fashionable Thems of the day.
I'll have to write all this up into an article, but suffice to say that Jess's attack was a part of that. The point was to attack, not to win - it's a shibboleth to demonstrate which side she is on. This is one of the reasons why I think Labour has a chance if she wins.
I look forward to the article. What you write is certainly true of the latter half of the 2010s, but will it still be true in 2024? At some point, sanity will take hold.
I don't know if you agree, but to me, one really important point is that this is nothing to do with centrism versus extremism. Phillips is regarded as a centrist. Corbyn is regarded as an extremist, but never used these shibboleths. I respect him for that, but it's sad to say that he would probably have been more successful if he had.
As a stopped clock is right twice a day, Jeremy Corbyn, for all the fact that he is being ignored over Iran (he is indeed hopelessly morally compromised on the subject), has a really important point about the use of assassination as a tool of foreign policy. Donald Trump has legitimised this. This development is unlikely to be in Britain's interests in the short, medium or long term.
It was a decision made without any consultation of Britain. Good to see that international influence being brought to bear by this Brexity government.
The only people the US "informed" was Israel....and it is believed because it was their intel that led to the strike, so it wasn't exactly them being informed, as Israel informing US there was an immediate opportunity, do you want to take it.
Nowt to do with Brexit.
Yes, it's nothing to do with Brexit. The world is a place where Britain is increasingly irrelevant, and getting haplessly dragged into crises without any agency.
Volunteering to accelerate that process is nuts.
Britain is not in the region unlike Israel.
Blair invaded Iraq with Bush before Brexit, Boris has not joined Trump in attacking Iranian generals
Coren's piece is clearly a nonsense send up of what Corbyn might do - Jones isn't fat or old (At least I hope 35 isn't considered that old these days !), and it's not even specified if the researchers are male or female. Not homophobic at all.
I read it as homophobic, drawing on the old stereotype of homosexual men as sexual predators. Having seen Coren's statement that he didn't know Jones was gay, I re-read it and, if Coren is telling the truth, I don't really have a problem with it. Same statement, but my interpretation of it and the writer varies depending on what the writer intended, which of course I cannot know.
Given that, I'd give Coren the benefit of the doubt, but I would expect him (if what he sad was true) to be horrified on discovering that Jones was gay - recognising how that changes the interpretation of what he wrote - and to have quickly apologised and clarified. I'm not aware of that having happened.
Coren's piece is clearly a nonsense send up of what Corbyn might do - Jones isn't fat or old (At least I hope 35 isn't considered that old these days !), and it's not even specified if the researchers are male or female. Not homophobic at all.
I read it as homophobic, drawing on the old stereotype of homosexual men as sexual predators. Having seen Coren's statement that he didn't know Jones was gay, I re-read it and, if Coren is telling the truth, I don't really have a problem with it. Same statement, but my interpretation of it and the writer varies depending on what the writer intended, which of course I cannot know.
Given that, I'd give Coren the benefit of the doubt, but I would expect him (if what he sad was true) to be horrified on discovering that Jones was gay - recognising how that changes the interpretation of what he wrote - and to have quickly apologised and clarified. I'm not aware of that having happened.
I find it rather difficult to believe that anybody who was involved in the media didn't know he was gay. Given he writes / talks about regularly and the well publicised genuine abuse he has had / his high profile teenage antics like stomping off Sky News set.
And the House of Commons. It was remarkable that there was none of the organised cheering and barracking that has marred PMQs for the past several years (and which was the previous Speaker's justification for letting PMQs overrun).
I doubt that will last. The opposition are broken men who can only look across in meek silence at the all-conquering Boris, king of the world. Should Boris falter though, the noise and fury will begin again.
Far more likely that Boris asked for it to be stopped, presumably so it is easier to think.
Utterly contemptuous dismissal of Corbyn. Painful to watch
I suspect the Johnson/Blackford exchanges will be the interesting ones under the new regime.
The SNP and the Tories under Johnson are more similar than either party would want to admit.
I would love it if this was the case, but quite frankly up until the next Holyrood election (and possibly after) we will just be treated to a rinse and repeat of “will of the Scottish people”/“once in a generation” repeated ad nauseam.
The world is a place where Britain is increasingly irrelevant
Oh how I wish we were in terms of geo-politics. If WW3 (Or more realistically more small scale gulf conflict) breaks out, no one is going to be caring what Norway or Slovakia does.
Coren's piece is clearly a nonsense send up of what Corbyn might do - Jones isn't fat or old (At least I hope 35 isn't considered that old these days !), and it's not even specified if the researchers are male or female. Not homophobic at all.
I read it as homophobic, drawing on the old stereotype of homosexual men as sexual predators. Having seen Coren's statement that he didn't know Jones was gay, I re-read it and, if Coren is telling the truth, I don't really have a problem with it. Same statement, but my interpretation of it and the writer varies depending on what the writer intended, which of course I cannot know.
Given that, I'd give Coren the benefit of the doubt, but I would expect him (if what he sad was true) to be horrified on discovering that Jones was gay - recognising how that changes the interpretation of what he wrote - and to have quickly apologised and clarified. I'm not aware of that having happened.
I find it rather difficult to believe that anybody who was involved in the media didn't know he was gay. Given he writes / talks about regularly and the well publicised genuine abuse he has had / his high profile teenage antics like stomping off Sky News set.
Is Jones fat or old ?
No. No he isn't. The piece is clearly a nonsense and into the realms of deep fantasy - CLEARLY Jones isn't a Lord Sewel.
As a stopped clock is right twice a day, Jeremy Corbyn, for all the fact that he is being ignored over Iran (he is indeed hopelessly morally compromised on the subject), has a really important point about the use of assassination as a tool of foreign policy. Donald Trump has legitimised this. This development is unlikely to be in Britain's interests in the short, medium or long term.
It was a decision made without any consultation of Britain. Good to see that international influence being brought to bear by this Brexity government.
As a stopped clock is right twice a day, Jeremy Corbyn, for all the fact that he is being ignored over Iran (he is indeed hopelessly morally compromised on the subject), has a really important point about the use of assassination as a tool of foreign policy. Donald Trump has legitimised this. This development is unlikely to be in Britain's interests in the short, medium or long term.
It was a decision made without any consultation of Britain. Good to see that international influence being brought to bear by this Brexity government.
The only people the US "informed" was Israel....and it is believed because it was their intel that led to the strike, so it wasn't exactly them being informed, as Israel informing US there was an immediate opportunity, do you want to take it.
Nowt to do with Brexit.
Yes, it's nothing to do with Brexit. The world is a place where Britain is increasingly irrelevant, and getting haplessly dragged into crises without any agency.
Volunteering to accelerate that process is nuts.
Britain is not in the region unlike Israel.
Blair invaded Iraq with Bush before Brexit, Boris has not joined Trump in attacking Iranian generals
A country that has referred to Britain on occasion as The Great Satan has now been given licence to use assassination as an instrument of foreign policy. That really doesn't sound like good news in any way shape or form.
As a stopped clock is right twice a day, Jeremy Corbyn, for all the fact that he is being ignored over Iran (he is indeed hopelessly morally compromised on the subject), has a really important point about the use of assassination as a tool of foreign policy. Donald Trump has legitimised this. This development is unlikely to be in Britain's interests in the short, medium or long term.
It was a decision made without any consultation of Britain. Good to see that international influence being brought to bear by this Brexity government.
As a stopped clock is right twice a day, Jeremy Corbyn, for all the fact that he is being ignored over Iran (he is indeed hopelessly morally compromised on the subject), has a really important point about the use of assassination as a tool of foreign policy. Donald Trump has legitimised this. This development is unlikely to be in Britain's interests in the short, medium or long term.
It was a decision made without any consultation of Britain. Good to see that international influence being brought to bear by this Brexity government.
Actually it was Obama who legitimised this.
My mind always springs to Israel for this sort of tactic..
A country that has referred to Britain on occasion as The Great Satan has now been given licence to use assassination as an instrument of foreign policy. That really doesn't sound like good news in any way shape or form.
Britain is the Little Satan. The US is the Great Satan. Do keep up!
Coren's piece is clearly a nonsense send up of what Corbyn might do - Jones isn't fat or old (At least I hope 35 isn't considered that old these days !), and it's not even specified if the researchers are male or female. Not homophobic at all.
So why the pretence that he did not know Jones is gay?
The world is a place where Britain is increasingly irrelevant
Oh how I wish we were in terms of geo-politics. If WW3 (Or more realistically more small scale gulf conflict) breaks out, no one is going to be caring what Norway or Slovakia does.
It is, as I have noted above the line in the past, one thing that could be a positive from Brexit. Oddly, Leavers get splenetic if you suggest that scaling back Britain's military role might be timely.
Mike says in his header that there is an appetite for a female leader - but he is getting this from Labour MPs. What of the membership?
