I think the most likely scenario for Farage appearing on Strictly is after he is hoofed out of Reform UK, or if the party disintegrates or fractures around him. Without that, I think his ambition will rule his actions whilst he assesses he has a chance of a serious political role.
Given his Merrie Englande image, it should perhaps be Morris Dancing.
BTW They may have lost another Councillor up @Taz 's way, one Michael David Ramage. As has been remarked elsewhere - is someone taking the P ?
The guy is not listed as being in the RefUK group on the Council website, and as an ex-Member of the relevant Ref UK facebook group, but does seem to know a fair but about construction - especially bus stations (that's a complement - he knows his stuff in this area, and is taking a real interest):
"Rushworth MP won't help people he considers are Reform Party members or Reform supporters or Reform Activists. So having alleged I am a Reform activist (I'm probably more socialist than him) he won't help me.... (case summary).
I think the most likely scenario for Farage appearing on Strictly is after he is hoofed out of Reform UK, or if the party disintegrates or fractures around him. Without that, I think his ambition will rule his actions whilst he assesses he has a chance of a serious political role.
Given his Merrie Englande image, it should perhaps be Morris Dancing.
BTW They may have lost another Councillor up @Taz 's way, one Michael David Ramage. As has been remarked elsewhere - is someone taking the P ?
The guy is not listed as being in the RefUK group on the Council website, and as an ex-Member of the relevant Ref UK facebook group, but does seem to know a fair but about construction - especially bus stations (that's a complement - he knows his stuff in this area, and is taking a real interest):
"Rushworth MP won't help people he considers are Reform Party members or Reform supporters or Reform Activists. So having alleged I am a Reform activist (I'm probably more socialist than him) he won't help me.... (case summary).
Alleged?
Possibly although the council webpage does have his party as Reform.
It’s interesting how people seem to be really scrutinising Reform here but yesterday Labour lost its majority on a council in Cheshire with two councillors switching to independent and rather critical about Labour too.
Barely a murmur,
At this point, Reform are beating the Conservatives and Labour almost everywhere, and the minor parties/independents.
They’ll have reached 1,000 councillors, even before next May.
That would be a tall order. They currently have 832 (Wikipedia), so need another 168. There’s 46 weeks to go, I think. So they’d need to win 3.7 by-elections per week, ignoring defections to and from the party. That seems a bit more than they are doing.
Its not really changed since the Tory drop off immediately after the LEs. In fact very little has changed at all since that
We all know Electoral Calculus is essentially useless given the multi-party nature of politics currently.
The actual changes since July 2024 (allowing for rounding) are:
Reform +13 Labour -10 Conservative -7 LD +3 Green +3
We also know polling for the various local "Independents" is suspect so we don't know what's happening in places like East London or the Leicester and Birmingham seats where they polled well last year.
The "trend" in local council by-elections (with usual bucketfuls of salt) has been to see BOTH Labour and Conservative lose significant vote share and that's reflected in the 17-point combined fall in the national opinion polls.
Next year we'll have an intriguing round of local elections in London as well as for some of the new Shadow authorities but that's a lifetime away.
Theres some fun to be had comparing council by election ward results versus the ward by ward 2024 estimates and some of the current ward by ward estimates. It does show the somewhat unsurprising news that Lab and Con are struggling to find the gas pedal (and that Reform are doing well everywhere but especially in redder walled areas)
The interesting question for me for 2029 is: which seats - if any - will Reform win from the Liberal Democrats?
Because Reform is highly likely to top the polls, with Conservative and Labour vote shares down sharply, while the LDs are probably going to be up a couple of points.
Outside of Scotland, the Conservatives are the main opposition in almost every LibDem seat. In which of these could enough votes transfer to Reform to threaten the LDs?
Newton Abbott
That's going to be extremely close at the next election: I'd reckon both the LDs and Reform will be on around 35%.
The party is well placed to win against Reform in a head to head, because it’ll get tactical transfers.
According to Mark Pack Lib Dems have won 75% of council byelections since the locals, where they and Reform were the top 2. The other 25% were former Labour seats where LDs came up into 2nd.
Labour and Tories have won 0% of head to heads with Reform since 1 May.
Its a very limited subset. And then its comparing to a variety of points in political history - 2021 to 2024 are very different beasts. Their win in Maldon (which they have no chance of gaining at a GE) was much more impressive than their rather tepid holds in Horsham and Eastleigh (that they'll need to hold at a GE) for example In terms of tactical transfers they are already carrying them from July 2024 in Newton Abbott, they'll need yo hold on to them first then look for even more (from a declining Labour party?)
Edit - not to suggest they aren't doing in general well. They are atm
Its not really changed since the Tory drop off immediately after the LEs. In fact very little has changed at all since that
We all know Electoral Calculus is essentially useless given the multi-party nature of politics currently.
The actual changes since July 2024 (allowing for rounding) are:
Reform +13 Labour -10 Conservative -7 LD +3 Green +3
We also know polling for the various local "Independents" is suspect so we don't know what's happening in places like East London or the Leicester and Birmingham seats where they polled well last year.
The "trend" in local council by-elections (with usual bucketfuls of salt) has been to see BOTH Labour and Conservative lose significant vote share and that's reflected in the 17-point combined fall in the national opinion polls.
Next year we'll have an intriguing round of local elections in London as well as for some of the new Shadow authorities but that's a lifetime away.
Theres some fun to be had comparing council by election ward results versus the ward by ward 2024 estimates and some of the current ward by ward estimates. It does show the somewhat unsurprising news that Lab and Con are struggling to find the gas pedal (and that Reform are doing well everywhere but especially in redder walled areas)
The interesting question for me for 2029 is: which seats - if any - will Reform win from the Liberal Democrats?
Because Reform is highly likely to top the polls, with Conservative and Labour vote shares down sharply, while the LDs are probably going to be up a couple of points.
Outside of Scotland, the Conservatives are the main opposition in almost every LibDem seat. In which of these could enough votes transfer to Reform to threaten the LDs?
Newton Abbott
That's going to be extremely close at the next election: I'd reckon both the LDs and Reform will be on around 35%.
The party is well placed to win against Reform in a head to head, because it’ll get tactical transfers.
According to Mark Pack Lib Dems have won 75% of council byelections since the locals, where they and Reform were the top 2. The other 25% were former Labour seats where LDs came up into 2nd.
Labour and Tories have won 0% of head to heads with Reform since 1 May.
Its a very limited subset. And then its comparing to a variety of points in political history - 2021 to 2024 are very different beasts. Their win in Maldon (which they have no chance of gaining at a GE) was much more impressive than their rather tepid holds in Horshsm and Eastleigh (that they'll need to hold at a GE) for example In terms of tactical transfers they are already carrying them from July 2024 in Newton Abbott, they'll need yo hold on to them first then look for even more (from a declining Labour party?)
Devon and Cornwall provide the best prospect for Reform gains from the Lib Dem’s. I can’t see any prospects along the M3 and M4.
