Sensible. Well, if the bunker's air ducts are better than those in Beirut.
lol
They will be glaring with suspicious intent at the guard's 1980s Seiko watch, as it loudly ticks
Then wondering about the Toshiba fan in the corner of the room
I for one SALUTE the fact that Israel has terrorised the fuck out of all and any of its enemies who ever use an electronic device, at any time. So, all of them
I'm waiting for them to start on some of the Islamist-friendly suspects in the UK
"Today, in a terrible incident, Jeremy Corbyn was bizarrely castrasted by his Argos Breville sandwich toaster"
The Iron Dome has, once again, proven to be a technological miracle. I suspect that a lot of the tech was the successor to the Reaganite idea of a nuclear shield for the US. The Russians really should be nervous about how much of a threat their nuclear armoury really is.
It makes our defences look like a completely unfunny joke.
S Korea has similar, possibly superior capabilities. Since they face a similar threat.
New series of Slow Horses is shaping up well. Jackson Lamb one liners are worth watching it for alone.
I'm REALLY enjoying Baby Reindeer. Unexpectedly good. Short, but powerful - and funny. The new Fleabag
I am saving Shogun for an ucoming trip to Asia
Any others? PBers?
Baby Reindeer is excellent.
Shogun is slow but fun.
Slow Horses, I'm sorry but the first few episodes of the first season were painfully awful. Everyone tells me to keep watching, and the cast is amazing. But I simply can't.
Kaos is genuinely fantastic: a really smart retelling of Greek mythology. My only regret is that we didn't get to see it with the originally cast Hugh Grant as Zeus.
Nobody Wants This on Netflix is mildly amusing. Or at least, my wife really likes it.
Slow Horses - Season One I think was the weakest. Watch the season with the Russians (you don't need to watch the previous ones to understand it).
Just looking in after coming back from my daughter's football training - I take it from the current TV discussion that the apocalypse has been postponed for the evening.
New series of Slow Horses is shaping up well. Jackson Lamb one liners are worth watching it for alone.
I'm REALLY enjoying Baby Reindeer. Unexpectedly good. Short, but powerful - and funny. The new Fleabag
I am saving Shogun for an ucoming trip to Asia
Any others? PBers?
If you haven't already watched it Inspector George Gently got added to Netflix. It's absolutely brilliant, a bit depressing but a thoroughly realistic take on the 1960s and Martin Shaw puts in a top performance, probably the best of his career.
Ooh, thanks. On the list
It's a shame all the really big series have been so disappointing, the awful LOTR version, the Foundation or whatever it was, nearly all the Star Wars spins-offs. I like House of Dragons 1, but HoD2 is so slooooow
But there are lots of much smaller shows that are still high quality. The Golden Age of TV is not over, just more diversified maybe
I'm willing to believe that half a dozen MPs might, theoretically, belong in jail. Perhaps even a handful of individuals in the civil service, if only by the law of averages.
50k civil servants ? That's the idle dream of a would be authoritarian.
If she had said 50,000 should be sacked, it would be extreme but one could make an argument based on the classic big four model of chopping the bottom 10%. But for her mind to go straight to imprisonment? Bonkers.
To be fair she doesn't think 50,000 of them should be in jail. She thinks todays politicians can say what they want, without it being accurate, or even true, as long as they indicate whose side they are on. She might be right.
"Upsetting the right people", sadly, works rather well a lot of the time, and many politicians think that's all you need.
I don't think everything she says is bonkers though.
I think there's a problem with politicians who say as little as 4-5% that is bonkers. Preferably we should be going for 0% bonkers. Is that too much to ask for?
It's not as if Jenrick slams the door in Mr Bonkers's face. But somehow, he manages to not sound as bonkers.
He named his kid "Thatcher". That's not exactly not bonkers, is it.
Playing the long game for a leadership contest, shows the ruthlessness.
That is puzzling. They have drone capability, even if not perhaps world leading drone technology - why are they not using it? Why fire rockets even somebody so dim as Ayatollah Khamenei must have known were most unlikely to get through the Iron Dome, which was *designed* to repel attacks from Hizbollah and Iran (and helpfully tested against rockets fired by their proxies in Gaza)?
Surely they could have done better than that? All they've done is give Israel an excuse to hit back, which being Israel they certainly will.
Perhaps that was the idea, to try and take the heat off Hizbollah who are obviously in total chaos? Very high risk strategy if it was though.
Alternatively, was our troll correct and this is Putin (who after all pulls the strings of the Ayatollahs) trying to set the Middle East on fire to help his ally Trump?
I'm willing to believe that half a dozen MPs might, theoretically, belong in jail. Perhaps even a handful of individuals in the civil service, if only by the law of averages.
50k civil servants ? That's the idle dream of a would be authoritarian.
If she had said 50,000 should be sacked, it would be extreme but one could make an argument based on the classic big four model of chopping the bottom 10%. But for her mind to go straight to imprisonment? Bonkers.
To be fair she doesn't think 50,000 of them should be in jail. She thinks todays politicians can say what they want, without it being accurate, or even true, as long as they indicate whose side they are on. She might be right.
"Upsetting the right people", sadly, works rather well a lot of the time, and many politicians think that's all you need.
I don't think everything she says is bonkers though.
I think there's a problem with politicians who say as little as 4-5% that is bonkers. Preferably we should be going for 0% bonkers. Is that too much to ask for?
It's not as if Jenrick slams the door in Mr Bonkers's face. But somehow, he manages to not sound as bonkers.
He named his kid "Thatcher". That's not exactly not bonkers, is it.
Playing the long game for a leadership contest, shows the ruthlessness.
We already knew he likes being horrible to kids. We just didn't know that included his own kids.
That is puzzling. They have drone capability, even if not perhaps world leading drone technology - why are they not using it? Why fire rockets even somebody so dim as Ayatollah Khamenei must have known were most unlikely to get through the Iron Dome, which was *designed* to repel attacks from Hizbollah and Iran (and helpfully tested against rockets fired by their proxies in Gaza)?
Surely they could have done better than that? All they've done is give Israel an excuse to hit back, which being Israel they certainly will.
Perhaps that was the idea, to try and take the heat off Hizbollah who are obviously in total chaos? Very high risk strategy if it was though.
Alternatively, was our troll correct and this is Putin (who after all pulls the strings of the Ayatollahs) trying to set the Middle East on fire to help his ally Trump?
They launched drones in April - they took ages to arrive and were shot down in droves.
I'm willing to believe that half a dozen MPs might, theoretically, belong in jail. Perhaps even a handful of individuals in the civil service, if only by the law of averages.
50k civil servants ? That's the idle dream of a would be authoritarian.
If she had said 50,000 should be sacked, it would be extreme but one could make an argument based on the classic big four model of chopping the bottom 10%. But for her mind to go straight to imprisonment? Bonkers.
To be fair she doesn't think 50,000 of them should be in jail. She thinks todays politicians can say what they want, without it being accurate, or even true, as long as they indicate whose side they are on. She might be right.
"Upsetting the right people", sadly, works rather well a lot of the time, and many politicians think that's all you need.
I don't think everything she says is bonkers though.
I think there's a problem with politicians who say as little as 4-5% that is bonkers. Preferably we should be going for 0% bonkers. Is that too much to ask for?
It's not as if Jenrick slams the door in Mr Bonkers's face. But somehow, he manages to not sound as bonkers.
He named his kid "Thatcher". That's not exactly not bonkers, is it.
That’s a new one. Joins the ranks of a number of surprisingly suitable first names from PM surnames.
That is puzzling. They have drone capability, even if not perhaps world leading drone technology - why are they not using it? Why fire rockets even somebody so dim as Ayatollah Khamenei must have known were most unlikely to get through the Iron Dome, which was *designed* to repel attacks from Hizbollah and Iran (and helpfully tested against rockets fired by their proxies in Gaza)?
Surely they could have done better than that? All they've done is give Israel an excuse to hit back, which being Israel they certainly will.
Perhaps that was the idea, to try and take the heat off Hizbollah who are obviously in total chaos? Very high risk strategy if it was though.
Alternatively, was our troll correct and this is Putin (who after all pulls the strings of the Ayatollahs) trying to set the Middle East on fire to help his ally Trump?
They launched drones in April - they took ages to arrive and were shot down in droves.
Ok. So any weapons they have are completely ineffective as offensive items against the Israelis.
So why fire them?
Again, we come back to either the Ayatollahs are even stupider than we all thought, or there is something odd and potentially sinister going on.
That is puzzling. They have drone capability, even if not perhaps world leading drone technology - why are they not using it? Why fire rockets even somebody so dim as Ayatollah Khamenei must have known were most unlikely to get through the Iron Dome, which was *designed* to repel attacks from Hizbollah and Iran (and helpfully tested against rockets fired by their proxies in Gaza)?
Surely they could have done better than that? All they've done is give Israel an excuse to hit back, which being Israel they certainly will.
Perhaps that was the idea, to try and take the heat off Hizbollah who are obviously in total chaos? Very high risk strategy if it was though.
Alternatively, was our troll correct and this is Putin (who after all pulls the strings of the Ayatollahs) trying to set the Middle East on fire to help his ally Trump?
It's more likely to work out badly for Putin. Russia is about to lose a major ally and weapons supplier.
The issue with the Kemi 10% of civil servants should be in prison is that it is obvious from the actual video that to make a point she used humour and exaggeration.
This is lost is the firestorm of 'gotcha' social media and journos.
Now it may be unwise for a leading candidate to use humour in this unguarded way.
But it seems to me another example of a society we are creating where no one dare say anything that is not vanilla.
The issue with the Kemi 10% of civil servants should be in prison is that it is obvious from the actual video that to make a point she used humour and exaggeration.
This is lost is the firestorm of 'gotcha' social media and journos.
Now it may be unwise for a leading candidate to use humour in this unguarded way.
But it seems to me another example of a society we are creating where no one dare say anything that is not vanilla.
That is puzzling. They have drone capability, even if not perhaps world leading drone technology - why are they not using it? Why fire rockets even somebody so dim as Ayatollah Khamenei must have known were most unlikely to get through the Iron Dome, which was *designed* to repel attacks from Hizbollah and Iran (and helpfully tested against rockets fired by their proxies in Gaza)?
Surely they could have done better than that? All they've done is give Israel an excuse to hit back, which being Israel they certainly will.
Perhaps that was the idea, to try and take the heat off Hizbollah who are obviously in total chaos? Very high risk strategy if it was though.
Alternatively, was our troll correct and this is Putin (who after all pulls the strings of the Ayatollahs) trying to set the Middle East on fire to help his ally Trump?
They launched drones in April - they took ages to arrive and were shot down in droves.
Iran’s problem is it’s a long way away from the target. Drones take too long, missiles too expensive and intercepted. But the shorter range weapons with a better chance of causing nuisance were in the hands of the incapacitated Hezbollah.
Same problem Israel would have attacking Iran directly.