What I can`t get a handle on is the extent to which members will be comfortable voting for the one man from the metropolitan elite in London ahead of three women from the north. (I`m discounting Lewis and Thornberry.)
Thoughts?
Well atm I'm just extrapolating how EYE feel. I am a party member and was bought into The Project but now not so much. I also strongly think we should go female so long as there is a quality F candidate. So if what I feel is widespread rather than niche Nandy must have a great chance. Did her at 14 and she is 7 now so smug city but I would not lump on again at 7 since I think Starmer is rightly a hot favourite (and he's my 2nd pref). Best bet right now is IMO lay RLB at less than 4. Enthusiasm for True Left on the wane and she is not personally outstanding. Can't see her winning.
But tonight I'm going to a party meeting to discuss all this so ???
A country that has referred to Britain on occasion as The Great Satan has now been given licence to use assassination as an instrument of foreign policy. That really doesn't sound like good news in any way shape or form.
Britain is the Little Satan. The US is the Great Satan. Do keep up!
My apologies. That makes me feel much better. There is absolutely no possibility of Britain being seen by Iran as a possible target if it is only the Little Satan.
As a stopped clock is right twice a day, Jeremy Corbyn, for all the fact that he is being ignored over Iran (he is indeed hopelessly morally compromised on the subject), has a really important point about the use of assassination as a tool of foreign policy. Donald Trump has legitimised this. This development is unlikely to be in Britain's interests in the short, medium or long term.
It was a decision made without any consultation of Britain. Good to see that international influence being brought to bear by this Brexity government.
Hes a good test of whether we can see a good point no matter how poorly made or how poor a person making it.
Coren's piece is clearly a nonsense send up of what Corbyn might do - Jones isn't fat or old (At least I hope 35 isn't considered that old these days !), and it's not even specified if the researchers are male or female. Not homophobic at all.
So why the pretence that he did not know Jones is gay?
Perhaps he just couldn't be bothered to care or know about Jones' sexuality and simply saw him as a messenger of the Wokerati Corbyn Brigade ?
A country that has referred to Britain on occasion as The Great Satan has now been given licence to use assassination as an instrument of foreign policy. That really doesn't sound like good news in any way shape or form.
Britain is the Little Satan. The US is the Great Satan. Do keep up!
I agree with all the criticism of Twitter. But it's still a diversion from Giles Coren's incredibly homophobic bullshit about Owen Jones
Why is it homophobic to say an old, gay man would enjoy chasing young dishy men? It could be deemed offensive to Owen Jones and his partner to suggest he would be unfaithful, and is maybe a bit crass and unfunny, but it’s no different to suggesting a heterosexual man would chase young female researchers (which is what the author is claiming he meant)
I suspect Jones objected to the possible sodomistic reference of 'tight bottoms'.
Sure, but I think the same could be said to a heterosexual man, or woman, with the same intent. It is not complimentary, it is basically calling the target a dirty old so and so, but I don't think it is homophobic because it could be equally offensive if Jones were heterosexual.
I'm sure there's an element of exaggerated offence going on but I am also pretty sure it is homophobic.
If he had written about a Lord eyeing up a female researcher with ample cleavage would that have been heterophobic?
The guy is gay and the reference was to bottoms and hence it is perfectly sensible to read it as being homophobic. Even if it was not meant as such (cf Danny Baker).
Not sure about this. I`m no expert (ahem) but I understand that anal sex is a more common practice in heterosexual relationships than homosexual ones?
I haven`t read the article (can`t find it) but at this stage I`m guessing that this is a snowflake issue. Even if I`m wrong, and he was being offensive, so what? Free speech issue.
A country that has referred to Britain on occasion as The Great Satan has now been given licence to use assassination as an instrument of foreign policy. That really doesn't sound like good news in any way shape or form.
Britain is the Little Satan. The US is the Great Satan. Do keep up!
I am on Team Jess ever since she made it clear she will support Rejoin.
Which is probably why the yellow diamonds love her too.
They have a vacancy, Jess....
If RLB wins, it wouldn't be a million to one that Phillips' did defect and become LD leader. It would make sense to do it.
It would be portrayed as the height of arrogance, claiming to want to unite and then splitting when you lose. It seems unlikely those who stayed during Corbyn would quit even if continuity corbyn wins - at the least they'll give them a shot.
He writes brilliantly and originally, though I appreciate humourless bores might not be fans.
Given his late father was a millionaire I also doubt he would be homeless even if he never worked a day in his life
He has a minor but not negligible facility for comic prose. He is NOT original. Quite the opposite. His stuff is very very predictable in both style and content.
But on the food and restaurants, he's pretty good.
“ Yesterday morning, after eleven mostly unhappy and pointless years, I left Twitter. It’s no biggie. Nor is it because of something that has happened on there but rather something that happened in the real world (IRL).
You see, as 2019 turned into 2020, the topic that was trending number one in the UK was not #NYE or even #StormzyHootenanny, but #GilesCoren. Because a piece in The Times carried a quote from me about a Labour activist and Guardian writer called Owen Jones, whom I didn’t know was gay, that Jones declared on Twitter to be homophobic. He has a million followers. They agreed with him. They piled on. That’s fine, I guess. It’s what Twitter is for. And anyway by the end of the following day I had been replaced by #WW3 — phew!
But over the weekend Jones’s followers tweeted “we’ve found your address” and yesterday morning a group of them went round to my house, while I was at work, and started haranguing my wife and children.”
Pity he isn't retiring from the Times too. Talentless supercilious hack employed mainly because of who is father was.
"Did not know that Jones was gay" - I should coco.
Caveat -
Nothing wrong with his food columns. Quite good actually. Always read them.
Rubbish, Giles Coren is one of the most interesting and amusing journalists put there, far more so than the partisan rants of Owen Jones
"Journalist"?
IIUC, he writes restaurant reviews and opinion pieces. I appreciate some think that's journalism, but not me. Interestingly, the same applies to Owen Jones...
I went off on a rant the other day to @NorthernPowerhouse about various publications being care homes for unemployable wealthy people who, if not for nepotism and corruption, would be in a sleeping bag outside the station ranting at passers by. So I am not that distressed.
I am however distressed at the threatening people turning up at their homes, which is just plain wrong.
He writes brilliantly and originally, though I appreciate humourless bores might not be fans.
Given his late father was a millionaire I also doubt he would be homeless even if he never worked a day in his life
I had my sense of humour surgically removed.
Private clinic I assume. The one used by lots and lots of people in the public eye....?
Coren's thoroughly enjoyable show "Supersize regency" was released in 2008. Doesn't feel that long ago, I recognised the style of the piece from that work which is the only Giles Coren show I can remember.
Yes, still a worthy favourite at 1.9. It's him or Nandy for me. 1st pref Nandy.
Best betting play right now IMO is lay RLB at 3.7.
I sense she has little chance. "The Project" is over.
Mike says in his header that there is an appetite for a female leader - but he is getting this from Labour MPs. What of the membership?
What I can`t get a handle on is the extent to which members will be comfortable voting for the one man from the metropolitan elite in London ahead of three women from the north. (I`m discounting Lewis and Thornberry.)
Thoughts?
Starmer may not be everyone's 1st preference, but many who would wish to vote for a woman as 1st preference will still put him as 2nd or 3rd preference ahead of RLB. That's assuming that there are more than 2 on the ballot paper.
The "metropolitan elite" label is an issue for Thornberry, whereas Starmer has already debunked it.
Mike says in his header that there is an appetite for a female leader - but he is getting this from Labour MPs. What of the membership?
What I can`t get a handle on is the extent to which members will be comfortable voting for the one man from the metropolitan elite in London ahead of three women from the north. (I`m discounting Lewis and Thornberry.)
Thoughts?
Well atm I'm just extrapolating how EYE feel. I am a party member and was bought into The Project but now not so much. I also strongly think we should go female so long as there is a quality F candidate. So if what I feel is widespread rather than niche Nandy must have a great chance. Did her at 14 and she is 7 now so smug city but I would not lump on again at 7 since I think Starmer is rightly a hot favourite (and he's my 2nd pref). Best bet right now is IMO lay RLB at less than 4. Enthusiasm for True Left on the wane and she is not personally outstanding. Can't see her winning.
But tonight I'm going to a party meeting to discuss all this so ???
Let`s not forget that there is a big hurdle to come: unions/affiliates/CLPs. Can you see if you can get a handle on this? Starmer (I think) and RLB will be OK - but what of Nandy and Phillips?
“ Yesterday morning, after eleven mostly unhappy and pointless years, I left Twitter. It’s no biggie. Nor is it because of something that has happened on there but rather something that happened in the real world (IRL).