Its not really changed since the Tory drop off immediately after the LEs. In fact very little has changed at all since that
We all know Electoral Calculus is essentially useless given the multi-party nature of politics currently.
The actual changes since July 2024 (allowing for rounding) are:
Reform +13 Labour -10 Conservative -7 LD +3 Green +3
We also know polling for the various local "Independents" is suspect so we don't know what's happening in places like East London or the Leicester and Birmingham seats where they polled well last year.
The "trend" in local council by-elections (with usual bucketfuls of salt) has been to see BOTH Labour and Conservative lose significant vote share and that's reflected in the 17-point combined fall in the national opinion polls.
Next year we'll have an intriguing round of local elections in London as well as for some of the new Shadow authorities but that's a lifetime away.
Theres some fun to be had comparing council by election ward results versus the ward by ward 2024 estimates and some of the current ward by ward estimates. It does show the somewhat unsurprising news that Lab and Con are struggling to find the gas pedal (and that Reform are doing well everywhere but especially in redder walled areas)
The interesting question for me for 2029 is: which seats - if any - will Reform win from the Liberal Democrats?
Because Reform is highly likely to top the polls, with Conservative and Labour vote shares down sharply, while the LDs are probably going to be up a couple of points.
Outside of Scotland, the Conservatives are the main opposition in almost every LibDem seat. In which of these could enough votes transfer to Reform to threaten the LDs?
Newton Abbott
That's going to be extremely close at the next election: I'd reckon both the LDs and Reform will be on around 35%.
The party is well placed to win against Reform in a head to head, because it’ll get tactical transfers.
According to Mark Pack Lib Dems have won 75% of council byelections since the locals, where they and Reform were the top 2. The other 25% were former Labour seats where LDs came up into 2nd.
Labour and Tories have won 0% of head to heads with Reform since 1 May.
Its a very limited subset. And then its comparing to a variety of points in political history - 2021 to 2024 are very different beasts. Their win in Maldon (which they have no chance of gaining at a GE) was much more impressive than their rather tepid holds in Horshsm and Eastleigh (that they'll need to hold at a GE) for example In terms of tactical transfers they are already carrying them from July 2024 in Newton Abbott, they'll need yo hold on to them first then look for even more (from a declining Labour party?)
Devon and Cornwall provide the best prospect for Reform gains from the Lib Dem’s. I can’t see any prospects along the M3 and M4.
Yes, with the proviso the LDs racked up some big %s in some of these seats
Queen Anne Stakes: ROSALLION (win) Coventry Stakes: AMERICAN GULF (each way) King Charles III Stakes: ASFOORA (win), WASHINGTON HEIGHTS (each way) St James’s Palace Stakes: HENRI MATISSE (win) Wolverton Stakes: ENFJAAR (win).
Only fools bet on horses racing.
Queen Anne Stakes: ROSALLION Coventry Stakes: POWER BLUE King Charles III Stakes: WEST ACRE St James’s Palace Stakes: HENRI MATISSE Ascot Stakes: NURBURGRING Wolverton Stakes: ENFJAAR Copper Horse Stakes: FAIRBANKS
Queen Anne Stakes: ROSALLION (win) Coventry Stakes: AMERICAN GULF (each way) King Charles III Stakes: ASFOORA (win), WASHINGTON HEIGHTS (each way) St James’s Palace Stakes: HENRI MATISSE (win) Wolverton Stakes: ENFJAAR (win).
Only fools bet on horses racing.
Queen Anne Stakes: ROSALLION Coventry Stakes: POWER BLUE King Charles III Stakes: WEST ACRE St James’s Palace Stakes: HENRI MATISSE Ascot Stakes: NURBURGRING Wolverton Stakes: ENFJAAR Copper Horse Stakes: FAIRBANKS
Horse sense; the innate intelligence which stops horses from gambling on humans racing!
I think the most likely scenario for Farage appearing on Strictly is after he is hoofed out of Reform UK, or if the party disintegrates or fractures around him. Without that, I think his ambition will rule his actions whilst he assesses he has a chance of a serious political role.
Given his Merrie Englande image, it should perhaps be Morris Dancing.
BTW They may have lost another Councillor up @Taz 's way, one Michael David Ramage. As has been remarked elsewhere - is someone taking the P ?
The guy is not listed as being in the RefUK group on the Council website, and as an ex-Member of the relevant Ref UK facebook group, but does seem to know a fair but about construction - especially bus stations (that's a complement - he knows his stuff in this area, and is taking a real interest):
"Rushworth MP won't help people he considers are Reform Party members or Reform supporters or Reform Activists. So having alleged I am a Reform activist (I'm probably more socialist than him) he won't help me.... (case summary).
I think the most likely scenario for Farage appearing on Strictly is after he is hoofed out of Reform UK, or if the party disintegrates or fractures around him. Without that, I think his ambition will rule his actions whilst he assesses he has a chance of a serious political role.
Given his Merrie Englande image, it should perhaps be Morris Dancing.
BTW They may have lost another Councillor up @Taz 's way, one Michael David Ramage. As has been remarked elsewhere - is someone taking the P ?
The guy is not listed as being in the RefUK group on the Council website, and as an ex-Member of the relevant Ref UK facebook group, but does seem to know a fair but about construction - especially bus stations (that's a complement - he knows his stuff in this area, and is taking a real interest):
"Rushworth MP won't help people he considers are Reform Party members or Reform supporters or Reform Activists. So having alleged I am a Reform activist (I'm probably more socialist than him) he won't help me.... (case summary).
Alleged?
Possibly although the council webpage does have his party as Reform.
It’s interesting how people seem to be really scrutinising Reform here but yesterday Labour lost its majority on a council in Cheshire with two councillors switching to independent and rather critical about Labour too.
Barely a murmur,
I think changes such as the change you mention have less practical impact.
Personally, I have 2-3 interests in Reform, as you know.
1 - Practically they are a new party of control come from nowhere, now running strategic Councils with 10s of k of employees, and £100s of millions or low billions in revenue - including thine and mine, plus crucial services. That needs scrutiny, and I do not think our mainstream media will deliver that, or have the skills to do so.
2 - On competence, there is no indication that RefUK came in having done any significant research before starting, even though huge amounts of information are published anyway and was available to them. They have their head in the clouds, and came with a set of nostrums and strange assumptions extracted significantly from MAGA USA. There is little in the party that will work to improve policy afaics.
I'm concerned what that are going to go for, given that the expenditure they target for their "savings" largely does not exist.
See how quickly the wheels have come off DOGE.
3 - Politically, I think they are poisonous - self-serving, dishonest, cynical and incompetent, and are probably better gone.
I think they are quite likely to achieve point 3 on their own, and my concern then becomes collateral damage done in the meantime.
I think the most likely scenario for Farage appearing on Strictly is after he is hoofed out of Reform UK, or if the party disintegrates or fractures around him. Without that, I think his ambition will rule his actions whilst he assesses he has a chance of a serious political role.
Given his Merrie Englande image, it should perhaps be Morris Dancing.