That is puzzling. They have drone capability, even if not perhaps world leading drone technology - why are they not using it? Why fire rockets even somebody so dim as Ayatollah Khamenei must have known were most unlikely to get through the Iron Dome, which was *designed* to repel attacks from Hizbollah and Iran (and helpfully tested against rockets fired by their proxies in Gaza)?
Surely they could have done better than that? All they've done is give Israel an excuse to hit back, which being Israel they certainly will.
Perhaps that was the idea, to try and take the heat off Hizbollah who are obviously in total chaos? Very high risk strategy if it was though.
Alternatively, was our troll correct and this is Putin (who after all pulls the strings of the Ayatollahs) trying to set the Middle East on fire to help his ally Trump?
It's more likely to work out badly for Putin. Russia is about to lose a major ally and weapons supplier.
That doesn't rule out his involvement in the belief that he was developing masterful strategy. He is, after all, the man who gave us a two and a half year long three day war.
That is puzzling. They have drone capability, even if not perhaps world leading drone technology - why are they not using it? Why fire rockets even somebody so dim as Ayatollah Khamenei must have known were most unlikely to get through the Iron Dome, which was *designed* to repel attacks from Hizbollah and Iran (and helpfully tested against rockets fired by their proxies in Gaza)?
Surely they could have done better than that? All they've done is give Israel an excuse to hit back, which being Israel they certainly will.
Perhaps that was the idea, to try and take the heat off Hizbollah who are obviously in total chaos? Very high risk strategy if it was though.
Alternatively, was our troll correct and this is Putin (who after all pulls the strings of the Ayatollahs) trying to set the Middle East on fire to help his ally Trump?
They launched drones in April - they took ages to arrive and were shot down in droves.
Ok. So any weapons they have are completely ineffective as offensive items against the Israelis.
So why fire them?
Again, we come back to either the Ayatollahs are even stupider than we all thought, or there is something odd and potentially sinister going on.
It's a phony war, Iran gets to say to the hardliners "look we threw a few hundred missiles at Israel" and put together a highlight reel of the two or three that seem to have actually landed but not actually hit anything, while Israel comes out and says "look at how great we are, they didn't even hit anything" and has a small or no retaliation.
I'm willing to believe that half a dozen MPs might, theoretically, belong in jail. Perhaps even a handful of individuals in the civil service, if only by the law of averages.
50k civil servants ? That's the idle dream of a would be authoritarian.
If she had said 50,000 should be sacked, it would be extreme but one could make an argument based on the classic big four model of chopping the bottom 10%. But for her mind to go straight to imprisonment? Bonkers.
To be fair she doesn't think 50,000 of them should be in jail. She thinks todays politicians can say what they want, without it being accurate, or even true, as long as they indicate whose side they are on. She might be right.
"Upsetting the right people", sadly, works rather well a lot of the time, and many politicians think that's all you need.
I don't think everything she says is bonkers though.
I think there's a problem with politicians who say as little as 4-5% that is bonkers. Preferably we should be going for 0% bonkers. Is that too much to ask for?
It's not as if Jenrick slams the door in Mr Bonkers's face. But somehow, he manages to not sound as bonkers.
He named his kid "Thatcher". That's not exactly not bonkers, is it.
That’s a new one. Joins the ranks of a number of surprisingly suitable first names from PM surnames.
The issue with the Kemi 10% of civil servants should be in prison is that it is obvious from the actual video that to make a point she used humour and exaggeration.
This is lost is the firestorm of 'gotcha' social media and journos.
Now it may be unwise for a leading candidate to use humour in this unguarded way.
But it seems to me another example of a society we are creating where no one dare say anything that is not vanilla.
I think she was also thinking of Civil servants as the Sir Humphreys in central government departments in Whitehall, of which there are a few hundred, forgetting the hundreds of thousands out there that bear the same moniker.
That is puzzling. They have drone capability, even if not perhaps world leading drone technology - why are they not using it? Why fire rockets even somebody so dim as Ayatollah Khamenei must have known were most unlikely to get through the Iron Dome, which was *designed* to repel attacks from Hizbollah and Iran (and helpfully tested against rockets fired by their proxies in Gaza)?
Surely they could have done better than that? All they've done is give Israel an excuse to hit back, which being Israel they certainly will.
Perhaps that was the idea, to try and take the heat off Hizbollah who are obviously in total chaos? Very high risk strategy if it was though.
Alternatively, was our troll correct and this is Putin (who after all pulls the strings of the Ayatollahs) trying to set the Middle East on fire to help his ally Trump?
They launched drones in April - they took ages to arrive and were shot down in droves.
Iran’s problem is it’s a long way away from the target. Drones take too long, missiles too expensive and intercepted. But the shorter range weapons with a better chance of causing nuisance were in the hands of the incapacitated Hezbollah.
Same problem Israel would have attacking Iran directly.
Israel could launch a pretty big attack on Iran if it wanted to do it, they have superior air capability and their planes would easily have the range for significant bombing capability with air cover for bombers against Iran's decrepit air force.
After Iran sent a barrage of missiles at Israel, Israel should retaliate with a bigger and more powerful barrage of missiles back at Iran.
Regime change of the Ayatollahs would do wonders to improve the Middle East and the world and with direct conflict from Iran to Israel rather than just via proxy it is time to rip off the bandage cut out the gangrene.
That is puzzling. They have drone capability, even if not perhaps world leading drone technology - why are they not using it? Why fire rockets even somebody so dim as Ayatollah Khamenei must have known were most unlikely to get through the Iron Dome, which was *designed* to repel attacks from Hizbollah and Iran (and helpfully tested against rockets fired by their proxies in Gaza)?
Surely they could have done better than that? All they've done is give Israel an excuse to hit back, which being Israel they certainly will.
Perhaps that was the idea, to try and take the heat off Hizbollah who are obviously in total chaos? Very high risk strategy if it was though.
Alternatively, was our troll correct and this is Putin (who after all pulls the strings of the Ayatollahs) trying to set the Middle East on fire to help his ally Trump?
They launched drones in April - they took ages to arrive and were shot down in droves.
Ok. So any weapons they have are completely ineffective as offensive items against the Israelis.
So why fire them?
Again, we come back to either the Ayatollahs are even stupider than we all thought, or there is something odd and potentially sinister going on.
It's a phony war, Iran gets to say to the hardliners "look we threw a few hundred missiles at Israel" and put together a highlight reel of the two or three that seem to have actually landed but not actually hit anything, while Israel comes out and says "look at how great we are, they didn't even hit anything" and has a small or no retaliation.
I wouldn’t be so sure about that. Talking head on the radio earlier, I missed which institute he was from. Said Israel has been systematically cutting the arms off the octopus and is now getting ready to go for the head (the Islamic republic).
There’s a narrowing window to take out the nuclear programme and I think it more likely than not we see that mission in play very soon (ie 2024).
The issue with the Kemi 10% of civil servants should be in prison is that it is obvious from the actual video that to make a point she used humour and exaggeration.
This is lost is the firestorm of 'gotcha' social media and journos.
Now it may be unwise for a leading candidate to use humour in this unguarded way.
But it seems to me another example of a society we are creating where no one dare say anything that is not vanilla.
Yeah, but it's simply a stupid thing to say.
She’s up against Cleverly whose humorous gaffes are legendary, and Jenrick whose sadly all too serious gaffes are probably deliberate.
In the space of 24 hours we’re had Badenoch quipping that 10% of civil servants should be in jail, and Jenrick claiming our special forces are committing assassinations in contravention of the Geneva convention.
After Iran sent a barrage of missiles at Israel, Israel should retaliate with a bigger and more powerful barrage of missiles back at Iran.
Regime change of the Ayatollahs would do wonders to improve the Middle East and the world and with direct conflict from Iran to Israel rather than just via proxy it is time to rip off the bandage cut out the gangrene.
Risky. As practically every other country is telling them. Then again, it’s risky not doing.
For Netanyahu this is all about Netanyahu. The longer it goes on, the longer he stays out of jail.
After Iran sent a barrage of missiles at Israel, Israel should retaliate with a bigger and more powerful barrage of missiles back at Iran.
Regime change of the Ayatollahs would do wonders to improve the Middle East and the world and with direct conflict from Iran to Israel rather than just via proxy it is time to rip off the bandage cut out the gangrene.
Warmongering helps no one tbh, Israel needs to look after itself and that might mean pushing for regime change in Iran, it might mean having a token retaliation and sending in Mosad to destabilise the government.
I don't see what is to be gained from bombing Iranian citizens at this stage who also don't support the ayatollahs, it would in fact give the sceptical population a reason to back them against Israel. Israel showing restraint and acting surgically rather than throwing in missiles and bombs is the correct course of action.
That is puzzling. They have drone capability, even if not perhaps world leading drone technology - why are they not using it? Why fire rockets even somebody so dim as Ayatollah Khamenei must have known were most unlikely to get through the Iron Dome, which was *designed* to repel attacks from Hizbollah and Iran (and helpfully tested against rockets fired by their proxies in Gaza)?
Surely they could have done better than that? All they've done is give Israel an excuse to hit back, which being Israel they certainly will.
Perhaps that was the idea, to try and take the heat off Hizbollah who are obviously in total chaos? Very high risk strategy if it was though.
Alternatively, was our troll correct and this is Putin (who after all pulls the strings of the Ayatollahs) trying to set the Middle East on fire to help his ally Trump?
It's more likely to work out badly for Putin. Russia is about to lose a major ally and weapons supplier.
That doesn't rule out his involvement in the belief that he was developing masterful strategy. He is, after all, the man who gave us a two and a half year long three day war.
If Netanyahu really wanted to make friends in the Arab world (no I know he doesn’t) he’d use this moment of weakness to go after Assad. The lanky little mobster ophthalmologist is fast losing his protectors.
I'm willing to believe that half a dozen MPs might, theoretically, belong in jail. Perhaps even a handful of individuals in the civil service, if only by the law of averages.
50k civil servants ? That's the idle dream of a would be authoritarian.
If she had said 50,000 should be sacked, it would be extreme but one could make an argument based on the classic big four model of chopping the bottom 10%. But for her mind to go straight to imprisonment? Bonkers.
To be fair she doesn't think 50,000 of them should be in jail. She thinks todays politicians can say what they want, without it being accurate, or even true, as long as they indicate whose side they are on. She might be right.
"Upsetting the right people", sadly, works rather well a lot of the time, and many politicians think that's all you need.
I don't think everything she says is bonkers though.
I think there's a problem with politicians who say as little as 4-5% that is bonkers. Preferably we should be going for 0% bonkers. Is that too much to ask for?
It's not as if Jenrick slams the door in Mr Bonkers's face. But somehow, he manages to not sound as bonkers.
He named his kid "Thatcher". That's not exactly not bonkers, is it.
That’s a new one. Joins the ranks of a number of surprisingly suitable first names from PM surnames.
I'm willing to believe that half a dozen MPs might, theoretically, belong in jail. Perhaps even a handful of individuals in the civil service, if only by the law of averages.
50k civil servants ? That's the idle dream of a would be authoritarian.