You see, as 2019 turned into 2020, the topic that was trending number one in the UK was not #NYE or even #StormzyHootenanny, but #GilesCoren. Because a piece in The Times carried a quote from me about a Labour activist and Guardian writer called Owen Jones, whom I didn’t know was gay, that Jones declared on Twitter to be homophobic. He has a million followers. They agreed with him. They piled on. That’s fine, I guess. It’s what Twitter is for. And anyway by the end of the following day I had been replaced by #WW3 — phew!
But over the weekend Jones’s followers tweeted “we’ve found your address” and yesterday morning a group of them went round to my house, while I was at work, and started haranguing my wife and children.”
Pity he isn't retiring from the Times too. Talentless supercilious hack employed mainly because of who is father was.
"Did not know that Jones was gay" - I should coco.
Caveat -
Nothing wrong with his food columns. Quite good actually. Always read them.
Rubbish, Giles Coren is one of the most interesting and amusing journalists put there, far more so than the partisan rants of Owen Jones
"Journalist"?
IIUC, he writes restaurant reviews and opinion pieces. I appreciate some think that's journalism, but not me. Interestingly, the same applies to Owen Jones...
I went off on a rant the other day to @NorthernPowerhouse about various publications being care homes for unemployable wealthy people who, if not for nepotism and corruption, would be in a sleeping bag outside the station ranting at passers by. So I am not that distressed.
I am however distressed at the threatening people turning up at their homes, which is just plain wrong.
He writes brilliantly and originally, though I appreciate humourless bores might not be fans.
Given his late father was a millionaire I also doubt he would be homeless even if he never worked a day in his life
I had my sense of humour surgically removed. But I don't think I'm boring. Pause. At least, not very. Um.
(walks away embarrassed... )
I wouldn’t be. Coren is not untalented as a writer, but tends to be a bit of a one note bore himself.
A country that has referred to Britain on occasion as The Great Satan has now been given licence to use assassination as an instrument of foreign policy. That really doesn't sound like good news in any way shape or form.
Britain is the Little Satan. The US is the Great Satan. Do keep up!
Nope, Iranians regard Israel as Little Satan!
Ah, you might be right. I think the honorary epithet has been transferred from Britain to Israel. More evidence of our irrelevance, I suppose.
“ Yesterday morning, after eleven mostly unhappy and pointless years, I left Twitter. It’s no biggie. Nor is it because of something that has happened on there but rather something that happened in the real world (IRL).
You see, as 2019 turned into 2020, the topic that was trending number one in the UK was not #NYE or even #StormzyHootenanny, but #GilesCoren. Because a piece in The Times carried a quote from me about a Labour activist and Guardian writer called Owen Jones, whom I didn’t know was gay, that Jones declared on Twitter to be homophobic. He has a million followers. They agreed with him. They piled on. That’s fine, I guess. It’s what Twitter is for. And anyway by the end of the following day I had been replaced by #WW3 — phew!
But over the weekend Jones’s followers tweeted “we’ve found your address” and yesterday morning a group of them went round to my house, while I was at work, and started haranguing my wife and children.”
Pity he isn't retiring from the Times too. Talentless supercilious hack employed mainly because of who is father was.
"Did not know that Jones was gay" - I should coco.
Caveat -
Nothing wrong with his food columns. Quite good actually. Always read them.
Rubbish, Giles Coren is one of the most interesting and amusing journalists put there, far more so than the partisan rants of Owen Jones
"Journalist"?
IIUC, he writes restaurant reviews and opinion pieces. I appreciate some think that's journalism, but not me. Interestingly, the same applies to Owen Jones...
I went off on a rant the other day to @NorthernPowerhouse about various publications being care homes for unemployable wealthy people who, if not for nepotism and corruption, would be in a sleeping bag outside the station ranting at passers by. So I am not that distressed.
I am however distressed at the threatening people turning up at their homes, which is just plain wrong.
He writes brilliantly and originally, though I appreciate humourless bores might not be fans.
Given his late father was a millionaire I also doubt he would be homeless even if he never worked a day in his life
I had my sense of humour surgically removed. But I don't think I'm boring. Pause. At least, not very. Um.
(walks away embarrassed... )
I wouldn’t be. Coren is not untalented as a writer, but tends to be a bit of a one note bore himself.
Yes I agree - he`s funny at times but his misses greatly outnumber his hits. (Unlike his father.)
The world is a place where Britain is increasingly irrelevant
Oh how I wish we were in terms of geo-politics. If WW3 (Or more realistically more small scale gulf conflict) breaks out, no one is going to be caring what Norway or Slovakia does.
It is, as I have noted above the line in the past, one thing that could be a positive from Brexit. Oddly, Leavers get splenetic if you suggest that scaling back Britain's military role might be timely.
I think that is incorrect. The military we have now is not fit for the tasks we are giving it. I would 100% agree we need to be reducing our commitments and changing our vision of our place in the world as far as military intervention is concerned. But I don't believe that would provide any sort of dividend in terms of being able to reduce military spending etc. In fact we have so underfunded our military in recent times that we need to be looking at increased spending at the same time as reducing commitments.
I am on Team Jess ever since she made it clear she will support Rejoin.
Which is probably why the yellow diamonds love her too.
They have a vacancy, Jess....
If RLB wins, it wouldn't be a million to one that Phillips' did defect and become LD leader. It would make sense to do it.
Used to be a LibDem seat too, so she might keep it.... To have two LibDem leaders lose their seats would be beyond careless.
For most of its existence, Birmingham Yardley has been a Labour/Tory marginal. Tory held 1959 - 1964 - 1970 - Feb 1974 - and again 1979 - 1992. Looks pretty safe for Labour now.
I agree with all the criticism of Twitter. But it's still a diversion from Giles Coren's incredibly homophobic bullshit about Owen Jones
Why is it homophobic to say an old, gay man would enjoy chasing young dishy men? It could be deemed offensive to Owen Jones and his partner to suggest he would be unfaithful, and is maybe a bit crass and unfunny, but it’s no different to suggesting a heterosexual man would chase young female researchers (which is what the author is claiming he meant)
I suspect Jones objected to the possible sodomistic reference of 'tight bottoms'.
Sure, but I think the same could be said to a heterosexual man, or woman, with the same intent. It is not complimentary, it is basically calling the target a dirty old so and so, but I don't think it is homophobic because it could be equally offensive if Jones were heterosexual.
I'm sure there's an element of exaggerated offence going on but I am also pretty sure it is homophobic.
If he had written about a Lord eyeing up a female researcher with ample cleavage would that have been heterophobic?
The guy is gay and the reference was to bottoms and hence it is perfectly sensible to read it as being homophobic. Even if it was not meant as such (cf Danny Baker).
Not sure about this. I`m no expert (ahem) but I understand that anal sex is a more common practice in heterosexual relationships than homesexual ones?
I haven`t read the article (can`t find it) but at this stage I`m guessing that this is a snowflake issue. Even if I`m wrong, and he was being offensive, so what? Free speech issue.
Don't disagree with any of this (I am not an expert either on the matter, although I think I can say that when it comes to penetrative sex then 100% of...well you get the idea...).
The world is a place where Britain is increasingly irrelevant
Oh how I wish we were in terms of geo-politics. If WW3 (Or more realistically more small scale gulf conflict) breaks out, no one is going to be caring what Norway or Slovakia does.
It is, as I have noted above the line in the past, one thing that could be a positive from Brexit. Oddly, Leavers get splenetic if you suggest that scaling back Britain's military role might be timely.
I think that is incorrect. The military we have now is not fit for the tasks we are giving it. I would 100% agree we need to be reducing our commitments and changing our vision of our place in the world as far as military intervention is concerned. But I don't believe that would provide any sort of dividend in terms of being able to reduce military spending etc. In fact we have so underfunded our military in recent times that we need to be looking at increased spending at the same time as reducing commitments.
You are probably right, but it`s the sort of thing that my father-in-law says, who gets all his views from the Daily Mail, so I tend towards the sceptical. Is there evidence to show reductions in military spending year on year?
A country that has referred to Britain on occasion as The Great Satan has now been given licence to use assassination as an instrument of foreign policy. That really doesn't sound like good news in any way shape or form.
Britain is the Little Satan. The US is the Great Satan. Do keep up!
Nope, Iranians regard Israel as Little Satan!
Though is it not true that Iranian culture ascribes a power to Britain to manipulate international events out of all proportion to our real influence ?
A country that has referred to Britain on occasion as The Great Satan has now been given licence to use assassination as an instrument of foreign policy. That really doesn't sound like good news in any way shape or form.
Britain is the Little Satan. The US is the Great Satan. Do keep up!
Nope, Iranians regard Israel as Little Satan!
Though is it not true that Iranian culture ascribes a power to Britain to manipulate international events out of all proportion to our real influence ?
Yes: "If you stub your toe on a rock, ask yourself why the English put it there."