BTW They may have lost another Councillor up @Taz 's way, one Michael David Ramage. As has been remarked elsewhere - is someone taking the P ?
The guy is not listed as being in the RefUK group on the Council website, and as an ex-Member of the relevant Ref UK facebook group, but does seem to know a fair but about construction - especially bus stations (that's a complement - he knows his stuff in this area, and is taking a real interest):
"Rushworth MP won't help people he considers are Reform Party members or Reform supporters or Reform Activists. So having alleged I am a Reform activist (I'm probably more socialist than him) he won't help me.... (case summary).
I think the most likely scenario for Farage appearing on Strictly is after he is hoofed out of Reform UK, or if the party disintegrates or fractures around him. Without that, I think his ambition will rule his actions whilst he assesses he has a chance of a serious political role.
Given his Merrie Englande image, it should perhaps be Morris Dancing.
BTW They may have lost another Councillor up @Taz 's way, one Michael David Ramage. As has been remarked elsewhere - is someone taking the P ?
The guy is not listed as being in the RefUK group on the Council website, and as an ex-Member of the relevant Ref UK facebook group, but does seem to know a fair but about construction - especially bus stations (that's a complement - he knows his stuff in this area, and is taking a real interest):
"Rushworth MP won't help people he considers are Reform Party members or Reform supporters or Reform Activists. So having alleged I am a Reform activist (I'm probably more socialist than him) he won't help me.... (case summary).
Alleged?
Possibly although the council webpage does have his party as Reform.
It’s interesting how people seem to be really scrutinising Reform here but yesterday Labour lost its majority on a council in Cheshire with two councillors switching to independent and rather critical about Labour too.
Barely a murmur,
At this point, Reform are beating the Conservatives and Labour almost everywhere, and the minor parties/independents.
They’ll have reached 1,000 councillors, even before next May.
Hmmm... the political ghosts of the New Party, Doctor Death´s SDP, Dick Taverne´s SDP, Change UK and many others all say hello. While I agree the Tories are very sick and deserve obliteration, the positive narrative for the Faragistas is pretty thin. Not convinced that the next three years will bring the far right home. The party isn´t a party and there is little beyond the Mosleyiste glamour of NF that keeps them together,
Its not really changed since the Tory drop off immediately after the LEs. In fact very little has changed at all since that
We all know Electoral Calculus is essentially useless given the multi-party nature of politics currently.
The actual changes since July 2024 (allowing for rounding) are:
Reform +13 Labour -10 Conservative -7 LD +3 Green +3
We also know polling for the various local "Independents" is suspect so we don't know what's happening in places like East London or the Leicester and Birmingham seats where they polled well last year.
The "trend" in local council by-elections (with usual bucketfuls of salt) has been to see BOTH Labour and Conservative lose significant vote share and that's reflected in the 17-point combined fall in the national opinion polls.
Next year we'll have an intriguing round of local elections in London as well as for some of the new Shadow authorities but that's a lifetime away.
Theres some fun to be had comparing council by election ward results versus the ward by ward 2024 estimates and some of the current ward by ward estimates. It does show the somewhat unsurprising news that Lab and Con are struggling to find the gas pedal (and that Reform are doing well everywhere but especially in redder walled areas)
The interesting question for me for 2029 is: which seats - if any - will Reform win from the Liberal Democrats?
Because Reform is highly likely to top the polls, with Conservative and Labour vote shares down sharply, while the LDs are probably going to be up a couple of points.
Outside of Scotland, the Conservatives are the main opposition in almost every LibDem seat. In which of these could enough votes transfer to Reform to threaten the LDs?
Newton Abbott
That's going to be extremely close at the next election: I'd reckon both the LDs and Reform will be on around 35%.
The party is well placed to win against Reform in a head to head, because it’ll get tactical transfers.
According to Mark Pack Lib Dems have won 75% of council byelections since the locals, where they and Reform were the top 2. The other 25% were former Labour seats where LDs came up into 2nd.
Labour and Tories have won 0% of head to heads with Reform since 1 May.
Its a very limited subset. And then its comparing to a variety of points in political history - 2021 to 2024 are very different beasts. Their win in Maldon (which they have no chance of gaining at a GE) was much more impressive than their rather tepid holds in Horsham and Eastleigh (that they'll need to hold at a GE) for example In terms of tactical transfers they are already carrying them from July 2024 in Newton Abbott, they'll need yo hold on to them first then look for even more (from a declining Labour party?)
Edit - not to suggest they aren't doing in general well. They are atm
My thinking is that Lib Dems will pick up tactical transfers from 3 places in seats like this:
1. Labour supporters who are now 100% clear which party is best placed to beat the right wing opponent 2. Green supporters who quit messing around because it’s actual Reform who are the threat 3. Residual Tories who, if they’d not already switched to Reform, are most likely Cameroonians and/or remainers who would prefer the church steeple menders to the Faragistes.
Reform will pick up most ex-Tories, and a few anti-Tory or NOTA voters from 2024.
Hot take (from my mate who's an Iranian exile so make of that what you will):
My Question: What do ordinary Iranians think of it all His Answer: They just want to get rid of the mullahs
Q: Do they care that it's Israel doing the getting rid of A: No, in fact on X Iranians are tagging IGRC targets for the IDF and then the IDF attacks those targets [!!!!!!]
Q: What is the concern, if any A: We are worried about the infrastructure
While that might be true do these exiles really think that the majority of Iranians who remain in the country will vote for a reformer government that will step back from hard-line Islamism? Seems a bit naïve.
Musing on tax and pension matters after my debate with MaxPB and others yesterday evening, I'm left with two thoughts.
The sense of being "over taxed" is compounded by the failure to raise thresholds. This "fiscal drag" or "stealth tax" instigated by the high-tax Conservative Government and now initated by its Labour successor has dragged so many more people into the higher tax bracket in the sense more of their income is now taxed at the 40% rate.
When I argued for a new 50% higher rate, apart from the usual howl of outrage, one or two failed to read the next bit which was to bring the thresholds to where they would have been allowing for annual RPI so the rates would rise so many middle to high income earners wouldm probably be better off from a simple 25p basic rate and 50p higher rate if the threshold from the former to the latter was set much higher than now.
The second point was about pensions - again, the usual wailing and gnashing of teeth about "public sector pensions" which are complex and by no means all the same - a Teacher's Pension is not a Local Government Officer's pension which in turn is not a Police pension or a civil servant pension.
In the Local Government Scheme (LPGS), there are swingeing penalties if you leave to take your benefits early - up to 25% if you go five years before your retirement. The problem is those staff are a) not likely to progress further andf b) are simply place-sitting preventing younger (and possibly more productive) staff from moving up and progressing. This needs to be re-thought within LPGS and elsewhere.
There are options for flexible retirement within LPGS whereby you can work fewer hours and start taking some of your pension and we might need to think about how we employ those 60 or above not only in terms of NI contribution but in terms of flexible hours and pension/salary provision.