If she had said 50,000 should be sacked, it would be extreme but one could make an argument based on the classic big four model of chopping the bottom 10%. But for her mind to go straight to imprisonment? Bonkers.
To be fair she doesn't think 50,000 of them should be in jail. She thinks todays politicians can say what they want, without it being accurate, or even true, as long as they indicate whose side they are on. She might be right.
"Upsetting the right people", sadly, works rather well a lot of the time, and many politicians think that's all you need.
I don't think everything she says is bonkers though.
I think there's a problem with politicians who say as little as 4-5% that is bonkers. Preferably we should be going for 0% bonkers. Is that too much to ask for?
It's not as if Jenrick slams the door in Mr Bonkers's face. But somehow, he manages to not sound as bonkers.
He named his kid "Thatcher". That's not exactly not bonkers, is it.
That’s a new one. Joins the ranks of a number of surprisingly suitable first names from PM surnames.
- Blair - May - Johnson - Cameron
Are all first names
But not
- Truss - Sunak - Brown
Major is a marginal case.
Surnames as first names is euch. Feels very American. Or maybe just a bit upper class? Billy Connelly used to joke about the "surname clan", upper class Scots called Finlay and Farquar and Cameron.
That is puzzling. They have drone capability, even if not perhaps world leading drone technology - why are they not using it? Why fire rockets even somebody so dim as Ayatollah Khamenei must have known were most unlikely to get through the Iron Dome, which was *designed* to repel attacks from Hizbollah and Iran (and helpfully tested against rockets fired by their proxies in Gaza)?
Surely they could have done better than that? All they've done is give Israel an excuse to hit back, which being Israel they certainly will.
Perhaps that was the idea, to try and take the heat off Hizbollah who are obviously in total chaos? Very high risk strategy if it was though.
Alternatively, was our troll correct and this is Putin (who after all pulls the strings of the Ayatollahs) trying to set the Middle East on fire to help his ally Trump?
They launched drones in April - they took ages to arrive and were shot down in droves.
Ok. So any weapons they have are completely ineffective as offensive items against the Israelis.
So why fire them?
Again, we come back to either the Ayatollahs are even stupider than we all thought, or there is something odd and potentially sinister going on.
Performative dance.
The Ayatollahs needed to do something - having their Hizbollah franchise pounded on like cheap veal is a bad look.
But they didn't want to do anything serious. Otherwise the Israelis might do something serious.
So they fired some missiles. The Israelis shot them down.
The Ayatollahs knew that this would happen. But they pretended not to know. The Israelis knew that this would happen. But pretended not to know. The Ayatollahs knew that the Israelis knew. But pretended that they knew that they didn't pretend to know. The Israelis knew that the Ayatollahs knew that the Israelis knew.
I'm willing to believe that half a dozen MPs might, theoretically, belong in jail. Perhaps even a handful of individuals in the civil service, if only by the law of averages.
50k civil servants ? That's the idle dream of a would be authoritarian.
If she had said 50,000 should be sacked, it would be extreme but one could make an argument based on the classic big four model of chopping the bottom 10%. But for her mind to go straight to imprisonment? Bonkers.
To be fair she doesn't think 50,000 of them should be in jail. She thinks todays politicians can say what they want, without it being accurate, or even true, as long as they indicate whose side they are on. She might be right.
"Upsetting the right people", sadly, works rather well a lot of the time, and many politicians think that's all you need.
I don't think everything she says is bonkers though.
I think there's a problem with politicians who say as little as 4-5% that is bonkers. Preferably we should be going for 0% bonkers. Is that too much to ask for?
It's not as if Jenrick slams the door in Mr Bonkers's face. But somehow, he manages to not sound as bonkers.
He named his kid "Thatcher". That's not exactly not bonkers, is it.
Playing the long game for a leadership contest, shows the ruthlessness.
I think Jenrick may have just a touch of the JDs about him. Weird, as Tim Walz might say.
That is puzzling. They have drone capability, even if not perhaps world leading drone technology - why are they not using it? Why fire rockets even somebody so dim as Ayatollah Khamenei must have known were most unlikely to get through the Iron Dome, which was *designed* to repel attacks from Hizbollah and Iran (and helpfully tested against rockets fired by their proxies in Gaza)?
Surely they could have done better than that? All they've done is give Israel an excuse to hit back, which being Israel they certainly will.
Perhaps that was the idea, to try and take the heat off Hizbollah who are obviously in total chaos? Very high risk strategy if it was though.
Alternatively, was our troll correct and this is Putin (who after all pulls the strings of the Ayatollahs) trying to set the Middle East on fire to help his ally Trump?
They launched drones in April - they took ages to arrive and were shot down in droves.
Iran’s problem is it’s a long way away from the target. Drones take too long, missiles too expensive and intercepted. But the shorter range weapons with a better chance of causing nuisance were in the hands of the incapacitated Hezbollah.
Same problem Israel would have attacking Iran directly.
The difference is that Israel had ballistic missiles with/without nukes and the Iranians have no defence against them. No ABM capability.
Plus Israel's airforce includes stealth aircraft (F-35). And lots of really nice standoff weapons.
So the Iranians really, really, don't want to party too hard.
Jenrick alias “ Wo ist de papieren “ makes my skin crawl. Tugendhat is too whiny and his desperate attempt to appeal to the crazed Membership is nauseating . Badenoch is unhinged and too full of her own self importance . Cleverly is the least worst option.
I'm willing to believe that half a dozen MPs might, theoretically, belong in jail. Perhaps even a handful of individuals in the civil service, if only by the law of averages.
50k civil servants ? That's the idle dream of a would be authoritarian.
If she had said 50,000 should be sacked, it would be extreme but one could make an argument based on the classic big four model of chopping the bottom 10%. But for her mind to go straight to imprisonment? Bonkers.
To be fair she doesn't think 50,000 of them should be in jail. She thinks todays politicians can say what they want, without it being accurate, or even true, as long as they indicate whose side they are on. She might be right.
"Upsetting the right people", sadly, works rather well a lot of the time, and many politicians think that's all you need.
I don't think everything she says is bonkers though.
I think there's a problem with politicians who say as little as 4-5% that is bonkers. Preferably we should be going for 0% bonkers. Is that too much to ask for?
It's not as if Jenrick slams the door in Mr Bonkers's face. But somehow, he manages to not sound as bonkers.
He named his kid "Thatcher". That's not exactly not bonkers, is it.
That’s a new one. Joins the ranks of a number of surprisingly suitable first names from PM surnames.
- Blair - May - Johnson - Cameron
Are all first names
But not
- Truss - Sunak - Brown
Major is a marginal case.
Surnames as first names is euch. Feels very American. Or maybe just a bit upper class? Billy Connelly used to joke about the "surname clan", upper class Scots called Finlay and Farquar and Cameron.
Always struck me as a bit chavvy to be honest. Tyler or McKenzie or Peyton or Connor.
Jenrick alias “ Wo ist de papieren “ makes my skin crawl. Tugendhat is too whiny and his desperate attempt to appeal to the crazed Membership is nauseating . Badenoch is unhinged and too full of her own self importance . Cleverly is the least worst option.
I hadn't realised Carter is the first US President to make it to 100 years old.
I like how consistent this chart of US Presidents by age is - far more so than with PMs. After an initial bunch in the 60s it's overwhelmingly people between 50-60 with the odd exception until things go very extreme from the end of the 20th onwards. Adams stands out as a long lived guy from the early days.
I think tonight is the first time I’ve watched a video of Starmer since the day after the election. His suit looks really good! But even with the two flags at his side and the gravity of the occasion, he doesn’t come across as a leader. Looks far better in the photos.
New series of Slow Horses is shaping up well. Jackson Lamb one liners are worth watching it for alone.
I'm REALLY enjoying Baby Reindeer. Unexpectedly good. Short, but powerful - and funny. The new Fleabag
I am saving Shogun for an ucoming trip to Asia
Any others? PBers?
Colin from Accounts
I hate most telly. But I enjoyed most of series 1 of Colin from Accounts. Skip the penultimate episode though, which basically put me in such a bad mood that I would have written off the series entirely thereafter but for my wife's insistence.
I hadn't realised Carter is the first US President to make it to 100 years old.
There’s a lovely article in the Times about his efforts to erase Guinea worm from Africa. Paywalled so can’t easily share, but sounds like a real achievement.
Fun fact, Richard Cromwell was our longest lived Head of State until Elizabeth II came along. What a weird half century he must have had after the Restoration.
That is puzzling. They have drone capability, even if not perhaps world leading drone technology - why are they not using it? Why fire rockets even somebody so dim as Ayatollah Khamenei must have known were most unlikely to get through the Iron Dome, which was *designed* to repel attacks from Hizbollah and Iran (and helpfully tested against rockets fired by their proxies in Gaza)?
Surely they could have done better than that? All they've done is give Israel an excuse to hit back, which being Israel they certainly will.
Perhaps that was the idea, to try and take the heat off Hizbollah who are obviously in total chaos? Very high risk strategy if it was though.
Alternatively, was our troll correct and this is Putin (who after all pulls the strings of the Ayatollahs) trying to set the Middle East on fire to help his ally Trump?
They launched drones in April - they took ages to arrive and were shot down in droves.
Ok. So any weapons they have are completely ineffective as offensive items against the Israelis.
So why fire them?
Again, we come back to either the Ayatollahs are even stupider than we all thought, or there is something odd and potentially sinister going on.
Possibly another calibrated strike, though ? 200 missiles might not do much damage, but they were quite capable of launching 2000 - and not just at the Mossad headquarters (as has been reported). Whether Israel would have sufficient interceptors to stop such an attack, I don't know.
That is puzzling. They have drone capability, even if not perhaps world leading drone technology - why are they not using it? Why fire rockets even somebody so dim as Ayatollah Khamenei must have known were most unlikely to get through the Iron Dome, which was *designed* to repel attacks from Hizbollah and Iran (and helpfully tested against rockets fired by their proxies in Gaza)?
Surely they could have done better than that? All they've done is give Israel an excuse to hit back, which being Israel they certainly will.
Perhaps that was the idea, to try and take the heat off Hizbollah who are obviously in total chaos? Very high risk strategy if it was though.
Alternatively, was our troll correct and this is Putin (who after all pulls the strings of the Ayatollahs) trying to set the Middle East on fire to help his ally Trump?
They launched drones in April - they took ages to arrive and were shot down in droves.
Ok. So any weapons they have are completely ineffective as offensive items against the Israelis.
So why fire them?
Again, we come back to either the Ayatollahs are even stupider than we all thought, or there is something odd and potentially sinister going on.
Performative dance.
The Ayatollahs needed to do something - having their Hizbollah franchise pounded on like cheap veal is a bad look.
But they didn't want to do anything serious. Otherwise the Israelis might do something serious.
So they fired some missiles. The Israelis shot them down.
The Ayatollahs knew that this would happen. But they pretended not to know. The Israelis knew that this would happen. But pretended not to know. The Ayatollahs knew that the Israelis knew. But pretended that they knew that they didn't pretend to know. The Israelis knew that the Ayatollahs knew that the Israelis knew.