I agree with all the criticism of Twitter. But it's still a diversion from Giles Coren's incredibly homophobic bullshit about Owen Jones
Why is it homophobic to say an old, gay man would enjoy chasing young dishy men? It could be deemed offensive to Owen Jones and his partner to suggest he would be unfaithful, and is maybe a bit crass and unfunny, but it’s no different to suggesting a heterosexual man would chase young female researchers (which is what the author is claiming he meant)
I suspect Jones objected to the possible sodomistic reference of 'tight bottoms'.
Sure, but I think the same could be said to a heterosexual man, or woman, with the same intent. It is not complimentary, it is basically calling the target a dirty old so and so, but I don't think it is homophobic because it could be equally offensive if Jones were heterosexual.
I'm sure there's an element of exaggerated offence going on but I am also pretty sure it is homophobic.
If he had written about a Lord eyeing up a female researcher with ample cleavage would that have been heterophobic?
The guy is gay and the reference was to bottoms and hence it is perfectly sensible to read it as being homophobic. Even if it was not meant as such (cf Danny Baker).
Not sure about this. I`m no expert (ahem) but I understand that anal sex is a more common practice in heterosexual relationships than homesexual ones?
I haven`t read the article (can`t find it) but at this stage I`m guessing that this is a snowflake issue. Even if I`m wrong, and he was being offensive, so what? Free speech issue.
Don't disagree with any of this (I am not an expert either on the matter, although I think I can say that when it comes to penetrative sex then 100% of...well you get the idea...).
I get the idea - but I really don`t think it`s anywhere near 100%. I`m sure I read somewhere that less than half of hetersexual partners practice anal sex.
Maybe, like heterosexuals, they try it once and then abandon the idea. Oops.
Perhaps he just couldn't be bothered to care or know about Jones' sexuality and simply saw him as a messenger of the Wokerati Corbyn Brigade ?
It's ludicrous to believe that a plugged in guy like Giles did not know that Jones is gay. He has a long history of borderline homophobic comments but an integral part of his brand is that rather tiresome "Ooo look how naughty and unPC I am!" so I can well believe that he is not personally a homophobe.
Jess doesn't float my boat. She excites certain members if the political and media class by having exactly the same opinions as them but with a regional accent, but that by itself won't win back the sorts of seats which have been trending away from Labour since well before Corbyn, likr Cannock and Derbyshire North East. BUT she might be the candidate best placed to take on and clear out Momentum. She certainly seems up for a scrap.
A country that has referred to Britain on occasion as The Great Satan has now been given licence to use assassination as an instrument of foreign policy. That really doesn't sound like good news in any way shape or form.
Britain is the Little Satan. The US is the Great Satan. Do keep up!
Nope, Iranians regard Israel as Little Satan!
Though is it not true that Iranian culture ascribes a power to Britain to manipulate international events out of all proportion to our real influence ?
A country that has referred to Britain on occasion as The Great Satan has now been given licence to use assassination as an instrument of foreign policy. That really doesn't sound like good news in any way shape or form.
Britain is the Little Satan. The US is the Great Satan. Do keep up!
Nope, Iranians regard Israel as Little Satan!
Though is it not true that Iranian culture ascribes a power to Britain to manipulate international events out of all proportion to our real influence ?
Yes: "If you stub your toe on a rock, ask yourself why the English put it there."
Though Iran is a very young society now, with 70% of the population under 40, so cultural attitudes might well have moved on a bit.
Perhaps he just couldn't be bothered to care or know about Jones' sexuality and simply saw him as a messenger of the Wokerati Corbyn Brigade ?
It's ludicrous to believe that a plugged in guy like Giles did not know that Jones is gay. He has a long history of borderline homophobic comments but an integral part of his brand is that rather tiresome "Ooo look how naughty and unPC I am!" so I can well believe that he is not personally a homophobe.
A country that has referred to Britain on occasion as The Great Satan has now been given licence to use assassination as an instrument of foreign policy. That really doesn't sound like good news in any way shape or form.
Britain is the Little Satan. The US is the Great Satan. Do keep up!
Nope, Iranians regard Israel as Little Satan!
Though is it not true that Iranian culture ascribes a power to Britain to manipulate international events out of all proportion to our real influence ?
Yes: "If you stub your toe on a rock, ask yourself why the English put it there."
Though Iran is a very young society now, with 70% of the population under 40, so cultural attitudes might well have moved on a bit.
Not sure about this. I`m no expert (ahem) but I understand that anal sex is a more common practice in heterosexual relationships than homosexual ones?
I haven`t read the article (can`t find it) but at this stage I`m guessing that this is a snowflake issue. Even if I`m wrong, and he was being offensive, so what? Free speech issue.
Free speech, yes. Nobody is suggesting Giles should be muzzled.
Re the anal, surely it is more common in Homo than Hetero action. Maybe not in absolute terms - since there is far more Hetero than Homo - but as a percentage.
By that I mean, take 100 random Hetero encounters and compare with 100 random Homo encounters, so that's 200 different people involved on each side, 400 in total, 100 women, 300 men.
So there will be rear side activity in far more of the 100 Homo encounters than the Hetero ones. My guess - and it is only a guess since I have neither done nor seen any surveys on the topic - would be 75 plays 10.
Not sure about this. I`m no expert (ahem) but I understand that anal sex is a more common practice in heterosexual relationships than homosexual ones?
I haven`t read the article (can`t find it) but at this stage I`m guessing that this is a snowflake issue. Even if I`m wrong, and he was being offensive, so what? Free speech issue.
Free speech, yes. Nobody is suggesting Giles should be muzzled.
Re the anal, surely it is more common in Homo than Hetero action. Maybe not in absolute terms - since there is far more Hetero than Homo - but as a percentage.
By that I mean, take 100 random Hetero encounters and compare with 100 random Homo encounters, so that's 200 different people involved on each side, 400 in total, 100 women, 300 men.
So there will be rear side activity in far more of the 100 Homo encounters than the Hetero ones. My guess - and it is only a guess since I have neither done nor seen any surveys on the topic - would be 75 plays 10.
I`ve leave you to your research on the matter. (Looks like it`s going to be quite in-depth.)
The world is a place where Britain is increasingly irrelevant
Oh how I wish we were in terms of geo-politics. If WW3 (Or more realistically more small scale gulf conflict) breaks out, no one is going to be caring what Norway or Slovakia does.
It is, as I have noted above the line in the past, one thing that could be a positive from Brexit. Oddly, Leavers get splenetic if you suggest that scaling back Britain's military role might be timely.
I think that is incorrect. The military we have now is not fit for the tasks we are giving it. I would 100% agree we need to be reducing our commitments and changing our vision of our place in the world as far as military intervention is concerned. But I don't believe that would provide any sort of dividend in terms of being able to reduce military spending etc. In fact we have so underfunded our military in recent times that we need to be looking at increased spending at the same time as reducing commitments.
If we could ever come to terms with no longer being at the global top table, the right answer is clearly to scrap Trident, spend a significant part of the saving on ensuring that we have a military fit for purpose, and dine out on the remainder.
Utterly contemptuous dismissal of Corbyn. Painful to watch
I suspect the Johnson/Blackford exchanges will be the interesting ones under the new regime.
The SNP and the Tories under Johnson are more similar than either party would want to admit.
I would love it if this was the case, but quite frankly up until the next Holyrood election (and possibly after) we will just be treated to a rinse and repeat of “will of the Scottish people”/“once in a generation” repeated ad nauseam.
Yeah. Perhaps "interesting" is the wrong word. It's the real conflict of two parties dominant in their respective domains however. The difference being that English Brexiteers are getting their way but Scottish nationalists aren't. Yet.
A country that has referred to Britain on occasion as The Great Satan has now been given licence to use assassination as an instrument of foreign policy. That really doesn't sound like good news in any way shape or form.
Britain is the Little Satan. The US is the Great Satan. Do keep up!
Nope, Iranians regard Israel as Little Satan!
Though is it not true that Iranian culture ascribes a power to Britain to manipulate international events out of all proportion to our real influence ?
Yes: "If you stub your toe on a rock, ask yourself why the English put it there."
Nassar: "The sun never sets on the British Empire because God does not trust the British in the dark!"
That's seriously worrying, air safety is one of those things that governments tend to co-operate on, no matter what other diplomatic issues exist between them. Hopefully the FDR and CVR 'black boxes' can be sent somewhere neutral and trusted (BEA in Paris?) for reading out.
Sad to say, but early indications are that this is a repeat of MH17
There did seem to be a surprisingly large number of Canadians on that flight.....
Yeah, that doesn't make an awful lot of sense, and I can't work out who they are and why they were on that plane.
There's no direct scheduled flights from Kiev to Canada (but plenty from Dubai or Doha), and not much Oil & Gas activity in Ukraine - which is the only thing I'd expect Western nationals to be doing in Iran, except perhaps some private security.