We come back to the central question of how to being the public finances closer to balance in terms of reducing borrowing and the deficit. The debate can't be simply abandoned to the "supply side reform" proponents whose sole mantra is "tax cuts and spending cuts". We are well past it being either/or - it has to be tax rises AND spending cuts but getting the balance right between the two isn't easy. Osborne went for £5 of cuts for every £1 of tax rises but that was a different time and it may well be a more even apportion is apposite.
25% reduction for starting a DB pension 5 years early isn't really a "penalty" though is it ? It's a rough approximation of the extra net present value of the income stream. If you took £1m to an insurance company at age 55 and said "How much less annuity will you give me if it starts today rather than in 5 years time", I'm sure it would be in the region of 25%
I'm sure you're right but that's not how it looks to the member of the scheme where it looks like a penalty and sounds like a penalty but if you have someone who has paid off their mortgage (thanks to low interest rates) and perhaps downsized to a smaller property and taken a nice capital receipt as a result, even the lower figure might be enough for the decision to be made to retire early.
That "paid off mortgage, don't give a stuff" thing isn't new- it was the point of departure for the plots of both The Good Life and Howards' Way. And I can vouch for the extra sang-froid it gives someone in the face of workplace unpleasantness.
It's clearly not helpful for our national lifestyle if people opt out of work in mid middle age. But motivating an employee who has decided they aren't bothered about the money isn't easy, and I'm not sure how many businesses are up to the challenge.
Its not really changed since the Tory drop off immediately after the LEs. In fact very little has changed at all since that
We all know Electoral Calculus is essentially useless given the multi-party nature of politics currently.
The actual changes since July 2024 (allowing for rounding) are:
Reform +13 Labour -10 Conservative -7 LD +3 Green +3
We also know polling for the various local "Independents" is suspect so we don't know what's happening in places like East London or the Leicester and Birmingham seats where they polled well last year.
The "trend" in local council by-elections (with usual bucketfuls of salt) has been to see BOTH Labour and Conservative lose significant vote share and that's reflected in the 17-point combined fall in the national opinion polls.
Next year we'll have an intriguing round of local elections in London as well as for some of the new Shadow authorities but that's a lifetime away.
Theres some fun to be had comparing council by election ward results versus the ward by ward 2024 estimates and some of the current ward by ward estimates. It does show the somewhat unsurprising news that Lab and Con are struggling to find the gas pedal (and that Reform are doing well everywhere but especially in redder walled areas)
The interesting question for me for 2029 is: which seats - if any - will Reform win from the Liberal Democrats?
Because Reform is highly likely to top the polls, with Conservative and Labour vote shares down sharply, while the LDs are probably going to be up a couple of points.
Outside of Scotland, the Conservatives are the main opposition in almost every LibDem seat. In which of these could enough votes transfer to Reform to threaten the LDs?
Newton Abbott
That's going to be extremely close at the next election: I'd reckon both the LDs and Reform will be on around 35%.
The party is well placed to win against Reform in a head to head, because it’ll get tactical transfers.
According to Mark Pack Lib Dems have won 75% of council byelections since the locals, where they and Reform were the top 2. The other 25% were former Labour seats where LDs came up into 2nd.
Labour and Tories have won 0% of head to heads with Reform since 1 May.
Its a very limited subset. And then its comparing to a variety of points in political history - 2021 to 2024 are very different beasts. Their win in Maldon (which they have no chance of gaining at a GE) was much more impressive than their rather tepid holds in Horsham and Eastleigh (that they'll need to hold at a GE) for example In terms of tactical transfers they are already carrying them from July 2024 in Newton Abbott, they'll need yo hold on to them first then look for even more (from a declining Labour party?)
Edit - not to suggest they aren't doing in general well. They are atm
My thinking is that Lib Dems will pick up tactical transfers from 3 places in seats like this:
1. Labour supporters who are now 100% clear which party is best placed to beat the right wing opponent 2. Green supporters who quit messing around because it’s actual Reform who are the threat 3. Residual Tories who, if they’d not already switched to Reform, are most likely Cameroonians and/or remainers who would prefer the church steeple menders to the Faragistes.
Reform will pick up most ex-Tories, and a few anti-Tory or NOTA voters from 2024.
Ok, I can see the logic of that, yes. If Reform have a clear lead then that's all possible. However if its tighter, Newton Abbott will remain a LD/Tory fight (and probable LD hold unless its a bigger Tory recovery than looks likely). I don't honestly think Reform will be putting any effort into Newton Abbbot, they'll need to be flooding the Red Wall and the Tory facing East/SE
Quite seriouly, on the Israel-Iran "28th small disagreement", I think Netanyahu, like Trump, is perhaps overemphasising the short term - he is nearly as old as Trump and will not have to bear the consequences, whilst keeping himself out the of the orbit of the corruption investigation he faces.
There a rhetoric around of needing Iran never to have nuclear weapons (eg Trump), and 'fix this once and for all', but istm that this will no more ensure a peaceful Middle East than did Operation Peace for Galilee in 1982 (invasion of Lebanon) ensured a peaceful northern region of Israel - especially at it was launched out of the blue whilst a dialogue process was ongoing.
And there are two things I think are pretty-much guaranteed:
1 - A further half century of hostility to Israel. 2 - Countries in the region, especially but not limited to Iran, will consider a nuclear deterrent to be essential. Just as Trump's demolition of the international order will very likely result in nuclear proliferation; the Victorian age is not coming back.
They might imo get 15 years of peace.
An important factor is that Iran is a Shia country, and it isn't an Arab country, which means you'll get a lot of "thoughts and prayers" type of reactions among Sunni Arabs.
The governing elites in the Gulf States are probably more scared than Israel, of a nuclear-armed Iran & they'll be quietly cheering the bombing campaign. A complete destruction of Iran's nuclear capability would make it less likely that countries like Saudi would pursue the Bomb.
I think the most likely scenario for Farage appearing on Strictly is after he is hoofed out of Reform UK, or if the party disintegrates or fractures around him. Without that, I think his ambition will rule his actions whilst he assesses he has a chance of a serious political role.
Given his Merrie Englande image, it should perhaps be Morris Dancing.
BTW They may have lost another Councillor up @Taz 's way, one Michael David Ramage. As has been remarked elsewhere - is someone taking the P ?
The guy is not listed as being in the RefUK group on the Council website, and as an ex-Member of the relevant Ref UK facebook group, but does seem to know a fair but about construction - especially bus stations (that's a complement - he knows his stuff in this area, and is taking a real interest):
"Rushworth MP won't help people he considers are Reform Party members or Reform supporters or Reform Activists. So having alleged I am a Reform activist (I'm probably more socialist than him) he won't help me.... (case summary).
I think the most likely scenario for Farage appearing on Strictly is after he is hoofed out of Reform UK, or if the party disintegrates or fractures around him. Without that, I think his ambition will rule his actions whilst he assesses he has a chance of a serious political role.
Given his Merrie Englande image, it should perhaps be Morris Dancing.
BTW They may have lost another Councillor up @Taz 's way, one Michael David Ramage. As has been remarked elsewhere - is someone taking the P ?