From my boozy lunch with my highly placed source, at the Groucho (and he knows them all)
Kemi: not good, quite disliked even by people who agree with her, bit of a bully
Jenrick: two faced, quite ruthless, v ambitious, could easily revert to Cameronism
Tugendhat: bland, pointless, meh
Cleverly: nicest of them all, but no plan
That's not great, is it? And this is a person with sympathy for the Tories. On this basis I think they should choose Jenrick. They could do worse than two faced and ruthless with ambition, ie any of the other three
These are very much aspects of my thoughts on all the candidates too. And I have come to the same conclusion you have - Jenrick is the only show in town.
Yes, I've tried to like Kemi (she is on the face of it, the most interesting) but Jeez. So many unforced errors, and she is so lightweight. And a bit ditzy
They should choose between Cleverly and Jenrick, and with reluctance I would go for Jenrick. He has tons of baggage, looks like a Tory villain, but he is also smart and articulate - good on TV - and might make Starmer look dim, fat and slow
And if he is willing to go right to win the election, then great, I don't care if he believes it, he just has to be so ruthless he will do it
Yes I think Cleverly is nicer than Jenrick but Jenrick is more charismatic and ruthless so on a forced choice I would go with him. Though my top preference remains Tugendhat
We longer serving PB'ers can only marvel at your journey from the zealot wing of the party to a somewhat beleaguered voice of moderation.
Of course, it's the party that's moved, and not you. And therein lies the problem.
I'm willing to believe that half a dozen MPs might, theoretically, belong in jail. Perhaps even a handful of individuals in the civil service, if only by the law of averages.
50k civil servants ? That's the idle dream of a would be authoritarian.
If she had said 50,000 should be sacked, it would be extreme but one could make an argument based on the classic big four model of chopping the bottom 10%. But for her mind to go straight to imprisonment? Bonkers.
To be fair she doesn't think 50,000 of them should be in jail. She thinks todays politicians can say what they want, without it being accurate, or even true, as long as they indicate whose side they are on. She might be right.
"Upsetting the right people", sadly, works rather well a lot of the time, and many politicians think that's all you need.
I don't think everything she says is bonkers though.
I think there's a problem with politicians who say as little as 4-5% that is bonkers. Preferably we should be going for 0% bonkers. Is that too much to ask for?
It's not as if Jenrick slams the door in Mr Bonkers's face. But somehow, he manages to not sound as bonkers.
He named his kid "Thatcher". That's not exactly not bonkers, is it.
Playing the long game for a leadership contest, shows the ruthlessness.
I think Jenrick may have just a touch of the JDs about him. Weird, as Tim Walz might say.
Is that we before we get onto the "We Want Bobby J" hats? (Seriously, don't google. Not from work, anyway.)
Makes you pine for the innocent days of "It's DD for me" T-shirts in the 2005 leadership elections. As modelled by... well, you can guess or find the photos (again, don't google from work.)
New series of Slow Horses is shaping up well. Jackson Lamb one liners are worth watching it for alone.
I'm REALLY enjoying Baby Reindeer. Unexpectedly good. Short, but powerful - and funny. The new Fleabag
I am saving Shogun for an ucoming trip to Asia
Any others? PBers?
Baby Reindeer is excellent.
Shogun is slow but fun.
Slow Horses, I'm sorry but the first few episodes of the first season were painfully awful. Everyone tells me to keep watching, and the cast is amazing. But I simply can't.
Kaos is genuinely fantastic: a really smart retelling of Greek mythology. My only regret is that we didn't get to see it with the originally cast Hugh Grant as Zeus.
Nobody Wants This on Netflix is mildly amusing. Or at least, my wife really likes it.
I thought that about the first series of SH; but the second onwards are compulsive. Just start at season two
From my boozy lunch with my highly placed source, at the Groucho (and he knows them all)
Kemi: not good, quite disliked even by people who agree with her, bit of a bully
Jenrick: two faced, quite ruthless, v ambitious, could easily revert to Cameronism
Tugendhat: bland, pointless, meh
Cleverly: nicest of them all, but no plan
That's not great, is it? And this is a person with sympathy for the Tories. On this basis I think they should choose Jenrick. They could do worse than two faced and ruthless with ambition, ie any of the other three
These are very much aspects of my thoughts on all the candidates too. And I have come to the same conclusion you have - Jenrick is the only show in town.
Yes, I've tried to like Kemi (she is on the face of it, the most interesting) but Jeez. So many unforced errors, and she is so lightweight. And a bit ditzy
They should choose between Cleverly and Jenrick, and with reluctance I would go for Jenrick. He has tons of baggage, looks like a Tory villain, but he is also smart and articulate - good on TV - and might make Starmer look dim, fat and slow
And if he is willing to go right to win the election, then great, I don't care if he believes it, he just has to be so ruthless he will do it
Yes I think Cleverly is nicer than Jenrick but Jenrick is more charismatic and ruthless so on a forced choice I would go with him. Though my top preference remains Tugendhat
Would you have a problem being a Tory member if Badenoch is elected leader?
That is puzzling. They have drone capability, even if not perhaps world leading drone technology - why are they not using it? Why fire rockets even somebody so dim as Ayatollah Khamenei must have known were most unlikely to get through the Iron Dome, which was *designed* to repel attacks from Hizbollah and Iran (and helpfully tested against rockets fired by their proxies in Gaza)?
Surely they could have done better than that? All they've done is give Israel an excuse to hit back, which being Israel they certainly will.
Perhaps that was the idea, to try and take the heat off Hizbollah who are obviously in total chaos? Very high risk strategy if it was though.
Alternatively, was our troll correct and this is Putin (who after all pulls the strings of the Ayatollahs) trying to set the Middle East on fire to help his ally Trump?
They do what they do for optics and credibility, as leader of the war against the Great Satan. They don't intend to do any damage.
That is puzzling. They have drone capability, even if not perhaps world leading drone technology - why are they not using it? Why fire rockets even somebody so dim as Ayatollah Khamenei must have known were most unlikely to get through the Iron Dome, which was *designed* to repel attacks from Hizbollah and Iran (and helpfully tested against rockets fired by their proxies in Gaza)?
Surely they could have done better than that? All they've done is give Israel an excuse to hit back, which being Israel they certainly will.
Perhaps that was the idea, to try and take the heat off Hizbollah who are obviously in total chaos? Very high risk strategy if it was though.
Alternatively, was our troll correct and this is Putin (who after all pulls the strings of the Ayatollahs) trying to set the Middle East on fire to help his ally Trump?
They launched drones in April - they took ages to arrive and were shot down in droves.
Iran’s problem is it’s a long way away from the target. Drones take too long, missiles too expensive and intercepted. But the shorter range weapons with a better chance of causing nuisance were in the hands of the incapacitated Hezbollah.
Same problem Israel would have attacking Iran directly.
The difference is that Israel had ballistic missiles with/without nukes and the Iranians have no defence against them. No ABM capability.
Plus Israel's airforce includes stealth aircraft (F-35). And lots of really nice standoff weapons.
So the Iranians really, really, don't want to party too hard.
I think that is in fact the first line of the post '79 constitution.
That is puzzling. They have drone capability, even if not perhaps world leading drone technology - why are they not using it? Why fire rockets even somebody so dim as Ayatollah Khamenei must have known were most unlikely to get through the Iron Dome, which was *designed* to repel attacks from Hizbollah and Iran (and helpfully tested against rockets fired by their proxies in Gaza)?
Surely they could have done better than that? All they've done is give Israel an excuse to hit back, which being Israel they certainly will.
Perhaps that was the idea, to try and take the heat off Hizbollah who are obviously in total chaos? Very high risk strategy if it was though.
Alternatively, was our troll correct and this is Putin (who after all pulls the strings of the Ayatollahs) trying to set the Middle East on fire to help his ally Trump?
They launched drones in April - they took ages to arrive and were shot down in droves.
Ok. So any weapons they have are completely ineffective as offensive items against the Israelis.
So why fire them?
Again, we come back to either the Ayatollahs are even stupider than we all thought, or there is something odd and potentially sinister going on.
Performative dance.
The Ayatollahs needed to do something - having their Hizbollah franchise pounded on like cheap veal is a bad look.
But they didn't want to do anything serious. Otherwise the Israelis might do something serious.
So they fired some missiles. The Israelis shot them down.
The Ayatollahs knew that this would happen. But they pretended not to know. The Israelis knew that this would happen. But pretended not to know. The Ayatollahs knew that the Israelis knew. But pretended that they knew that they didn't pretend to know. The Israelis knew that the Ayatollahs knew that the Israelis knew.
Its pretty hard to shoot down ballistic missiles especially when they are fast and evasive at their terminal phase.
I don't believe this was a performative attack. It was not telegraphed more than a few hours ahead, it used some of the new hypersonic missiles and it was aimed at two airfields and probably succeeded in making at least one inoperable.
The issue with the Kemi 10% of civil servants should be in prison is that it is obvious from the actual video that to make a point she used humour and exaggeration.
This is lost is the firestorm of 'gotcha' social media and journos.
Now it may be unwise for a leading candidate to use humour in this unguarded way.
But it seems to me another example of a society we are creating where no one dare say anything that is not vanilla.
Humour has its place.
I'll pass on an aspirant PM who thinks that imprisonment for public servants is a laughing matter.
That is puzzling. They have drone capability, even if not perhaps world leading drone technology - why are they not using it? Why fire rockets even somebody so dim as Ayatollah Khamenei must have known were most unlikely to get through the Iron Dome, which was *designed* to repel attacks from Hizbollah and Iran (and helpfully tested against rockets fired by their proxies in Gaza)?
Surely they could have done better than that? All they've done is give Israel an excuse to hit back, which being Israel they certainly will.
Perhaps that was the idea, to try and take the heat off Hizbollah who are obviously in total chaos? Very high risk strategy if it was though.
Alternatively, was our troll correct and this is Putin (who after all pulls the strings of the Ayatollahs) trying to set the Middle East on fire to help his ally Trump?
They get shots of burny things heading towards the enemy to broadcast to, what they possibly still imagine, is a captive audience?
The issue with the Kemi 10% of civil servants should be in prison is that it is obvious from the actual video that to make a point she used humour and exaggeration.
This is lost is the firestorm of 'gotcha' social media and journos.
Now it may be unwise for a leading candidate to use humour in this unguarded way.
But it seems to me another example of a society we are creating where no one dare say anything that is not vanilla.
Humour has its place.
I'll pass on an aspirant PM who thinks that imprisonment for public servants is a laughing matter.
As I say "unwise".
Looks like it will be Cleverly vs Wolverhampton's tory boy
As an aside, apart from the crassness of Kemi Badenoch's comment about "locking up" 10% of civil servants (almost Trumpian in its stupidity), there's a wider question about the role of civil servants. Is it the role of the civil service to carry out Government policy without question, hesitation or deviation or is there a responsibility incumbent on the civil service to point out where following Government policy might be a) illegal or b) impractical?
The civil service would read the manifesto of any incoming Government and through channels establish priorities in terms of legislation but would also be bound to point out potential problems with any legislation.