On topic, Nandy appears able to combine Phillips’s down-to-earth challenge to the left’s preconceptions with some intelligence and at least the beginnings of an alternative strategy. I’d suggest that at current odds backing Nandy and laying Starmer, Thornberry and Phillips is the best approach?
On the other hand, Willl Self is occasionally interesting...
If you can get past the famous "Self sneer" and the delivery as if he resides on a very high mountain indeed he is often quite interesting IMO.
That "Self v Francois" thing on lunchtime TV a few months ago was peak culture war. The 2 protagonists are the embodiment if what each side most loathes about the other.
On topic, Nandy appears able to combine Phillips’s down-to-earth challenge to the left’s preconceptions with some intelligence and at least the beginnings of an alternative strategy. I’d suggest that at current odds backing Nandy and laying Starmer, Thornberry and Phillips is the best approach?
I tend to agree, though Nandy`s odds have come down from the last few days and I`m also a tad concerned that she is picking up so few backers according to Order Order spreadsheet. The bet I`m pondering over is a lay of RLB.
As a stopped clock is right twice a day, Jeremy Corbyn, for all the fact that he is being ignored over Iran (he is indeed hopelessly morally compromised on the subject), has a really important point about the use of assassination as a tool of foreign policy. Donald Trump has legitimised this. This development is unlikely to be in Britain's interests in the short, medium or long term.
It was a decision made without any consultation of Britain. Good to see that international influence being brought to bear by this Brexity government.
Oh good. I am glad I am not the only one who feels uneasy about what has happened.
I am going to be - possibly - a bit controversial.
First, why all the cheering at PMQs being only 30 minutes? This is the only opportunity MPs have to question the PM, a PM who has not shown a marked inclination to subject himself to scrutiny, and at a time when there is serious international tension and a host of other matters coming up which will affect Britain. We should be demanding more scrutiny not less, not celebrating the fact that only 30 minutes was allowed for the PM to answer questions.
Second, it is grimly amusing to see so many people who a few days ago didn’t even know of General Solemein’s existence opining so apparently knowledgeably on all his activities. Let’s take it as read that he was a very bad man. Let’s also take it as read that Corbyn is morally compromised in questioning what has happened.
But the question still remains: is it lawful to assassinate someone just for that reason and in the absence of any evidence that he was a threat to the US or its allies at the time of the assassination? I am not an international lawyer so I don’t know the answer to this question. But it is worth asking and getting a clear answer on it. Because if it isn’t then it is troubling for a country which claims to act in accordance to the rule of law to take such action. It may not have legitimised Iran to use assassination as a weapon - they have already been doing this - but it does place the US and its allies on much less firm moral high ground than might be wise.
And in addition to this is the wider question: is it strategically sensible to do this? And what is the plan for what happens next? What does this mean for wider Western interests in the region? These are all legitimate questions to ask of our government and of the US government.
Going on about Corbyn getting money from Press TV may be a good-ish debating point but it is no answer to what are, to my mind anyway, serious political questions.
It is after all quite possible that innocent civilians will suffer in any retaliation. Their families deserve more than clever debating points as to why this has happened.
The world is a place where Britain is increasingly irrelevant
Oh how I wish we were in terms of geo-politics. If WW3 (Or more realistically more small scale gulf conflict) breaks out, no one is going to be caring what Norway or Slovakia does.
I don’t.
I might be in a minority here but I’ve always been proud of the contribution Britain has made to the advancement of the human story.
I hope it continues. I think we’re the good guys far more often than we give ourselves credit for.
On topic, Nandy appears able to combine Phillips’s down-to-earth challenge to the left’s preconceptions with some intelligence and at least the beginnings of an alternative strategy. I’d suggest that at current odds backing Nandy and laying Starmer, Thornberry and Phillips is the best approach?
I tend to agree, though Nandy`s odds have come down from the last few days and I`m also a tad concerned that she is picking up so few backers according to Order Order spreadsheet. The bet I`m pondering over is a lay of RLB.
That one makes me more nervous, RLB being Momentum’s preferred candidate. Although Starmer topped the initial members’ poll, his odds seem too short at this stage in the contest, and with his combined disadvantages of being Male, a London MP, and an ultra-remainer, looks to be a clear lay right now.
RLB has, as expected, been distinctly unimpressive so far, and the question is who might be able to challenge her from left (non political) field. That appears to come down to a choice between Nandy and Phillips. If we were casting for some Coronation Street/Crossroads combo, the gig might go to Phillips, but if we are looking for a politician with some intelligence and insight to add to her nous, Nandy appears the better choice.
A country that has referred to Britain on occasion as The Great Satan has now been given licence to use assassination as an instrument of foreign policy. That really doesn't sound like good news in any way shape or form.
Britain is the Little Satan. The US is the Great Satan. Do keep up!
Nope, Iranians regard Israel as Little Satan!
Though is it not true that Iranian culture ascribes a power to Britain to manipulate international events out of all proportion to our real influence ?
On the old better to be feared than to be loved maxim, being the Littlest Satan with the retributive power of a collapsed souffle may be the worst of all possible options.
The world is a place where Britain is increasingly irrelevant
Oh how I wish we were in terms of geo-politics. If WW3 (Or more realistically more small scale gulf conflict) breaks out, no one is going to be caring what Norway or Slovakia does.
It is, as I have noted above the line in the past, one thing that could be a positive from Brexit. Oddly, Leavers get splenetic if you suggest that scaling back Britain's military role might be timely.
I think that is incorrect. The military we have now is not fit for the tasks we are giving it. I would 100% agree we need to be reducing our commitments and changing our vision of our place in the world as far as military intervention is concerned. But I don't believe that would provide any sort of dividend in terms of being able to reduce military spending etc. In fact we have so underfunded our military in recent times that we need to be looking at increased spending at the same time as reducing commitments.
If we could ever come to terms with no longer being at the global top table, the right answer is clearly to scrap Trident, spend a significant part of the saving on ensuring that we have a military fit for purpose, and dine out on the remainder.
The Iranian crisis is a perfect example of why we need to renew our strategic nuclear deterrent.
It’s a sizeable state that is pursuing the development of nuclear weapons as a matter of national policy and is both crazy and ideological enough to consider using them.
Without it we’d be vulnerable to nuclear blackmail, or worse.
He writes brilliantly and originally, though I appreciate humourless bores might not be fans.
Given his late father was a millionaire I also doubt he would be homeless even if he never worked a day in his life
He has a minor but not negligible facility for comic prose. He is NOT original. Quite the opposite. His stuff is very very predictable in both style and content.
But on the food and restaurants, he's pretty good.
The one thing in favour of Giles Coren is that he is marginally less irritating than his sister. Both are very clever in that irritating upper class educated posho way one associates with the BBC sadly still...
On topic, Nandy appears able to combine Phillips’s down-to-earth challenge to the left’s preconceptions with some intelligence and at least the beginnings of an alternative strategy. I’d suggest that at current odds backing Nandy and laying Starmer, Thornberry and Phillips is the best approach?
I tend to agree, though Nandy`s odds have come down from the last few days and I`m also a tad concerned that she is picking up so few backers according to Order Order spreadsheet. The bet I`m pondering over is a lay of RLB.
That one makes me more nervous, RLB being Momentum’s preferred candidate. Although Starmer topped the initial members’ poll, his odds seem too short at this stage in the contest, and with his combined disadvantages of being Male, a London MP, and an ultra-remainer, looks to be a clear lay right now.
RLB has, as expected, been distinctly unimpressive so far, and the question is who might be able to challenge her from left (non political) field. That appears to come down to a choice between Nandy and Phillips. If we were casting for Coronation Street the gig might go to Phillips, but if we are looking for a politician with some intelligence and insight to add to her nous, Nandy appears the better choice.
I`ve been watching Starmer`s odds on BF and in a matter of minutes they have just come down from 1.97 to 1.75. Odd.
As a stopped clock is right twice a day, Jeremy Corbyn, for all the fact that he is being ignored over Iran (he is indeed hopelessly morally compromised on the subject), has a really important point about the use of assassination as a tool of foreign policy. Donald Trump has legitimised this. This development is unlikely to be in Britain's interests in the short, medium or long term.
It was a decision made without any consultation of Britain. Good to see that international influence being brought to bear by this Brexity government.
Oh good. I am glad I am not the only one who feels uneasy about what has happened.
I am going to be - possibly - a bit controversial.
First, why all the cheering at PMQs being only 30 minutes?
Second, it is grimly amusing to see so many people who a few days ago didn’t even know of General Solemein’s existence opining so apparently knowledgeably on all his activities. Let’s take it as read that he was a very bad man. Let’s also take it as read that Corbyn is morally compromised in questioning what has happened.