The guy is not listed as being in the RefUK group on the Council website, and as an ex-Member of the relevant Ref UK facebook group, but does seem to know a fair but about construction - especially bus stations (that's a complement - he knows his stuff in this area, and is taking a real interest):
"Rushworth MP won't help people he considers are Reform Party members or Reform supporters or Reform Activists. So having alleged I am a Reform activist (I'm probably more socialist than him) he won't help me.... (case summary).
Alleged?
Possibly although the council webpage does have his party as Reform.
It’s interesting how people seem to be really scrutinising Reform here but yesterday Labour lost its majority on a council in Cheshire with two councillors switching to independent and rather critical about Labour too.
Barely a murmur,
I think changes such as the change you mention have less practical impact.
Personally, I have 2-3 interests in Reform, as you know.
1 - Practically they are a new party of control come from nowhere, now running strategic Councils with 10s of k of employees, and £100s of millions or low billions in revenue - including thine and mine, plus crucial services. That needs scrutiny, and I do not think our mainstream media will deliver that, or have the skills to do so.
2 - On competence, there is no indication that RefUK came in having done any significant research before starting, even though huge amounts of information are published anyway and was available to them. They have their head in the clouds, and came with a set of nostrums and strange assumptions extracted significantly from MAGA USA. There is little in the party that will work to improve policy afaics.
I'm concerned what that are going to go for, given that the expenditure they target for their "savings" largely does not exist.
See how quickly the wheels have come off DOGE.
3 - Politically, I think they are poisonous - self-serving, dishonest, cynical and incompetent, and are probably better gone.
I think they are quite likely to achieve point 3 on their own, and my concern then becomes collateral damage done in the meantime.
The problem is that people - even quite intelligent people - often have no idea what government spends its money on. They assume that it is a pit of inefficiency, and that there is free money that can found by eliminating waste and fraud.
Elon Musk was guilty of that when he suggested that he could find $2 trillion of savings from a $6 trillion Federal budget. Instead, we're going to see record Federal spending this year - indeed, it's looks like it's going to rise about 7% this year, thanks to the One Big Beautiful Bill.
What is true of the US and UK central government is true of local governments too. There isn't nearly as much waste as people think, because (a) most spending is legally dictated by central government, and (b) councillors generally find their reelection chances are better if they don't hike Council Tax any more than is strictly necessary.
Musing on tax and pension matters after my debate with MaxPB and others yesterday evening, I'm left with two thoughts.
The sense of being "over taxed" is compounded by the failure to raise thresholds. This "fiscal drag" or "stealth tax" instigated by the high-tax Conservative Government and now initated by its Labour successor has dragged so many more people into the higher tax bracket in the sense more of their income is now taxed at the 40% rate.
When I argued for a new 50% higher rate, apart from the usual howl of outrage, one or two failed to read the next bit which was to bring the thresholds to where they would have been allowing for annual RPI so the rates would rise so many middle to high income earners wouldm probably be better off from a simple 25p basic rate and 50p higher rate if the threshold from the former to the latter was set much higher than now.
The second point was about pensions - again, the usual wailing and gnashing of teeth about "public sector pensions" which are complex and by no means all the same - a Teacher's Pension is not a Local Government Officer's pension which in turn is not a Police pension or a civil servant pension.
In the Local Government Scheme (LPGS), there are swingeing penalties if you leave to take your benefits early - up to 25% if you go five years before your retirement. The problem is those staff are a) not likely to progress further andf b) are simply place-sitting preventing younger (and possibly more productive) staff from moving up and progressing. This needs to be re-thought within LPGS and elsewhere.
There are options for flexible retirement within LPGS whereby you can work fewer hours and start taking some of your pension and we might need to think about how we employ those 60 or above not only in terms of NI contribution but in terms of flexible hours and pension/salary provision.
We come back to the central question of how to being the public finances closer to balance in terms of reducing borrowing and the deficit. The debate can't be simply abandoned to the "supply side reform" proponents whose sole mantra is "tax cuts and spending cuts". We are well past it being either/or - it has to be tax rises AND spending cuts but getting the balance right between the two isn't easy. Osborne went for £5 of cuts for every £1 of tax rises but that was a different time and it may well be a more even apportion is apposite.
25% reduction for starting a DB pension 5 years early isn't really a "penalty" though is it ? It's a rough approximation of the extra net present value of the income stream. If you took £1m to an insurance company at age 55 and said "How much less annuity will you give me if it starts today rather than in 5 years time", I'm sure it would be in the region of 25%
I'm sure you're right but that's not how it looks to the member of the scheme where it looks like a penalty and sounds like a penalty but if you have someone who has paid off their mortgage (thanks to low interest rates) and perhaps downsized to a smaller property and taken a nice capital receipt as a result, even the lower figure might be enough for the decision to be made to retire early.
That "paid off mortgage, don't give a stuff" thing isn't new- it was the point of departure for the plots of both The Good Life and Howards' Way. And I can vouch for the extra sang-froid it gives someone in the face of workplace unpleasantness.
It's clearly not helpful for our national lifestyle if people opt out of work in mid middle age. But motivating an employee who has decided they aren't bothered about the money isn't easy, and I'm not sure how many businesses are up to the challenge.
Part of the problem is our tax system which overly penalises work, and lets people who don't work for a living avoid their share of taxes.
Those who own a property mortgage-free should still require enough income to pay their bills, including their share of taxes, and not have those who are working for a living covering it for them.
Higher taxes on land/property, and lower taxes on work, would help redress the balance.
If that is done and they still don't want to work as they still have enough, well good luck to them. So long as they're paying their own way and not expecting others to do so for them, I don't see an issue. People should be free to live as they choose.
I think the most likely scenario for Farage appearing on Strictly is after he is hoofed out of Reform UK, or if the party disintegrates or fractures around him. Without that, I think his ambition will rule his actions whilst he assesses he has a chance of a serious political role.
Given his Merrie Englande image, it should perhaps be Morris Dancing.
BTW They may have lost another Councillor up @Taz 's way, one Michael David Ramage. As has been remarked elsewhere - is someone taking the P ?
The guy is not listed as being in the RefUK group on the Council website, and as an ex-Member of the relevant Ref UK facebook group, but does seem to know a fair but about construction - especially bus stations (that's a complement - he knows his stuff in this area, and is taking a real interest):
"Rushworth MP won't help people he considers are Reform Party members or Reform supporters or Reform Activists. So having alleged I am a Reform activist (I'm probably more socialist than him) he won't help me.... (case summary).
I think the most likely scenario for Farage appearing on Strictly is after he is hoofed out of Reform UK, or if the party disintegrates or fractures around him. Without that, I think his ambition will rule his actions whilst he assesses he has a chance of a serious political role.
Given his Merrie Englande image, it should perhaps be Morris Dancing.
BTW They may have lost another Councillor up @Taz 's way, one Michael David Ramage. As has been remarked elsewhere - is someone taking the P ?