I suspect Badenoch's frustration comes from having her plans and ideas questioned by senior civil servants, presumably on grounds of legality (Rwanda). Government can make the law but Government cannot break the law.
That is puzzling. They have drone capability, even if not perhaps world leading drone technology - why are they not using it? Why fire rockets even somebody so dim as Ayatollah Khamenei must have known were most unlikely to get through the Iron Dome, which was *designed* to repel attacks from Hizbollah and Iran (and helpfully tested against rockets fired by their proxies in Gaza)?
Surely they could have done better than that? All they've done is give Israel an excuse to hit back, which being Israel they certainly will.
Perhaps that was the idea, to try and take the heat off Hizbollah who are obviously in total chaos? Very high risk strategy if it was though.
Alternatively, was our troll correct and this is Putin (who after all pulls the strings of the Ayatollahs) trying to set the Middle East on fire to help his ally Trump?
They launched drones in April - they took ages to arrive and were shot down in droves.
Iran’s problem is it’s a long way away from the target. Drones take too long, missiles too expensive and intercepted. But the shorter range weapons with a better chance of causing nuisance were in the hands of the incapacitated Hezbollah.
Same problem Israel would have attacking Iran directly.
The difference is that Israel had ballistic missiles with/without nukes and the Iranians have no defence against them. No ABM capability.
Plus Israel's airforce includes stealth aircraft (F-35). And lots of really nice standoff weapons.
So the Iranians really, really, don't want to party too hard.
That is puzzling. They have drone capability, even if not perhaps world leading drone technology - why are they not using it? Why fire rockets even somebody so dim as Ayatollah Khamenei must have known were most unlikely to get through the Iron Dome, which was *designed* to repel attacks from Hizbollah and Iran (and helpfully tested against rockets fired by their proxies in Gaza)?
Surely they could have done better than that? All they've done is give Israel an excuse to hit back, which being Israel they certainly will.
Perhaps that was the idea, to try and take the heat off Hizbollah who are obviously in total chaos? Very high risk strategy if it was though.
Alternatively, was our troll correct and this is Putin (who after all pulls the strings of the Ayatollahs) trying to set the Middle East on fire to help his ally Trump?
They get shots of burny things heading towards the enemy to broadcast to, what they possibly still imagine, is a captive audience?
There's also the point that intercepting these missiles costs perhaps 10x what the missiles cost. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/oct/01/stopping-iran-attack-would-have-forced-israel-to-use-sophisticated-and-expensive-defences ..In April, a former financial adviser to the IDF chief of staff said that an Arrow missile typically costs $3.5m (£2.8m) a time, and David’s Sling interceptors $1m (£800,000). Eliminating 100 or more missiles would easily run into hundreds of millions of dollars – though the missiles themselves will have cost Iran £80,000 each or more...
That is puzzling. They have drone capability, even if not perhaps world leading drone technology - why are they not using it? Why fire rockets even somebody so dim as Ayatollah Khamenei must have known were most unlikely to get through the Iron Dome, which was *designed* to repel attacks from Hizbollah and Iran (and helpfully tested against rockets fired by their proxies in Gaza)?
Surely they could have done better than that? All they've done is give Israel an excuse to hit back, which being Israel they certainly will.
Perhaps that was the idea, to try and take the heat off Hizbollah who are obviously in total chaos? Very high risk strategy if it was though.
Alternatively, was our troll correct and this is Putin (who after all pulls the strings of the Ayatollahs) trying to set the Middle East on fire to help his ally Trump?
They launched drones in April - they took ages to arrive and were shot down in droves.
Ok. So any weapons they have are completely ineffective as offensive items against the Israelis.
So why fire them?
Again, we come back to either the Ayatollahs are even stupider than we all thought, or there is something odd and potentially sinister going on.
Performative dance.
The Ayatollahs needed to do something - having their Hizbollah franchise pounded on like cheap veal is a bad look.
But they didn't want to do anything serious. Otherwise the Israelis might do something serious.
So they fired some missiles. The Israelis shot them down.
The Ayatollahs knew that this would happen. But they pretended not to know. The Israelis knew that this would happen. But pretended not to know. The Ayatollahs knew that the Israelis knew. But pretended that they knew that they didn't pretend to know. The Israelis knew that the Ayatollahs knew that the Israelis knew.
Its pretty hard to shoot down ballistic missiles especially when they are fast and evasive at their terminal phase.
I don't believe this was a performative attack. It was not telegraphed more than a few hours ahead, it used some of the new hypersonic missiles and it was aimed at two airfields and probably succeeded in making at least one inoperable.
If they are actual ballistic missiles, they should have no motors running.
That is puzzling. They have drone capability, even if not perhaps world leading drone technology - why are they not using it? Why fire rockets even somebody so dim as Ayatollah Khamenei must have known were most unlikely to get through the Iron Dome, which was *designed* to repel attacks from Hizbollah and Iran (and helpfully tested against rockets fired by their proxies in Gaza)?
Surely they could have done better than that? All they've done is give Israel an excuse to hit back, which being Israel they certainly will.
Perhaps that was the idea, to try and take the heat off Hizbollah who are obviously in total chaos? Very high risk strategy if it was though.
Alternatively, was our troll correct and this is Putin (who after all pulls the strings of the Ayatollahs) trying to set the Middle East on fire to help his ally Trump?
They launched drones in April - they took ages to arrive and were shot down in droves.
Ok. So any weapons they have are completely ineffective as offensive items against the Israelis.
So why fire them?
Again, we come back to either the Ayatollahs are even stupider than we all thought, or there is something odd and potentially sinister going on.
Performative dance.
The Ayatollahs needed to do something - having their Hizbollah franchise pounded on like cheap veal is a bad look.
But they didn't want to do anything serious. Otherwise the Israelis might do something serious.
So they fired some missiles. The Israelis shot them down.
The Ayatollahs knew that this would happen. But they pretended not to know. The Israelis knew that this would happen. But pretended not to know. The Ayatollahs knew that the Israelis knew. But pretended that they knew that they didn't pretend to know. The Israelis knew that the Ayatollahs knew that the Israelis knew.
Its pretty hard to shoot down ballistic missiles especially when they are fast and evasive at their terminal phase.
I don't believe this was a performative attack. It was not telegraphed more than a few hours ahead, it used some of the new hypersonic missiles and it was aimed at two airfields and probably succeeded in making at least one inoperable.
If they are actual ballistic missiles, they should have no motors running.
That makes me think this is debris.
The glowing stuff falling from the sky, almost certainly.
That is puzzling. They have drone capability, even if not perhaps world leading drone technology - why are they not using it? Why fire rockets even somebody so dim as Ayatollah Khamenei must have known were most unlikely to get through the Iron Dome, which was *designed* to repel attacks from Hizbollah and Iran (and helpfully tested against rockets fired by their proxies in Gaza)?
Surely they could have done better than that? All they've done is give Israel an excuse to hit back, which being Israel they certainly will.
Perhaps that was the idea, to try and take the heat off Hizbollah who are obviously in total chaos? Very high risk strategy if it was though.
Alternatively, was our troll correct and this is Putin (who after all pulls the strings of the Ayatollahs) trying to set the Middle East on fire to help his ally Trump?
They launched drones in April - they took ages to arrive and were shot down in droves.
Ok. So any weapons they have are completely ineffective as offensive items against the Israelis.
So why fire them?
Again, we come back to either the Ayatollahs are even stupider than we all thought, or there is something odd and potentially sinister going on.
Performative dance.
The Ayatollahs needed to do something - having their Hizbollah franchise pounded on like cheap veal is a bad look.
But they didn't want to do anything serious. Otherwise the Israelis might do something serious.
So they fired some missiles. The Israelis shot them down.
The Ayatollahs knew that this would happen. But they pretended not to know. The Israelis knew that this would happen. But pretended not to know. The Ayatollahs knew that the Israelis knew. But pretended that they knew that they didn't pretend to know. The Israelis knew that the Ayatollahs knew that the Israelis knew.
Its pretty hard to shoot down ballistic missiles especially when they are fast and evasive at their terminal phase.
I don't believe this was a performative attack. It was not telegraphed more than a few hours ahead, it used some of the new hypersonic missiles and it was aimed at two airfields and probably succeeded in making at least one inoperable.
That is puzzling. They have drone capability, even if not perhaps world leading drone technology - why are they not using it? Why fire rockets even somebody so dim as Ayatollah Khamenei must have known were most unlikely to get through the Iron Dome, which was *designed* to repel attacks from Hizbollah and Iran (and helpfully tested against rockets fired by their proxies in Gaza)?
Surely they could have done better than that? All they've done is give Israel an excuse to hit back, which being Israel they certainly will.
Perhaps that was the idea, to try and take the heat off Hizbollah who are obviously in total chaos? Very high risk strategy if it was though.
Alternatively, was our troll correct and this is Putin (who after all pulls the strings of the Ayatollahs) trying to set the Middle East on fire to help his ally Trump?
They launched drones in April - they took ages to arrive and were shot down in droves.
Ok. So any weapons they have are completely ineffective as offensive items against the Israelis.
So why fire them?
Again, we come back to either the Ayatollahs are even stupider than we all thought, or there is something odd and potentially sinister going on.
Performative dance.
The Ayatollahs needed to do something - having their Hizbollah franchise pounded on like cheap veal is a bad look.
But they didn't want to do anything serious. Otherwise the Israelis might do something serious.
So they fired some missiles. The Israelis shot them down.
The Ayatollahs knew that this would happen. But they pretended not to know. The Israelis knew that this would happen. But pretended not to know. The Ayatollahs knew that the Israelis knew. But pretended that they knew that they didn't pretend to know. The Israelis knew that the Ayatollahs knew that the Israelis knew.
Its pretty hard to shoot down ballistic missiles especially when they are fast and evasive at their terminal phase.
I don't believe this was a performative attack. It was not telegraphed more than a few hours ahead, it used some of the new hypersonic missiles and it was aimed at two airfields and probably succeeded in making at least one inoperable.
That is puzzling. They have drone capability, even if not perhaps world leading drone technology - why are they not using it? Why fire rockets even somebody so dim as Ayatollah Khamenei must have known were most unlikely to get through the Iron Dome, which was *designed* to repel attacks from Hizbollah and Iran (and helpfully tested against rockets fired by their proxies in Gaza)?
Surely they could have done better than that? All they've done is give Israel an excuse to hit back, which being Israel they certainly will.
Perhaps that was the idea, to try and take the heat off Hizbollah who are obviously in total chaos? Very high risk strategy if it was though.
Alternatively, was our troll correct and this is Putin (who after all pulls the strings of the Ayatollahs) trying to set the Middle East on fire to help his ally Trump?
They launched drones in April - they took ages to arrive and were shot down in droves.
Ok. So any weapons they have are completely ineffective as offensive items against the Israelis.
So why fire them?
Again, we come back to either the Ayatollahs are even stupider than we all thought, or there is something odd and potentially sinister going on.
Performative dance.