But the question still remains: is it lawful to assassinate someone just for that reason and in the absence of any evidence that he was a threat to the US or its allies at the time of the assassination? I am not an international lawyer so I don’t know the answer to this question. But it is worth asking and getting a clear answer on it. Because if it isn’t then it is troubling for a country which claims to act in accordance to the rule of law to take such action. It may not have legitimised Iran to use assassination as a weapon - they have already been doing this - but it does place the US and its allies on much less firm moral high ground than might be wise.
And in addition to this is the wider question: is it strategically sensible to do this? And what is the plan for what happens next? What does this mean for wider Western interests in the region? These are all legitimate questions to ask of our government and of the US government.
Going on about Corbyn getting money from Press TV may be a good-ish debating point but it is no answer to what are, to my mind anyway, serious political questions.
It is after all quite possible that innocent civilians will suffer in any retaliation. Their families deserve more than clever debating points as to why this has happened.
International law is a curious beast. And Corbyn is no way close to having the intellectual rigour to understand and interpret it. His reaction to this is solely down to his hatred of Trump and the US more widely and his support for Iran.
There are questions as to the strategic thinking behind the US actions. But Corbyn is not the man to ask them.
I agree with all the criticism of Twitter. But it's still a diversion from Giles Coren's incredibly homophobic bullshit about Owen Jones
Why is it homophobic to say an old, gay man would enjoy chasing young dishy men? It could be deemed offensive to Owen Jones and his partner to suggest he would be unfaithful, and is maybe a bit crass and unfunny, but it’s no different to suggesting a heterosexual man would chase young female researchers (which is what the author is claiming he meant)
I suspect Jones objected to the possible sodomistic reference of 'tight bottoms'.
Sure, but I think the same could be said to a heterosexual man, or woman, with the same intent. It is not complimentary, it is basically calling the target a dirty old so and so, but I don't think it is homophobic because it could be equally offensive if Jones were heterosexual.
I'm sure there's an element of exaggerated offence going on but I am also pretty sure it is homophobic.
If he had written about a Lord eyeing up a female researcher with ample cleavage would that have been heterophobic?
The guy is gay and the reference was to bottoms and hence it is perfectly sensible to read it as being homophobic. Even if it was not meant as such (cf Danny Baker).
Not sure about this. I`m no expert (ahem) but I understand that anal sex is a more common practice in heterosexual relationships than homesexual ones?
I haven`t read the article (can`t find it) but at this stage I`m guessing that this is a snowflake issue. Even if I`m wrong, and he was being offensive, so what? Free speech issue.
Don't disagree with any of this (I am not an expert either on the matter, although I think I can say that when it comes to penetrative sex then 100% of...well you get the idea...).
I get the idea - but I really don`t think it`s anywhere near 100%. I`m sure I read somewhere that less than half of hetersexual partners practice anal sex.
Maybe, like heterosexuals, they try it once and then abandon the idea. Oops.
Speaking from experience most enjoy it one way or the other - to coin a phrase
Perhaps he just couldn't be bothered to care or know about Jones' sexuality and simply saw him as a messenger of the Wokerati Corbyn Brigade ?
It's ludicrous to believe that a plugged in guy like Giles did not know that Jones is gay. He has a long history of borderline homophobic comments but an integral part of his brand is that rather tiresome "Ooo look how naughty and unPC I am!" so I can well believe that he is not personally a homophobe.
Maybe he did, maybe he didn’t - who knows?
Twitter spilling into the real world, ending up with some vigilantes allegedly turning up at his house and haranguing his wife and kids is totally out of order though, if true as reported.
On topic, Nandy appears able to combine Phillips’s down-to-earth challenge to the left’s preconceptions with some intelligence and at least the beginnings of an alternative strategy. I’d suggest that at current odds backing Nandy and laying Starmer, Thornberry and Phillips is the best approach?
I tend to agree, though Nandy`s odds have come down from the last few days and I`m also a tad concerned that she is picking up so few backers according to Order Order spreadsheet. The bet I`m pondering over is a lay of RLB.
That one makes me more nervous, RLB being Momentum’s preferred candidate. Although Starmer topped the initial members’ poll, his odds seem too short at this stage in the contest, and with his combined disadvantages of being Male, a London MP, and an ultra-remainer, looks to be a clear lay right now.
RLB has, as expected, been distinctly unimpressive so far, and the question is who might be able to challenge her from left (non political) field. That appears to come down to a choice between Nandy and Phillips. If we were casting for Coronation Street the gig might go to Phillips, but if we are looking for a politician with some intelligence and insight to add to her nous, Nandy appears the better choice.
I`ve been watching Starmer`s odds on BF and in a matter of minutes they have just come down from 1.97 to 1.75. Odd.
Starmer appears to be the members’ first choice, Wrong Daily is Momentum’s choice, and given Rebecca’s shaky start the prospect of Starmer must look more likely.
The question is whether Labour’s labyrinthine process allows the possibility of a ‘Cameron speech’ moment to allow Nandy or Phillips (or at a push Lewis) to cut through the established reality of union block votes and momentum organisation?
"Going on about Corbyn getting money from Press TV may be a good-ish debating point but it is no answer to what are, to my mind anyway, serious political questions.
It is after all quite possible that innocent civilians will suffer in any retaliation. Their families deserve more than clever debating points as to why this has happened"
Assassination is defined as killing for political, religious or monetary reasons. The US would presumably argue that killing this man was none of those, and that the term assassination is incorrect. The US stood to gain precious little or nothing in any of these terms by killing Solemeini
The US would argue that killing this man was akin to killing a man driving a car at speed towards a group of innocent civilians. The fact he has been sponsored to do this by a certain state is immaterial.
The term assassination has been used by certain parts of the media who want to portray the killing in a certain way.
A country that has referred to Britain on occasion as The Great Satan has now been given licence to use assassination as an instrument of foreign policy. That really doesn't sound like good news in any way shape or form.
Britain is the Little Satan. The US is the Great Satan. Do keep up!
Nope, Iranians regard Israel as Little Satan!
Though is it not true that Iranian culture ascribes a power to Britain to manipulate international events out of all proportion to our real influence ?
On the old better to be feared than to be loved maxim, being the Littlest Satan with the retributive power of a collapsed souffle may be the worst of all possible options.
We still have the retributive power to pave all Iran with trinitite. But they know full well we never will, and so our nukes just continue to amble around the seabed.
As a stopped clock is right twice a day, Jeremy Corbyn, for all the fact that he is being ignored over Iran (he is indeed hopelessly morally compromised on the subject), has a really important point about the use of assassination as a tool of foreign policy. Donald Trump has legitimised this. This development is unlikely to be in Britain's interests in the short, medium or long term.
It was a decision made without any consultation of Britain. Good to see that international influence being brought to bear by this Brexity government.
Oh good. I am glad I am not the only one who feels uneasy about what has happened.
I am going to be - possibly - a bit controversial.
First, why all the cheering at PMQs being only 30 minutes? This is the only opportunity MPs have to question the PM, a PM who has not shown a marked inclination to subject himself to scrutiny, and at a time when there is serious international tension and a host of other matters coming up which will affect Britain. We should be demanding more scrutiny not less, not celebrating the fact that only 30 minutes was allowed for the PM to answer questions.
Second, it is grimly amusing to see so many people who a few days ago didn’t even know of General Solemein’s existence opining so apparently knowledgeably on all his activities. Let’s take it as read that he was a very bad man. Let’s also take it as read that Corbyn is morally compromised in questioning what has happened.
But the question still remains: is it lawful to assassinate someone just for that reason and in the absence of any evidence that he was a threat to the US or its allies at the time of the assassination?
And in addition to this is the wider question: is it strategically sensible to do this? And what is the plan for what happens next? What does this mean for wider Western interests in the region? These are all legitimate questions to ask of our government and of the US government.
Going on about Corbyn getting money from Press TV may be a good-ish debating point but it is no answer to what are, to my mind anyway, serious political questions.
It is after all quite possible that innocent civilians will suffer in any retaliation. Their families deserve more than clever debating points as to why this has happened.
The problem with Corbyn is that is horribly compromised over his support for Hamas and Iran and has no credibility on the question. Most previous labour leaders would not be so compromised and the question itself would not therefore be compromised, if that makes sense
Oh good. I am glad I am not the only one who feels uneasy about what has happened.
I am going to be - possibly - a bit controversial.
Second, it is grimly amusing to see so many people who a few days ago didn’t even know of General Solemein’s existence opining so apparently knowledgeably on all his activities. Let’s take it as read that he was a very bad man. Let’s also take it as read that Corbyn is morally compromised in questioning what has happened.
But the question still remains: is it lawful to assassinate someone just for that reason and in the absence of any evidence that he was a threat to the US or its allies at the time of the assassination? I am not an international lawyer so I don’t know the answer to this question. But it is worth asking and getting a clear answer on it. Because if it isn’t then it is troubling for a country which claims to act in accordance to the rule of law to take such action. It may not have legitimised Iran to use assassination as a weapon - they have already been doing this - but it does place the US and its allies on much less firm moral high ground than might be wise.