The guy is not listed as being in the RefUK group on the Council website, and as an ex-Member of the relevant Ref UK facebook group, but does seem to know a fair but about construction - especially bus stations (that's a complement - he knows his stuff in this area, and is taking a real interest):
"Rushworth MP won't help people he considers are Reform Party members or Reform supporters or Reform Activists. So having alleged I am a Reform activist (I'm probably more socialist than him) he won't help me.... (case summary).
Alleged?
Possibly although the council webpage does have his party as Reform.
It’s interesting how people seem to be really scrutinising Reform here but yesterday Labour lost its majority on a council in Cheshire with two councillors switching to independent and rather critical about Labour too.
Barely a murmur,
At this point, Reform are beating the Conservatives and Labour almost everywhere, and the minor parties/independents.
They’ll have reached 1,000 councillors, even before next May.
Hmmm... the political ghosts of the New Party, Doctor Death´s SDP, Dick Taverne´s SDP, Change UK and many others all say hello. While I agree the Tories are very sick and deserve obliteration, the positive narrative for the Faragistas is pretty thin. Not convinced that the next three years will bring the far right home. The party isn´t a party and there is little beyond the Mosleyiste glamour of NF that keeps them together,
With a GE looming the disinterested will refocus and decide which 'Big party' to go for. Polling still shows that's LabCon in much higher % than RefLib and the trailing greens Its all about the order Lab, Con and Ref finish (and how much the LDs hold/progress)
I think the most likely scenario for Farage appearing on Strictly is after he is hoofed out of Reform UK, or if the party disintegrates or fractures around him. Without that, I think his ambition will rule his actions whilst he assesses he has a chance of a serious political role.
Given his Merrie Englande image, it should perhaps be Morris Dancing.
BTW They may have lost another Councillor up @Taz 's way, one Michael David Ramage. As has been remarked elsewhere - is someone taking the P ?
The guy is not listed as being in the RefUK group on the Council website, and as an ex-Member of the relevant Ref UK facebook group, but does seem to know a fair but about construction - especially bus stations (that's a complement - he knows his stuff in this area, and is taking a real interest):
"Rushworth MP won't help people he considers are Reform Party members or Reform supporters or Reform Activists. So having alleged I am a Reform activist (I'm probably more socialist than him) he won't help me.... (case summary).
I think the most likely scenario for Farage appearing on Strictly is after he is hoofed out of Reform UK, or if the party disintegrates or fractures around him. Without that, I think his ambition will rule his actions whilst he assesses he has a chance of a serious political role.
Given his Merrie Englande image, it should perhaps be Morris Dancing.
BTW They may have lost another Councillor up @Taz 's way, one Michael David Ramage. As has been remarked elsewhere - is someone taking the P ?
The guy is not listed as being in the RefUK group on the Council website, and as an ex-Member of the relevant Ref UK facebook group, but does seem to know a fair but about construction - especially bus stations (that's a complement - he knows his stuff in this area, and is taking a real interest):
"Rushworth MP won't help people he considers are Reform Party members or Reform supporters or Reform Activists. So having alleged I am a Reform activist (I'm probably more socialist than him) he won't help me.... (case summary).
Alleged?
Possibly although the council webpage does have his party as Reform.
It’s interesting how people seem to be really scrutinising Reform here but yesterday Labour lost its majority on a council in Cheshire with two councillors switching to independent and rather critical about Labour too.
Barely a murmur,
At this point, Reform are beating the Conservatives and Labour almost everywhere, and the minor parties/independents.
They’ll have reached 1,000 councillors, even before next May.
Hmmm... the political ghosts of the New Party, Doctor Death´s SDP, Dick Taverne´s SDP, Change UK and many others all say hello. While I agree the Tories are very sick and deserve obliteration, the positive narrative for the Faragistas is pretty thin. Not convinced that the next three years will bring the far right home. The party isn´t a party and there is little beyond the Mosleyiste glamour of NF that keeps them together,
Quite seriouly, on the Israel-Iran "28th small disagreement", I think Netanyahu, like Trump, is perhaps overemphasising the short term - he is nearly as old as Trump and will not have to bear the consequences, whilst keeping himself out the of the orbit of the corruption investigation he faces.
There a rhetoric around of needing Iran never to have nuclear weapons (eg Trump), and 'fix this once and for all', but istm that this will no more ensure a peaceful Middle East than did Operation Peace for Galilee in 1982 (invasion of Lebanon) ensured a peaceful northern region of Israel - especially at it was launched out of the blue whilst a dialogue process was ongoing.
And there are two things I think are pretty-much guaranteed:
1 - A further half century of hostility to Israel. 2 - Countries in the region, especially but not limited to Iran, will consider a nuclear deterrent to be essential. Just as Trump's demolition of the international order will very likely result in nuclear proliferation; the Victorian age is not coming back.
They might imo get 15 years of peace.
An important factor is that Iran is a Shia country, and it isn't an Arab country, which means you'll get a lot of "thoughts and prayers" type of reactions among Sunni Arabs.
The governing elites in the Gulf States are probably more scared than Israel, of a nuclear-armed Iran & they'll be quietly cheering the bombing campaign. A complete destruction of Iran's nuclear capability would make it less likely that countries like Saudi would pursue the Bomb.
I've been doing a bit of research, and I fully get why Israel attacked now. Between February and May of this year, Iran's 60% Uranium (i.e. enriched to be be 60% U235) surged from 250kg to over 400kg.
The good news is that 60% enriched uranium is not *quite* enough for a bomb: that requires getting up to 80% enriched uranium. The bad news is that while the attacks will significantly impact Iran's ability to further enrich uranium for a while... it almost certainly won't have destroyed any of the 400+kg of 60% enriched uranium.
And those 400kg are enough to make about 9 "bombs". And getting from 60% to 80% - while difficult - is not that difficult.
Musing on tax and pension matters after my debate with MaxPB and others yesterday evening, I'm left with two thoughts.
The sense of being "over taxed" is compounded by the failure to raise thresholds. This "fiscal drag" or "stealth tax" instigated by the high-tax Conservative Government and now initated by its Labour successor has dragged so many more people into the higher tax bracket in the sense more of their income is now taxed at the 40% rate.
When I argued for a new 50% higher rate, apart from the usual howl of outrage, one or two failed to read the next bit which was to bring the thresholds to where they would have been allowing for annual RPI so the rates would rise so many middle to high income earners wouldm probably be better off from a simple 25p basic rate and 50p higher rate if the threshold from the former to the latter was set much higher than now.
The second point was about pensions - again, the usual wailing and gnashing of teeth about "public sector pensions" which are complex and by no means all the same - a Teacher's Pension is not a Local Government Officer's pension which in turn is not a Police pension or a civil servant pension.
In the Local Government Scheme (LPGS), there are swingeing penalties if you leave to take your benefits early - up to 25% if you go five years before your retirement. The problem is those staff are a) not likely to progress further andf b) are simply place-sitting preventing younger (and possibly more productive) staff from moving up and progressing. This needs to be re-thought within LPGS and elsewhere.