The Ayatollahs needed to do something - having their Hizbollah franchise pounded on like cheap veal is a bad look.
But they didn't want to do anything serious. Otherwise the Israelis might do something serious.
So they fired some missiles. The Israelis shot them down.
The Ayatollahs knew that this would happen. But they pretended not to know. The Israelis knew that this would happen. But pretended not to know. The Ayatollahs knew that the Israelis knew. But pretended that they knew that they didn't pretend to know. The Israelis knew that the Ayatollahs knew that the Israelis knew.
Its pretty hard to shoot down ballistic missiles especially when they are fast and evasive at their terminal phase.
I don't believe this was a performative attack. It was not telegraphed more than a few hours ahead, it used some of the new hypersonic missiles and it was aimed at two airfields and probably succeeded in making at least one inoperable.
If they are actual ballistic missiles, they should have no motors running.
That makes me think this is debris.
No idea, I'd speculate that its not debris.
> All moving too fast > All equivalent brightness & size > All explode on the ground
Seems more like a motor powering the missiles in to the ground.
That is puzzling. They have drone capability, even if not perhaps world leading drone technology - why are they not using it? Why fire rockets even somebody so dim as Ayatollah Khamenei must have known were most unlikely to get through the Iron Dome, which was *designed* to repel attacks from Hizbollah and Iran (and helpfully tested against rockets fired by their proxies in Gaza)?
Surely they could have done better than that? All they've done is give Israel an excuse to hit back, which being Israel they certainly will.
Perhaps that was the idea, to try and take the heat off Hizbollah who are obviously in total chaos? Very high risk strategy if it was though.
Alternatively, was our troll correct and this is Putin (who after all pulls the strings of the Ayatollahs) trying to set the Middle East on fire to help his ally Trump?
They launched drones in April - they took ages to arrive and were shot down in droves.
Ok. So any weapons they have are completely ineffective as offensive items against the Israelis.
So why fire them?
Again, we come back to either the Ayatollahs are even stupider than we all thought, or there is something odd and potentially sinister going on.
Performative dance.
The Ayatollahs needed to do something - having their Hizbollah franchise pounded on like cheap veal is a bad look.
But they didn't want to do anything serious. Otherwise the Israelis might do something serious.
So they fired some missiles. The Israelis shot them down.
The Ayatollahs knew that this would happen. But they pretended not to know. The Israelis knew that this would happen. But pretended not to know. The Ayatollahs knew that the Israelis knew. But pretended that they knew that they didn't pretend to know. The Israelis knew that the Ayatollahs knew that the Israelis knew.
Its pretty hard to shoot down ballistic missiles especially when they are fast and evasive at their terminal phase.
I don't believe this was a performative attack. It was not telegraphed more than a few hours ahead, it used some of the new hypersonic missiles and it was aimed at two airfields and probably succeeded in making at least one inoperable.
I hadn't realised Carter is the first US President to make it to 100 years old.
I like how consistent this chart of US Presidents by age is - far more so than with PMs. After an initial bunch in the 60s it's overwhelmingly people between 50-60 with the odd exception until things go very extreme from the end of the 20th onwards. Adams stands out as a long lived guy from the early days.
That is puzzling. They have drone capability, even if not perhaps world leading drone technology - why are they not using it? Why fire rockets even somebody so dim as Ayatollah Khamenei must have known were most unlikely to get through the Iron Dome, which was *designed* to repel attacks from Hizbollah and Iran (and helpfully tested against rockets fired by their proxies in Gaza)?
Surely they could have done better than that? All they've done is give Israel an excuse to hit back, which being Israel they certainly will.
Perhaps that was the idea, to try and take the heat off Hizbollah who are obviously in total chaos? Very high risk strategy if it was though.
Alternatively, was our troll correct and this is Putin (who after all pulls the strings of the Ayatollahs) trying to set the Middle East on fire to help his ally Trump?
They launched drones in April - they took ages to arrive and were shot down in droves.
Ok. So any weapons they have are completely ineffective as offensive items against the Israelis.
So why fire them?
Again, we come back to either the Ayatollahs are even stupider than we all thought, or there is something odd and potentially sinister going on.
Performative dance.
The Ayatollahs needed to do something - having their Hizbollah franchise pounded on like cheap veal is a bad look.
But they didn't want to do anything serious. Otherwise the Israelis might do something serious.
So they fired some missiles. The Israelis shot them down.
The Ayatollahs knew that this would happen. But they pretended not to know. The Israelis knew that this would happen. But pretended not to know. The Ayatollahs knew that the Israelis knew. But pretended that they knew that they didn't pretend to know. The Israelis knew that the Ayatollahs knew that the Israelis knew.
Its pretty hard to shoot down ballistic missiles especially when they are fast and evasive at their terminal phase.
I don't believe this was a performative attack. It was not telegraphed more than a few hours ahead, it used some of the new hypersonic missiles and it was aimed at two airfields and probably succeeded in making at least one inoperable.
I'm curious, what exactly were the military or key personnel targets that the Iranians were aiming at? Confirmed is that some missiles were fired the broad direction of Nevatim, a key airforce base and some were fired at Tel Aviv with no discernible target other than landing on large city.
What we have possibly learned is that the Israeli missile defence system can be beaten, simply by sheer numbers of the right type of missiles. A fair number did appear to land. Despite the claim that the Israeli systems have intelligence to focus on the missiles that are considered to be on most dangerous trajectory, that maybe isnt quite a good enough explanation for the stuff that still got through. Even if its a minority that land, the Iranians might want to consider a highly concentrated attack on one part of the theater air defence system.
The Israelis are apparently prepping a 'regional response' and have apparently messaged out that facilities related to both the Iranian nuclear program and oil industry are on the list. This seems a bit short sighted at this point, there is a lot of nice miltary-related targets out there.
I see the S400, the reportedly unbeatable Russian air defence system mentioned below. It was used by the Obama admin to excuse not doing anything in Syria back in the day. In reality, eminently beatable. Both Israel have done training exercises against it thanks to some friendlies who have a few. Yes the Iranians possibly have an upgraded version but experience in Ukraine shows that the platform cant even protect itself on occasion.
One thing to watch for in any Israeli response (which the US is saying it will support but really is trying to damp down), is an unexpected angle of attack such as northerly or southerly in nature as well as west to east.
By the way, if I was Bashar Assad, I'd be well undergound.
That is puzzling. They have drone capability, even if not perhaps world leading drone technology - why are they not using it? Why fire rockets even somebody so dim as Ayatollah Khamenei must have known were most unlikely to get through the Iron Dome, which was *designed* to repel attacks from Hizbollah and Iran (and helpfully tested against rockets fired by their proxies in Gaza)?
Surely they could have done better than that? All they've done is give Israel an excuse to hit back, which being Israel they certainly will.
Perhaps that was the idea, to try and take the heat off Hizbollah who are obviously in total chaos? Very high risk strategy if it was though.
Alternatively, was our troll correct and this is Putin (who after all pulls the strings of the Ayatollahs) trying to set the Middle East on fire to help his ally Trump?
They launched drones in April - they took ages to arrive and were shot down in droves.
Ok. So any weapons they have are completely ineffective as offensive items against the Israelis.
So why fire them?
Again, we come back to either the Ayatollahs are even stupider than we all thought, or there is something odd and potentially sinister going on.
Performative dance.
The Ayatollahs needed to do something - having their Hizbollah franchise pounded on like cheap veal is a bad look.
But they didn't want to do anything serious. Otherwise the Israelis might do something serious.
So they fired some missiles. The Israelis shot them down.
The Ayatollahs knew that this would happen. But they pretended not to know. The Israelis knew that this would happen. But pretended not to know. The Ayatollahs knew that the Israelis knew. But pretended that they knew that they didn't pretend to know. The Israelis knew that the Ayatollahs knew that the Israelis knew.
Its pretty hard to shoot down ballistic missiles especially when they are fast and evasive at their terminal phase.
I don't believe this was a performative attack. It was not telegraphed more than a few hours ahead, it used some of the new hypersonic missiles and it was aimed at two airfields and probably succeeded in making at least one inoperable.
I'm curious, what exactly were the military or key personnel targets that the Iranians were aiming at? Confirmed is that some missiles were fired the broad direction of Nevatim, a key airforce base and some were fired at Tel Aviv with no discernible target other than landing on large city.
What we have possibly learned is that the Israeli missile defence system can be beaten, simply by sheer numbers of the right type of missiles. A fair number did appear to land. Despite the claim that the Israeli systems have intelligence to focus on the missiles that are considered to be on most dangerous trajectory, that maybe isnt quite a good enough explanation for the stuff that still got through. Even if its a minority that land, the Iranians might want to consider a highly concentrated attack on one part of the theater air defence system.
The Israelis are apparently prepping a 'regional response' and have apparently messaged out that facilities related to both the Iranian nuclear program and oil industry are on the list. This seems a bit short sighted at this point, there is a lot of nice miltary-related targets out there.
I see the S400, the reportedly unbeatable Russian air defence system mentioned below. It was used by the Obama admin to excuse not doing anything in Syria back in the day. In reality, eminently beatable. Both Israel have done training exercises against it thanks to some friendlies who have a few. Yes the Iranians possibly have an upgraded version but experience in Ukraine shows that the platform cant even protect itself on occasion.
One thing to watch for in any Israeli response (which the US is saying it will support but really is trying to damp down), is an unexpected angle of attack such as northerly or southerly in nature as well as west to east.
By the way, if I was Bashar Assad, I'd be well undergound.
Systems like S400 are presumably highly vulnerable to anti-radiation missiles. If you're scanning for aircraft, you are essentially advertising yourself.
I'm curious, what exactly were the military or key personnel targets that the Iranians were aiming at? Confirmed is that some missiles were fired the broad direction of Nevatim, a key airforce base and some were fired at Tel Aviv with no discernible target other than landing on large city.
What we have possibly learned is that the Israeli missile defence system can be beaten, simply by sheer numbers of the right type of missiles. A fair number did appear to land. Despite the claim that the Israeli systems have intelligence to focus on the missiles that are considered to be on most dangerous trajectory, that maybe isnt quite a good enough explanation for the stuff that still got through. Even if its a minority that land, the Iranians might want to consider a highly concentrated attack on one part of the theater air defence system.
The Israelis are apparently prepping a 'regional response' and have apparently messaged out that facilities related to both the Iranian nuclear program and oil industry are on the list. This seems a bit short sighted at this point, there is a lot of nice miltary-related targets out there.
I see the S400, the reportedly unbeatable Russian air defence system mentioned below. It was used by the Obama admin to excuse not doing anything in Syria back in the day. In reality, eminently beatable. Both Israel have done training exercises against it thanks to some friendlies who have a few. Yes the Iranians possibly have an upgraded version but experience in Ukraine shows that the platform cant even protect itself on occasion.
One thing to watch for in any Israeli response (which the US is saying it will support but really is trying to damp down), is an unexpected angle of attack such as northerly or southerly in nature as well as west to east.
By the way, if I was Bashar Assad, I'd be well undergound.