SNIPPED WITH APOLOGIES DUE TO LENGTH.
It is interesting to see how attitudes to this have changed over the years. Of course back until the 60s State sanctioned assassination of enemies was accepted as legal if morally dubious. I believe the main reason it was ended was because someone pointed out to a president (Nixon?) that it made them more of a target as well is the world accepted that assassinating political and military leaders was a normal part of diplomacy/war.
But that did change after 911 and even more so under Obama. He is famous for having changed CIA/Military policy to loosen the targeting requirements for 'targeted killings'. Previously it had been necessary to be on a list approved by the Government and to be a named individual. Obama changed this to allow the assassination of unknown individuals based on a pattern of their habits, movements and associations.
Personally I am far more comfortable with the targeted killing of a known, named individual who is well know to be responsible for planning and ordering the killing of Coalition troops than random attacks on unknown individuals who 'acted a bit funny'.
Whether it is politically wise is entirely a different question but I have always found it strange that we accept the killing of tens of thousands of soldiers who may not even want to be out there whilst recoiling from targeting some of the individuals who are actually responsible for sending troops (either regular or irregular) out to kill British or American troops.
"Going on about Corbyn getting money from Press TV may be a good-ish debating point but it is no answer to what are, to my mind anyway, serious political questions.
It is after all quite possible that innocent civilians will suffer in any retaliation. Their families deserve more than clever debating points as to why this has happened"
Assassination is defined as killing for political, religious or monetary reasons. The US would presumably argue that killing this man was none of those, and that the term assassination is incorrect. The US stood to gain precious little or nothing in any of these terms by killing Solemeini
The US would argue that killing this man was akin to killing a man driving a car at speed towards a group of innocent civilians.
The term assassination has been used by certain parts of the media who want to portray the killing in a certain way.
Fine. Use the word “killing” then. It still doesn’t answer my questions about its lawfulness under international law or its wisdom as a strategic matter.
"Going on about Corbyn getting money from Press TV may be a good-ish debating point but it is no answer to what are, to my mind anyway, serious political questions.
It is after all quite possible that innocent civilians will suffer in any retaliation. Their families deserve more than clever debating points as to why this has happened"
Assassination is defined as killing for political, religious or monetary reasons. The US would presumably argue that killing this man was none of those, and that the term assassination is incorrect. The US stood to gain precious little or nothing in any of these terms by killing Solemeini
The US would argue that killing this man was akin to killing a man driving a car at speed towards a group of innocent civilians. The fact he has been sponsored to do this by a certain state is immaterial.
The term assassination has been used by certain parts of the media who want to portray the killing in a certain way.
"WHAT is LLAP-GOCH again?
It is an ANCIENT Welsh ART based on a BRILLIANTLY simple I-D-E-A, which is a SECRET. The best form of DEFENCE is ATTACK (Clausewitz) and the most VITAL element of ATTACK is SURPRISE (Oscar HAMMERstein). Therefore, the BEST way to protect yourself AGAINST any ASSAILANT is to ATTACK him before he attacks YOU... Or BETTER... BEFORE the THOUGHT of doing so has EVEN OCCURRED TO HIM!!! SO YOU MAY BE ABLE TO RENDER YOUR ASSAILANT UNCONSCIOUS BEFORE he is EVEN aware of your very existence!"
I am using the term "assassination" because it is the handiest and most accurate way to refer to an assassination.
On topic, Nandy appears able to combine Phillips’s down-to-earth challenge to the left’s preconceptions with some intelligence and at least the beginnings of an alternative strategy. I’d suggest that at current odds backing Nandy and laying Starmer, Thornberry and Phillips is the best approach?
I tend to agree, though Nandy`s odds have come down from the last few days and I`m also a tad concerned that she is picking up so few backers according to Order Order spreadsheet. The bet I`m pondering over is a lay of RLB.
That one makes me more nervous, RLB being Momentum’s preferred candidate. Although Starmer topped the initial members’ poll, his odds seem too short at this stage in the contest, and with his combined disadvantages of being Male, a London MP, and an ultra-remainer, looks to be a clear lay right now.
RLB has, as expected, been distinctly unimpressive so far, and the question is who might be able to challenge her from left (non political) field. That appears to come down to a choice between Nandy and Phillips. If we were casting for some Coronation Street/Crossroads combo, the gig might go to Phillips, but if we are looking for a politician with some intelligence and insight to add to her nous, Nandy appears the better choice.
Much of the actual enthusiasm for Phillips seems to come from either the labour right, which is large in terms of the PLP but less large in terms of the membership and also from people like Mike who are not labour supporters, but Lib Dems or left leaning Tories who are very enthusiastic for her.
I don't doubt the Progress wing is trying to get people signed up to vote for her which is perfectly fair and reasonable as that is what happened before with Jezza.
I also don't doubt she'd be as disastrous for the Party, in her own way, as Corbyn has been for labour. She alienates as many as she appeals to.
A country that has referred to Britain on occasion as The Great Satan has now been given licence to use assassination as an instrument of foreign policy. That really doesn't sound like good news in any way shape or form.
Britain is the Little Satan. The US is the Great Satan. Do keep up!
Nope, Iranians regard Israel as Little Satan!
Though is it not true that Iranian culture ascribes a power to Britain to manipulate international events out of all proportion to our real influence ?
On the old better to be feared than to be loved maxim, being the Littlest Satan with the retributive power of a collapsed souffle may be the worst of all possible options.
We still have the retributive power to pave all Iran with trinitite. But they know full well we never will, and so our nukes just continue to amble around the seabed.
Drones, on the other hand....
So just a nuclear sock down old Yook's tweed trousers and therefore no retributive threat at all?
The idea that the ayatollahs give the teeniest feck about British drone capacity is an entertaining one. I look forward to BJ waving that big stick around.
Unison Britians biggest trade union come out to back Starmer
I think that effectively means he's already passed the first two stages of qualification before any other candidate has passed the first (MP nominations) stage.
IMO, people seem to be over-analysing every word of his ramblings.
Where Cummings is right, and has been right in the past, data science is where it is at and we need people to be willing to look dispassionately at this stuff and propose ideas on the back of the data, rather than the classic approach of we are the experts, because we have done this role for ever and therefore x definitely won't work.
I have recently been taking a big interest in sports analytics and basically in general most previous conventional wisdom is wrong e.g. the whole gameplan of every NBA team was sub-optimal.
"Going on about Corbyn getting money from Press TV may be a good-ish debating point but it is no answer to what are, to my mind anyway, serious political questions.
It is after all quite possible that innocent civilians will suffer in any retaliation. Their families deserve more than clever debating points as to why this has happened"
Assassination is defined as killing for political, religious or monetary reasons. The US would presumably argue that killing this man was none of those, and that the term assassination is incorrect. The US stood to gain precious little or nothing in any of these terms by killing Solemeini
The US would argue that killing this man was akin to killing a man driving a car at speed towards a group of innocent civilians.
The term assassination has been used by certain parts of the media who want to portray the killing in a certain way.
Fine. Use the word “killing” then. It still doesn’t answer my questions about its lawfulness under international law or its wisdom as a strategic matter.
If Solemeini is protected by international law then is surely follows that International law assumes that all states of whatever hue, are responsible and moral in the officials they elect or appoint.
It further assumes that all states have a right to create ministries for mayhem, terrorism, and indiscriminate murder and have officials appointed to those functions protected under its auspices.
It also follows that any state could set up a ministry for the destruction of another state, and officials working towards that goal would be protected simply because they were government employees.
It seems to me the people who set up 'international law' did so somewhat naively, and never envisaged that a rogue state like Iran would use it in such a nefarious way.
He writes brilliantly and originally, though I appreciate humourless bores might not be fans.
Given his late father was a millionaire I also doubt he would be homeless even if he never worked a day in his life
He has a minor but not negligible facility for comic prose. He is NOT original. Quite the opposite. His stuff is very very predictable in both style and content.
But on the food and restaurants, he's pretty good.
The one thing in favour of Giles Coren is that he is marginally less irritating than his sister. Both are very clever in that irritating upper class educated posho way one associates with the BBC sadly still...
I like Victoria Coren, funny and genuinely talented writer and poker player. First person to win two European tour titles. Gave up sponsorship from pokerstars when they added casino games to their poker platform.
Not read much of Giles Coren but what I have done fits the irritating upper class educated posho perfectly.
As a stopped clock is right twice a day, Jeremy Corbyn, for all the fact that he is being ignored over Iran (he is indeed hopelessly morally compromised on the subject), has a really important point about the use of assassination as a tool of foreign policy. Donald Trump has legitimised this. This development is unlikely to be in Britain's interests in the short, medium or long term.
It was a decision made without any consultation of Britain. Good to see that international influence being brought to bear by this Brexity government.