There are options for flexible retirement within LPGS whereby you can work fewer hours and start taking some of your pension and we might need to think about how we employ those 60 or above not only in terms of NI contribution but in terms of flexible hours and pension/salary provision.
We come back to the central question of how to being the public finances closer to balance in terms of reducing borrowing and the deficit. The debate can't be simply abandoned to the "supply side reform" proponents whose sole mantra is "tax cuts and spending cuts". We are well past it being either/or - it has to be tax rises AND spending cuts but getting the balance right between the two isn't easy. Osborne went for £5 of cuts for every £1 of tax rises but that was a different time and it may well be a more even apportion is apposite.
25% reduction for starting a DB pension 5 years early isn't really a "penalty" though is it ? It's a rough approximation of the extra net present value of the income stream. If you took £1m to an insurance company at age 55 and said "How much less annuity will you give me if it starts today rather than in 5 years time", I'm sure it would be in the region of 25%
I'm sure you're right but that's not how it looks to the member of the scheme where it looks like a penalty and sounds like a penalty but if you have someone who has paid off their mortgage (thanks to low interest rates) and perhaps downsized to a smaller property and taken a nice capital receipt as a result, even the lower figure might be enough for the decision to be made to retire early.
That "paid off mortgage, don't give a stuff" thing isn't new- it was the point of departure for the plots of both The Good Life and Howards' Way. And I can vouch for the extra sang-froid it gives someone in the face of workplace unpleasantness.
It's clearly not helpful for our national lifestyle if people opt out of work in mid middle age. But motivating an employee who has decided they aren't bothered about the money isn't easy, and I'm not sure how many businesses are up to the challenge.
Yes. The Good Life started with the Goods having paid off their mortgage on a large house in Surbiton's premier road on a single income before Tom's 40th birthday. Try doing that now!
Its not really changed since the Tory drop off immediately after the LEs. In fact very little has changed at all since that
We all know Electoral Calculus is essentially useless given the multi-party nature of politics currently.
The actual changes since July 2024 (allowing for rounding) are:
Reform +13 Labour -10 Conservative -7 LD +3 Green +3
We also know polling for the various local "Independents" is suspect so we don't know what's happening in places like East London or the Leicester and Birmingham seats where they polled well last year.
The "trend" in local council by-elections (with usual bucketfuls of salt) has been to see BOTH Labour and Conservative lose significant vote share and that's reflected in the 17-point combined fall in the national opinion polls.
Next year we'll have an intriguing round of local elections in London as well as for some of the new Shadow authorities but that's a lifetime away.
Theres some fun to be had comparing council by election ward results versus the ward by ward 2024 estimates and some of the current ward by ward estimates. It does show the somewhat unsurprising news that Lab and Con are struggling to find the gas pedal (and that Reform are doing well everywhere but especially in redder walled areas)
The interesting question for me for 2029 is: which seats - if any - will Reform win from the Liberal Democrats?
Because Reform is highly likely to top the polls, with Conservative and Labour vote shares down sharply, while the LDs are probably going to be up a couple of points.
Outside of Scotland, the Conservatives are the main opposition in almost every LibDem seat. In which of these could enough votes transfer to Reform to threaten the LDs?
Hot take (from my mate who's an Iranian exile so make of that what you will):
My Question: What do ordinary Iranians think of it all His Answer: They just want to get rid of the mullahs
Q: Do they care that it's Israel doing the getting rid of A: No, in fact on X Iranians are tagging IGRC targets for the IDF and then the IDF attacks those targets [!!!!!!]
Q: What is the concern, if any A: We are worried about the infrastructure
While that might be true do these exiles really think that the majority of Iranians who remain in the country will vote for a reformer government that will step back from hard-line Islamism? Seems a bit naïve.
The answer is who knows? because the religious authorities vet all candidates before allowing them to stand. So we have no idea how well supported a genuinely more liberal candidate would be, because the Mullahs don't risk them being on the ballot paper.
Hot take (from my mate who's an Iranian exile so make of that what you will):
My Question: What do ordinary Iranians think of it all His Answer: They just want to get rid of the mullahs
Q: Do they care that it's Israel doing the getting rid of A: No, in fact on X Iranians are tagging IGRC targets for the IDF and then the IDF attacks those targets [!!!!!!]
Q: What is the concern, if any A: We are worried about the infrastructure
I guess if they can keep the Israelis busy with IRGC targets then they are less likely to hit civilian infrastructure for want of a target to hit.
Its not really changed since the Tory drop off immediately after the LEs. In fact very little has changed at all since that
We all know Electoral Calculus is essentially useless given the multi-party nature of politics currently.
The actual changes since July 2024 (allowing for rounding) are:
Reform +13 Labour -10 Conservative -7 LD +3 Green +3
We also know polling for the various local "Independents" is suspect so we don't know what's happening in places like East London or the Leicester and Birmingham seats where they polled well last year.
The "trend" in local council by-elections (with usual bucketfuls of salt) has been to see BOTH Labour and Conservative lose significant vote share and that's reflected in the 17-point combined fall in the national opinion polls.
Next year we'll have an intriguing round of local elections in London as well as for some of the new Shadow authorities but that's a lifetime away.
Theres some fun to be had comparing council by election ward results versus the ward by ward 2024 estimates and some of the current ward by ward estimates. It does show the somewhat unsurprising news that Lab and Con are struggling to find the gas pedal (and that Reform are doing well everywhere but especially in redder walled areas)
The interesting question for me for 2029 is: which seats - if any - will Reform win from the Liberal Democrats?
Because Reform is highly likely to top the polls, with Conservative and Labour vote shares down sharply, while the LDs are probably going to be up a couple of points.
Outside of Scotland, the Conservatives are the main opposition in almost every LibDem seat. In which of these could enough votes transfer to Reform to threaten the LDs?
Torbay is probably the most likely.
Yep: it'll be the South West that is the LD - Reform battleground.
Quite seriouly, on the Israel-Iran "28th small disagreement", I think Netanyahu, like Trump, is perhaps overemphasising the short term - he is nearly as old as Trump and will not have to bear the consequences, whilst keeping himself out the of the orbit of the corruption investigation he faces.
There a rhetoric around of needing Iran never to have nuclear weapons (eg Trump), and 'fix this once and for all', but istm that this will no more ensure a peaceful Middle East than did Operation Peace for Galilee in 1982 (invasion of Lebanon) ensured a peaceful northern region of Israel - especially at it was launched out of the blue whilst a dialogue process was ongoing.
And there are two things I think are pretty-much guaranteed:
1 - A further half century of hostility to Israel. 2 - Countries in the region, especially but not limited to Iran, will consider a nuclear deterrent to be essential. Just as Trump's demolition of the international order will very likely result in nuclear proliferation; the Victorian age is not coming back.
They might imo get 15 years of peace.
Exactly. Israel will win in the short term and probably lose in the long term.
There does seem to be this unproven assumption that you just have to whack the Iranian regime and a friendly, liberal, democracy will emerge that never again threatens Israel.