Know anything about the home grown Iranian air defence stuff? Seems they've got a lot of newly developed kit.
That is puzzling. They have drone capability, even if not perhaps world leading drone technology - why are they not using it? Why fire rockets even somebody so dim as Ayatollah Khamenei must have known were most unlikely to get through the Iron Dome, which was *designed* to repel attacks from Hizbollah and Iran (and helpfully tested against rockets fired by their proxies in Gaza)?
Surely they could have done better than that? All they've done is give Israel an excuse to hit back, which being Israel they certainly will.
Perhaps that was the idea, to try and take the heat off Hizbollah who are obviously in total chaos? Very high risk strategy if it was though.
Alternatively, was our troll correct and this is Putin (who after all pulls the strings of the Ayatollahs) trying to set the Middle East on fire to help his ally Trump?
They launched drones in April - they took ages to arrive and were shot down in droves.
Ok. So any weapons they have are completely ineffective as offensive items against the Israelis.
So why fire them?
Again, we come back to either the Ayatollahs are even stupider than we all thought, or there is something odd and potentially sinister going on.
Performative dance.
The Ayatollahs needed to do something - having their Hizbollah franchise pounded on like cheap veal is a bad look.
But they didn't want to do anything serious. Otherwise the Israelis might do something serious.
So they fired some missiles. The Israelis shot them down.
The Ayatollahs knew that this would happen. But they pretended not to know. The Israelis knew that this would happen. But pretended not to know. The Ayatollahs knew that the Israelis knew. But pretended that they knew that they didn't pretend to know. The Israelis knew that the Ayatollahs knew that the Israelis knew.
Its pretty hard to shoot down ballistic missiles especially when they are fast and evasive at their terminal phase.
I don't believe this was a performative attack. It was not telegraphed more than a few hours ahead, it used some of the new hypersonic missiles and it was aimed at two airfields and probably succeeded in making at least one inoperable.
I'm curious, what exactly were the military or key personnel targets that the Iranians were aiming at? Confirmed is that some missiles were fired the broad direction of Nevatim, a key airforce base and some were fired at Tel Aviv with no discernible target other than landing on large city.
What we have possibly learned is that the Israeli missile defence system can be beaten, simply by sheer numbers of the right type of missiles. A fair number did appear to land. Despite the claim that the Israeli systems have intelligence to focus on the missiles that are considered to be on most dangerous trajectory, that maybe isnt quite a good enough explanation for the stuff that still got through. Even if its a minority that land, the Iranians might want to consider a highly concentrated attack on one part of the theater air defence system.
The Israelis are apparently prepping a 'regional response' and have apparently messaged out that facilities related to both the Iranian nuclear program and oil industry are on the list. This seems a bit short sighted at this point, there is a lot of nice miltary-related targets out there.
I see the S400, the reportedly unbeatable Russian air defence system mentioned below. It was used by the Obama admin to excuse not doing anything in Syria back in the day. In reality, eminently beatable. Both Israel have done training exercises against it thanks to some friendlies who have a few. Yes the Iranians possibly have an upgraded version but experience in Ukraine shows that the platform cant even protect itself on occasion.
One thing to watch for in any Israeli response (which the US is saying it will support but really is trying to damp down), is an unexpected angle of attack such as northerly or southerly in nature as well as west to east.
By the way, if I was Bashar Assad, I'd be well undergound.
Know anything about the home grown Iranian air defence stuff? Seems they've got a lot of newly developed kit.
Not a lot other than there is no evidence they have anything on a par with the latest Western platforms but like most things part of its effectiveness is down to what the enemy throws at it and part will be the people operating it.
I'm curious, what exactly were the military or key personnel targets that the Iranians were aiming at? Confirmed is that some missiles were fired the broad direction of Nevatim, a key airforce base and some were fired at Tel Aviv with no discernible target other than landing on large city.
What we have possibly learned is that the Israeli missile defence system can be beaten, simply by sheer numbers of the right type of missiles. A fair number did appear to land. Despite the claim that the Israeli systems have intelligence to focus on the missiles that are considered to be on most dangerous trajectory, that maybe isnt quite a good enough explanation for the stuff that still got through. Even if its a minority that land, the Iranians might want to consider a highly concentrated attack on one part of the theater air defence system.
The Israelis are apparently prepping a 'regional response' and have apparently messaged out that facilities related to both the Iranian nuclear program and oil industry are on the list. This seems a bit short sighted at this point, there is a lot of nice miltary-related targets out there.
I see the S400, the reportedly unbeatable Russian air defence system mentioned below. It was used by the Obama admin to excuse not doing anything in Syria back in the day. In reality, eminently beatable. Both Israel have done training exercises against it thanks to some friendlies who have a few. Yes the Iranians possibly have an upgraded version but experience in Ukraine shows that the platform cant even protect itself on occasion.
One thing to watch for in any Israeli response (which the US is saying it will support but really is trying to damp down), is an unexpected angle of attack such as northerly or southerly in nature as well as west to east.
By the way, if I was Bashar Assad, I'd be well undergound.
Most ABM systems have the concept of Keep Out Zones. That is, if the inbound isn’t going to hit anything in a defended zone, then it doesn’t waste an interceptor.
New series of Slow Horses is shaping up well. Jackson Lamb one liners are worth watching it for alone.
I'm REALLY enjoying Baby Reindeer. Unexpectedly good. Short, but powerful - and funny. The new Fleabag
I am saving Shogun for an ucoming trip to Asia
Any others? PBers?
If you haven't already watched it Inspector George Gently got added to Netflix. It's absolutely brilliant, a bit depressing but a thoroughly realistic take on the 1960s and Martin Shaw puts in a top performance, probably the best of his career.
Ooh, thanks. On the list
It's a shame all the really big series have been so disappointing, the awful LOTR version, the Foundation or whatever it was, nearly all the Star Wars spins-offs. I like House of Dragons 1, but HoD2 is so slooooow
But there are lots of much smaller shows that are still high quality. The Golden Age of TV is not over, just more diversified maybe
I think The Golden Age of TV is over, sadly. Too much money is being spent on too many poorly received shows.
Rings of Power is costing Amazon ~$400m per season and they've contractually committed to 5 seasons at that level of spend with basically a break fee to the Tolkien family of whatever they don't spend from the $2bn. You'd think that Amazon would have brought in the world's foremost Tolkien lore experts and stuck to the storylines he wrote, instead they made a show for "modern audiences" but the "modern audience" is tiny, just as Sony found out with their bombed out game last month.
Companies are sadly making shows with huge creative compromises in them in order to appeal to a vanishingly small audience group and at the same time alienating viewers who want something authentic. Instead we get generic girlboss #17 who knows everything and is an all action star who always ends up being right and is the complete article with no room for growth surrounded by moron men who overrule hero bossgirl only to get proven wrong by her or soyboy men who sycophantically follow everything the hero girlboss wants to do and eventually dies for her.
I think I've basically described modern TV coming out of the US.
No doubt she has been "misrepresented" by the media yet again.
You don't think between 5 and 10 percent of civil servants are very bad?
I think it's more the "should be in prison" that people will take issue with. The bar for incarcerating people is - one would hope - a high one.
I agree, but civil servants are agents of the state. If they do a bad job, and potentially their bad job is motivated by a wish to do down the Government of the day or frustrate their plans, that situation is a sticky one to a far greater degree than a lousy cashier or a decorator who leave the pictures up and paints round them. I am not sure all cases of the sort are worthy of a trip to the gaol, but nor can they be tolerated.
Yeah, but most civil servants - by number - have very little to do with the actions of ministers. They are junior staff in Swansea dealing with driving license administration.
But they could be Home Office staff running the asylum and immigration system, where what appears to be willful dysfunction (see the waaaay higher success levels of UK applications than the rest of Europe) has fuelled the migrant crisis.
Not to defend the civil service but our laws and legal rulings are completely different to France so blaming our high asylum success rate to a lower European one on the civil service seems like a big stretch. It needs legal reform to lower that rate which the Tories had 14 years to push through.
As far as I am aware, we have not been outliers in application success like this in the past. I think you have a partial point - Theresa's stupid modern slavery legislation hasn't helped, but the Home Office is willfully uncooperative - whistleblowers have revealed evidence that supports this fact.
Being uncooperative would make no difference if the laws were properly tightened (including the ridiculously broad modern slavery definition that allowed Albanians to win asylum claims on the basis that they were being enslaved by other Albanians) then the judgements would follow. That's on the politicians not the blob.
The "Blob" is usually just an excuse for incompetence and laziness on the part of politicians.
The Thatcher Government faced both civil service intransigence and EEC legislation. Yet it managed enormous changes.
I think the real difference is that in the 1980s, there will still politicians of substance. The Thatcher cabinets from 1979 to 1986 were extraordinarily talented. And even the opposition benches contained many people who - even if I disagree with them - were clearly moral, hard working and dedicated.
Today, who would go into politics?
Indeed, I honestly don't think I could afford the pay cut to be an MP while my answer to TSE was glib it has a big element of truth in it, the last time I looked into it running to be an MP would work out to a pay cut bigger than 50% for me and at that point who pays the mortgage?
And on the flip side I'm not sure that someone who doesn't know how to live on £90k is going to be much use solving the challenges this country faces.
(Glib, sorry, not directed at you personally, more that once wealthy you get yourself into a different world - big mortgages, private school fees etc that completely detach you from the lived experience of 99% of Britons)
"Lived experience" means exactly the same as experience (it essentially means you're saying 'experienced experience') and is a new part of Woke lexicon to essentially say you cannot challenge any aspect of my recalled experience, because it's mine and not yours. All sorts of negative things follow from it, including people's own versions of the truth, ascribed motives for others, and even their own facts - some of which are highly questionable.
I hate it. It's just experience. "In my experience." And sometimes in one's own experience your recollection or versions of events will be incomplete or wrong.
"Badenoch 'joking' over claim 10% of civil servants 'should be in prison'
A union for civil servants has reacted angrily to claims by Kemi Badenoch that some civil servants are so bad they should be in prison, citing the leaking of official documents and undermining ministers."
The issue with the Kemi 10% of civil servants should be in prison is that it is obvious from the actual video that to make a point she used humour and exaggeration.
This is lost is the firestorm of 'gotcha' social media and journos.
Now it may be unwise for a leading candidate to use humour in this unguarded way.
But it seems to me another example of a society we are creating where no one dare say anything that is not vanilla.
Yes. Exactly so. All context is lost.
You could probably end any of our political careers before they started by trawling the comments on here for ribbing, sarcasm and analogy. And that's before you even get to the f-bomb posts.
Ministers are being asked to draw up billions of pounds in cuts to infrastructure projects over the next 18 months despite Rachel Reeves pledging to invest more to grow the economy, the Guardian has learned.
Members of the cabinet have been asked to model cuts to their investment plans of up to 10% of their annual capital spending as part of this month’s spending review, government sources said.
Fucking dumb.
Probably but it's pretty standard practice when the word from on high is costs have to be reduced. When I was in local Government, we would routinely model 10, 15 and even 25% reductions in budget to see where the axe could fall if necessary.