First, why all the cheering at PMQs being only 30 minutes? This is the only opportunity MPs have to question the PM, a PM who has not shown a marked inclination to subject himself to scrutiny, and at a time when there is serious international tension and a host of other matters coming up which will affect Britain. We should be demanding more scrutiny not less, not celebrating the fact that only 30 minutes was allowed for the PM to answer questions.
Did you listen to PMQs? AFAIK all the MPs down to ask questions did. The difference was Hoyle kept the process moving swiftly, dealt with excessive noise promptly and didn't take up time liking the sound of his own voice.
Unison Britians biggest trade union come out to back Starmer
I think that effectively means he's already passed the first two stages of qualification before any other candidate has passed the first (MP nominations) stage.
Yep - he's creating the impression of momentum around his cause too. Notably he's passed both stages of qualification before Long-Bailey has reached 22 odd MPs. When will CLPs start declaring for various candidates ?
Comments
Volunteering to accelerate that process is nuts.
(walks away embarrassed...
I don't know if you agree, but to me, one really important point is that this is nothing to do with centrism versus extremism. Phillips is regarded as a centrist. Corbyn is regarded as an extremist, but never used these shibboleths. I respect him for that, but it's sad to say that he would probably have been more successful if he had.
Blair invaded Iraq with Bush before Brexit, Boris has not joined Trump in attacking Iranian generals
No. No he isn't. The piece is clearly a nonsense and into the realms of deep fantasy - CLEARLY Jones isn't a Lord Sewel.
I haven`t read the article (can`t find it) but at this stage I`m guessing that this is a snowflake issue. Even if I`m wrong, and he was being offensive, so what? Free speech issue.
But on the food and restaurants, he's pretty good.
The "metropolitan elite" label is an issue for Thornberry, whereas Starmer has already debunked it.
Coren is not untalented as a writer, but tends to be a bit of a one note bore himself.
Maybe, like heterosexuals, they try it once and then abandon the idea. Oops.
Re the anal, surely it is more common in Homo than Hetero action. Maybe not in absolute terms - since there is far more Hetero than Homo - but as a percentage.
By that I mean, take 100 random Hetero encounters and compare with 100 random Homo encounters, so that's 200 different people involved on each side, 400 in total, 100 women, 300 men.
So there will be rear side activity in far more of the 100 Homo encounters than the Hetero ones. My guess - and it is only a guess since I have neither done nor seen any surveys on the topic - would be 75 plays 10.
Are you an Israeli ?
That "Self v Francois" thing on lunchtime TV a few months ago was peak culture war. The 2 protagonists are the embodiment if what each side most loathes about the other.
I am going to be - possibly - a bit controversial.
First, why all the cheering at PMQs being only 30 minutes? This is the only opportunity MPs have to question the PM, a PM who has not shown a marked inclination to subject himself to scrutiny, and at a time when there is serious international tension and a host of other matters coming up which will affect Britain. We should be demanding more scrutiny not less, not celebrating the fact that only 30 minutes was allowed for the PM to answer questions.
Second, it is grimly amusing to see so many people who a few days ago didn’t even know of General Solemein’s existence opining so apparently knowledgeably on all his activities. Let’s take it as read that he was a very bad man. Let’s also take it as read that Corbyn is morally compromised in questioning what has happened.
But the question still remains: is it lawful to assassinate someone just for that reason and in the absence of any evidence that he was a threat to the US or its allies at the time of the assassination? I am not an international lawyer so I don’t know the answer to this question. But it is worth asking and getting a clear answer on it. Because if it isn’t then it is troubling for a country which claims to act in accordance to the rule of law to take such action. It may not have legitimised Iran to use assassination as a weapon - they have already been doing this - but it does place the US and its allies on much less firm moral high ground than might be wise.
And in addition to this is the wider question: is it strategically sensible to do this? And what is the plan for what happens next? What does this mean for wider Western interests in the region? These are all legitimate questions to ask of our government and of the US government.
Going on about Corbyn getting money from Press TV may be a good-ish debating point but it is no answer to what are, to my mind anyway, serious political questions.
It is after all quite possible that innocent civilians will suffer in any retaliation. Their families deserve more than clever debating points as to why this has happened.
I might be in a minority here but I’ve always been proud of the contribution Britain has made to the advancement of the human story.
I hope it continues. I think we’re the good guys far more often than we give ourselves credit for.
RLB has, as expected, been distinctly unimpressive so far, and the question is who might be able to challenge her from left (non political) field. That appears to come down to a choice between Nandy and Phillips. If we were casting for some Coronation Street/Crossroads combo, the gig might go to Phillips, but if we are looking for a politician with some intelligence and insight to add to her nous, Nandy appears the better choice.
It’s a sizeable state that is pursuing the development of nuclear weapons as a matter of national policy and is both crazy and ideological enough to consider using them.
Without it we’d be vulnerable to nuclear blackmail, or worse.
There are questions as to the strategic thinking behind the US actions. But Corbyn is not the man to ask them.
Twitter spilling into the real world, ending up with some vigilantes allegedly turning up at his house and haranguing his wife and kids is totally out of order though, if true as reported.
The question is whether Labour’s labyrinthine process allows the possibility of a ‘Cameron speech’ moment to allow Nandy or Phillips (or at a push Lewis) to cut through the established reality of union block votes and momentum organisation?
It is after all quite possible that innocent civilians will suffer in any retaliation. Their families deserve more than clever debating points as to why this has happened"
Assassination is defined as killing for political, religious or monetary reasons. The US would presumably argue that killing this man was none of those, and that the term assassination is incorrect. The US stood to gain precious little or nothing in any of these terms by killing Solemeini
The US would argue that killing this man was akin to killing a man driving a car at speed towards a group of innocent civilians. The fact he has been sponsored to do this by a certain state is immaterial.
The term assassination has been used by certain parts of the media who want to portray the killing in a certain way.
Drones, on the other hand....
But that did change after 911 and even more so under Obama. He is famous for having changed CIA/Military policy to loosen the targeting requirements for 'targeted killings'. Previously it had been necessary to be on a list approved by the Government and to be a named individual. Obama changed this to allow the assassination of unknown individuals based on a pattern of their habits, movements and associations.
Personally I am far more comfortable with the targeted killing of a known, named individual who is well know to be responsible for planning and ordering the killing of Coalition troops than random attacks on unknown individuals who 'acted a bit funny'.
Whether it is politically wise is entirely a different question but I have always found it strange that we accept the killing of tens of thousands of soldiers who may not even want to be out there whilst recoiling from targeting some of the individuals who are actually responsible for sending troops (either regular or irregular) out to kill British or American troops.
It is an ANCIENT Welsh ART based on a BRILLIANTLY simple I-D-E-A, which
is a SECRET. The best form of DEFENCE is ATTACK (Clausewitz) and the
most VITAL element of ATTACK is SURPRISE (Oscar HAMMERstein). Therefore,
the BEST way to protect yourself AGAINST any ASSAILANT is to ATTACK him
before he attacks YOU... Or BETTER... BEFORE the THOUGHT of doing so has
EVEN OCCURRED TO HIM!!! SO YOU MAY BE ABLE TO RENDER YOUR ASSAILANT
UNCONSCIOUS BEFORE he is EVEN aware of your very existence!"
I am using the term "assassination" because it is the handiest and most accurate way to refer to an assassination.
https://theconversation.com/ive-studied-the-weirdos-dominic-cummings-is-talking-about-im-not-sure-he-really-understands-who-they-are-129418
I don't doubt the Progress wing is trying to get people signed up to vote for her which is perfectly fair and reasonable as that is what happened before with Jezza.
I also don't doubt she'd be as disastrous for the Party, in her own way, as Corbyn has been for labour. She alienates as many as she appeals to.
The idea that the ayatollahs give the teeniest feck about British drone capacity is an entertaining one. I look forward to BJ waving that big stick around.
Where Cummings is right, and has been right in the past, data science is where it is at and we need people to be willing to look dispassionately at this stuff and propose ideas on the back of the data, rather than the classic approach of we are the experts, because we have done this role for ever and therefore x definitely won't work.
I have recently been taking a big interest in sports analytics and basically in general most previous conventional wisdom is wrong e.g. the whole gameplan of every NBA team was sub-optimal.
https://twitter.com/BorisJohnson_MP/status/1214888437892952065?s=20
It further assumes that all states have a right to create ministries for mayhem, terrorism, and indiscriminate murder and have officials appointed to those functions protected under its auspices.
It also follows that any state could set up a ministry for the destruction of another state, and officials working towards that goal would be protected simply because they were government employees.
It seems to me the people who set up 'international law' did so somewhat naively, and never envisaged that a rogue state like Iran would use it in such a nefarious way.
Not read much of Giles Coren but what I have done fits the irritating upper class educated posho perfectly.
When will CLPs start declaring for various candidates ?