As an aside, apart from the crassness of Kemi Badenoch's comment about "locking up" 10% of civil servants (almost Trumpian in its stupidity), there's a wider question about the role of civil servants. Is it the role of the civil service to carry out Government policy without question, hesitation or deviation or is there a responsibility incumbent on the civil service to point out where following Government policy might be a) illegal or b) impractical?
The civil service would read the manifesto of any incoming Government and through channels establish priorities in terms of legislation but would also be bound to point out potential problems with any legislation.
I suspect Badenoch's frustration comes from having her plans and ideas questioned by senior civil servants, presumably on grounds of legality (Rwanda). Government can make the law but Government cannot break the law.
It's the role of the civil service to advise where a government policy might be (a) illegal or (b) impractical, but to also offer alternatives that would mitigate the obstacles or might better discharge the policy intent, if the minister decides otherwise to then find ways to carry it out without question, hesitation or deviation to the best of their ability.
They are civil servants. And their role is to advise and not decide.
Proof that the internet is not always to be trusted. I asked what the IQ of a dog is.
"What is the average IQ of a dog?
About 100 Studies indicate that dogs have an average IQ of about 100. That said, there are some things to consider. Dogs do not think in the same way as humans. Even the smartest pups do not process information the same way we do. 1 Mar 2024"
This is heading for a score draw. Or no score draw.
I like that they’re politely agreeing and disagreeing, and discussing policy differences. It’s also difficult for them that they’re heading for the #2 positions, so they have to keep referring to what Harris and Trump say and do.
Did Walz just say he was friends with school shooters?
New series of Slow Horses is shaping up well. Jackson Lamb one liners are worth watching it for alone.
I'm REALLY enjoying Baby Reindeer. Unexpectedly good. Short, but powerful - and funny. The new Fleabag
I am saving Shogun for an ucoming trip to Asia
Any others? PBers?
I do find it quite amusing how Shogun has received lots of praise from both West and East for capturing the period, albeit the story is a fictionalised one, loosely based upon a real person (whose actual life is more mental than the fictional story).
Where as Ubisoft are absolutely getting in the neck for cultural vandalism of their historical Japanese game, due to tailoring it for "modern" western audiences.
The Star Wars game where you play an "outlaw" that can't kill NPCs other than police or shoot animals or so any of the things an outlaw might do has absolutely tanked. A friend of mine still in the gaming industry has said Ubisoft will never make a profit from it because the royalty fee to Disney is so high for the first 5m unit sales.
That might simply be an artifact of the age rating they're going for. Star Wars Outlaws is a PEGI 12 rating, and so there are things they cannot allow the user to do, or depict.
It's that fine line about whether allowing the kids to play (legally...) offsets the adults who get butthurt by lack of gory violence, sex and other things in the game.
Comments
Since they face a similar threat.
Brilliant.
That is puzzling. They have drone capability, even if not perhaps world leading drone technology - why are they not using it? Why fire rockets even somebody so dim as Ayatollah Khamenei must have known were most unlikely to get through the Iron Dome, which was *designed* to repel attacks from Hizbollah and Iran (and helpfully tested against rockets fired by their proxies in Gaza)?
Surely they could have done better than that? All they've done is give Israel an excuse to hit back, which being Israel they certainly will.
Perhaps that was the idea, to try and take the heat off Hizbollah who are obviously in total chaos? Very high risk strategy if it was though.
Alternatively, was our troll correct and this is Putin (who after all pulls the strings of the Ayatollahs) trying to set the Middle East on fire to help his ally Trump?
- Blair
- May
- Johnson
- Cameron
Are all first names
But not
- Truss
- Sunak
- Brown
Major is a marginal case.
So why fire them?
Again, we come back to either the Ayatollahs are even stupider than we all thought, or there is something odd and potentially sinister going on.
This is lost is the firestorm of 'gotcha' social media and journos.
Now it may be unwise for a leading candidate to use humour in this unguarded way.
But it seems to me another example of a society we are creating where no one dare say anything that is not vanilla.
Same problem Israel would have attacking Iran directly.
Regime change of the Ayatollahs would do wonders to improve the Middle East and the world and with direct conflict from Iran to Israel rather than just via proxy it is time to rip off the bandage cut out the gangrene.
There’s a narrowing window to take out the nuclear programme and I think it more likely than not we see that mission in play very soon (ie 2024).
In the space of 24 hours we’re had Badenoch quipping that 10% of civil servants should be in jail, and Jenrick claiming our special forces are committing assassinations in contravention of the Geneva convention.
For Netanyahu this is all about Netanyahu. The longer it goes on, the longer he stays out of jail.
I don't see what is to be gained from bombing Iranian citizens at this stage who also don't support the ayatollahs, it would in fact give the sceptical population a reason to back them against Israel. Israel showing restraint and acting surgically rather than throwing in missiles and bombs is the correct course of action.
The Ayatollahs needed to do something - having their Hizbollah franchise pounded on like cheap veal is a bad look.
But they didn't want to do anything serious. Otherwise the Israelis might do something serious.
So they fired some missiles. The Israelis shot them down.
The Ayatollahs knew that this would happen. But they pretended not to know. The Israelis knew that this would happen. But pretended not to know. The Ayatollahs knew that the Israelis knew. But pretended that they knew that they didn't pretend to know. The Israelis knew that the Ayatollahs knew that the Israelis knew.
Everybody knows....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LkyS9xSNx3U
Plus Israel's airforce includes stealth aircraft (F-35). And lots of really nice standoff weapons.
So the Iranians really, really, don't want to party too hard.
You will notice only two served before 1970 but then there was a run of four.
Adams stands out as a long lived guy from the early days.
200 missiles might not do much damage, but they were quite capable of launching 2000 - and not just at the Mossad headquarters (as has been reported).
Whether Israel would have sufficient interceptors to stop such an attack, I don't know.
We longer serving PB'ers can only marvel at your journey from the zealot wing of the party to a somewhat beleaguered voice of moderation.
Of course, it's the party that's moved, and not you. And therein lies the problem.
Makes you pine for the innocent days of "It's DD for me" T-shirts in the 2005 leadership elections. As modelled by... well, you can guess or find the photos (again, don't google from work.)
My current position, after a load of feck ups. Had to claw a lot back.
Ima stick with this for a bit.
https://x.com/globeeyenews/status/1841170294230401484
Its pretty hard to shoot down ballistic missiles especially when they are fast and evasive at their terminal phase.
I don't believe this was a performative attack. It was not telegraphed more than a few hours ahead, it used some of the new hypersonic missiles and it was aimed at two airfields and probably succeeded in making at least one inoperable.
I'll pass on an aspirant PM who thinks that imprisonment for public servants is a laughing matter.
In honor of Jimmy Carter's 100th birthday, let's take a look at why he's one of our under-appreciated style icons. 🧵
https://x.com/dieworkwear/status/1841059061170913627
Looks like it will be Cleverly vs Wolverhampton's tory boy
I know where my money is.
Formal guide here: (chapter 3.6)
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/65c4a3773f634b001242c6b7/Managing_Public_Money_-_May_2023_2.pdf
Informal guide here:
https://www.civilservant.org.uk/directions-overview.html
A blog on Rwanda
https://www.civilservant.org.uk/library/2022-David_Allen_Green-Rwanda_Ministerial_Directions.pdf
S
Both the s400 and this thing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bavar-373, how effective they are, no idea.
Just can't catch a break.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/oct/01/stopping-iran-attack-would-have-forced-israel-to-use-sophisticated-and-expensive-defences
..In April, a former financial adviser to the IDF chief of staff said that an Arrow missile typically costs $3.5m (£2.8m) a time, and David’s Sling interceptors $1m (£800,000). Eliminating 100 or more missiles would easily run into hundreds of millions of dollars – though the missiles themselves will have cost Iran £80,000 each or more...
That makes me think this is debris.
Many missiles landed somewhere.
https://nitter.poast.org/WarMonitors/status/1841178605293818152#m
https://nitter.poast.org/Faytuks/status/1841165751052357995#m
https://nitter.poast.org/Faytuks/status/1841164658943643856#m
Maybe something got hit, somewhere, but I'm not seeing it in those videos.
> All moving too fast
> All equivalent brightness & size
> All explode on the ground
Seems more like a motor powering the missiles in to the ground.
Think historical
Quite a bit of the collateral damage is in Jordan it seems.
Bit harsh on them. Both sides were firing missiles into their airspace.
What we have possibly learned is that the Israeli missile defence system can be beaten, simply by sheer numbers of the right type of missiles. A fair number did appear to land. Despite the claim that the Israeli systems have intelligence to focus on the missiles that are considered to be on most dangerous trajectory, that maybe isnt quite a good enough explanation for the stuff that still got through. Even if its a minority that land, the Iranians might want to consider a highly concentrated attack on one part of the theater air defence system.
The Israelis are apparently prepping a 'regional response' and have apparently messaged out that facilities related to both the Iranian nuclear program and oil industry are on the list. This seems a bit short sighted at this point, there is a lot of nice miltary-related targets out there.
I see the S400, the reportedly unbeatable Russian air defence system mentioned below. It was used by the Obama admin to excuse not doing anything in Syria back in the day. In reality, eminently beatable. Both Israel have done training exercises against it thanks to some friendlies who have a few. Yes the Iranians possibly have an upgraded version but experience in Ukraine shows that the platform cant even protect itself on occasion.
One thing to watch for in any Israeli response (which the US is saying it will support but really is trying to damp down), is an unexpected angle of attack such as northerly or southerly in nature as well as west to east.
By the way, if I was Bashar Assad, I'd be well undergound.
https://nitter.poast.org/Faytuks/status/1841158721147228246#m
This just seems to be what Iranian missiles look like. Continuous motor burn 'till they hit something.
https://x.com/Seamus_Malek/status/1841171436079366450
I hate it. It's just experience. "In my experience." And sometimes in one's own experience your recollection or versions of events will be incomplete or wrong.
https://news.sky.com/story/badenoch-joking-over-claim-10-of-civil-servants-should-be-in-prison-13226045
"Badenoch 'joking' over claim 10% of civil servants 'should be in prison'
A union for civil servants has reacted angrily to claims by Kemi Badenoch that some civil servants are so bad they should be in prison, citing the leaking of official documents and undermining ministers."
You could probably end any of our political careers before they started by trawling the comments on here for ribbing, sarcasm and analogy. And that's before you even get to the f-bomb posts.
So why risk it?
They are civil servants. And their role is to advise and not decide.
"What is the average IQ of a dog?
About 100
Studies indicate that dogs have an average IQ of about 100. That said, there are some things to consider. Dogs do not think in the same way as humans. Even the smartest pups do not process information the same way we do.
1 Mar 2024"
Did Walz just say he was friends with school shooters?
It's that fine line about whether allowing the kids to play (legally...) offsets the adults who get butthurt by lack of gory violence, sex and other things in the game.
https://x.com/nypost/status/1841269798006579642
https://x.com/atrupar/status/1841293145444618570