It seems just as probable to me that Iran ends up with some broadly secular strongman type of government, and unshackled by sanctions grows into the preeminent regional power that in the long term will be a much larger threat to Israel. Think Turkey but bigger and wealthier.
The mere fact Israel has the bomb will damn near guarantee that all future Iranian governments will want it too.
Musing on tax and pension matters after my debate with MaxPB and others yesterday evening, I'm left with two thoughts.
The sense of being "over taxed" is compounded by the failure to raise thresholds. This "fiscal drag" or "stealth tax" instigated by the high-tax Conservative Government and now initated by its Labour successor has dragged so many more people into the higher tax bracket in the sense more of their income is now taxed at the 40% rate.
When I argued for a new 50% higher rate, apart from the usual howl of outrage, one or two failed to read the next bit which was to bring the thresholds to where they would have been allowing for annual RPI so the rates would rise so many middle to high income earners wouldm probably be better off from a simple 25p basic rate and 50p higher rate if the threshold from the former to the latter was set much higher than now.
The second point was about pensions - again, the usual wailing and gnashing of teeth about "public sector pensions" which are complex and by no means all the same - a Teacher's Pension is not a Local Government Officer's pension which in turn is not a Police pension or a civil servant pension.
In the Local Government Scheme (LPGS), there are swingeing penalties if you leave to take your benefits early - up to 25% if you go five years before your retirement. The problem is those staff are a) not likely to progress further andf b) are simply place-sitting preventing younger (and possibly more productive) staff from moving up and progressing. This needs to be re-thought within LPGS and elsewhere.
There are options for flexible retirement within LPGS whereby you can work fewer hours and start taking some of your pension and we might need to think about how we employ those 60 or above not only in terms of NI contribution but in terms of flexible hours and pension/salary provision.
We come back to the central question of how to being the public finances closer to balance in terms of reducing borrowing and the deficit. The debate can't be simply abandoned to the "supply side reform" proponents whose sole mantra is "tax cuts and spending cuts". We are well past it being either/or - it has to be tax rises AND spending cuts but getting the balance right between the two isn't easy. Osborne went for £5 of cuts for every £1 of tax rises but that was a different time and it may well be a more even apportion is apposite.
25% reduction for starting a DB pension 5 years early isn't really a "penalty" though is it ? It's a rough approximation of the extra net present value of the income stream. If you took £1m to an insurance company at age 55 and said "How much less annuity will you give me if it starts today rather than in 5 years time", I'm sure it would be in the region of 25%
I'm sure you're right but that's not how it looks to the member of the scheme where it looks like a penalty and sounds like a penalty but if you have someone who has paid off their mortgage (thanks to low interest rates) and perhaps downsized to a smaller property and taken a nice capital receipt as a result, even the lower figure might be enough for the decision to be made to retire early.
That "paid off mortgage, don't give a stuff" thing isn't new- it was the point of departure for the plots of both The Good Life and Howards' Way. And I can vouch for the extra sang-froid it gives someone in the face of workplace unpleasantness.
It's clearly not helpful for our national lifestyle if people opt out of work in mid middle age. But motivating an employee who has decided they aren't bothered about the money isn't easy, and I'm not sure how many businesses are up to the challenge.
Part of the problem is our tax system which overly penalises work, and lets people who don't work for a living avoid their share of taxes.
Those who own a property mortgage-free should still require enough income to pay their bills, including their share of taxes, and not have those who are working for a living covering it for them.
Higher taxes on land/property, and lower taxes on work, would help redress the balance.
If that is done and they still don't want to work as they still have enough, well good luck to them. So long as they're paying their own way and not expecting others to do so for them, I don't see an issue. People should be free to live as they choose.
I think the most likely scenario for Farage appearing on Strictly is after he is hoofed out of Reform UK, or if the party disintegrates or fractures around him. Without that, I think his ambition will rule his actions whilst he assesses he has a chance of a serious political role.
Given his Merrie Englande image, it should perhaps be Morris Dancing.
BTW They may have lost another Councillor up @Taz 's way, one Michael David Ramage. As has been remarked elsewhere - is someone taking the P ?
The guy is not listed as being in the RefUK group on the Council website, and as an ex-Member of the relevant Ref UK facebook group, but does seem to know a fair but about construction - especially bus stations (that's a complement - he knows his stuff in this area, and is taking a real interest):
"Rushworth MP won't help people he considers are Reform Party members or Reform supporters or Reform Activists. So having alleged I am a Reform activist (I'm probably more socialist than him) he won't help me.... (case summary).
I think the most likely scenario for Farage appearing on Strictly is after he is hoofed out of Reform UK, or if the party disintegrates or fractures around him. Without that, I think his ambition will rule his actions whilst he assesses he has a chance of a serious political role.
Given his Merrie Englande image, it should perhaps be Morris Dancing.
BTW They may have lost another Councillor up @Taz 's way, one Michael David Ramage. As has been remarked elsewhere - is someone taking the P ?
The guy is not listed as being in the RefUK group on the Council website, and as an ex-Member of the relevant Ref UK facebook group, but does seem to know a fair but about construction - especially bus stations (that's a complement - he knows his stuff in this area, and is taking a real interest):
"Rushworth MP won't help people he considers are Reform Party members or Reform supporters or Reform Activists. So having alleged I am a Reform activist (I'm probably more socialist than him) he won't help me.... (case summary).
Alleged?
Possibly although the council webpage does have his party as Reform.
It’s interesting how people seem to be really scrutinising Reform here but yesterday Labour lost its majority on a council in Cheshire with two councillors switching to independent and rather critical about Labour too.
Barely a murmur,
At this point, Reform are beating the Conservatives and Labour almost everywhere, and the minor parties/independents.
They’ll have reached 1,000 councillors, even before next May.
Hmmm... the political ghosts of the New Party, Doctor Death´s SDP, Dick Taverne´s SDP, Change UK and many others all say hello. While I agree the Tories are very sick and deserve obliteration, the positive narrative for the Faragistas is pretty thin. Not convinced that the next three years will bring the far right home. The party isn´t a party and there is little beyond the Mosleyiste glamour of NF that keeps them together,
With a GE looming the disinterested will refocus and decide which 'Big party' to go for. Polling still shows that's LabCon in much higher % than RefLib and the trailing greens Its all about the order Lab, Con and Ref finish (and how much the LDs hold/progress)
I'm sure that was what the Socialists and the RFR thought in France.
Hot take (from my mate who's an Iranian exile so make of that what you will):
My Question: What do ordinary Iranians think of it all His Answer: They just want to get rid of the mullahs
Q: Do they care that it's Israel doing the getting rid of A: No, in fact on X Iranians are tagging IGRC targets for the IDF and then the IDF attacks those targets [!!!!!!]
Q: What is the concern, if any A: We are worried about the infrastructure
While that might be true do these exiles really think that the majority of Iranians who remain in the country will vote for a reformer government that will step back from hard-line Islamism? Seems a bit naïve.
Who knows. They call the current system a kleptocracy so perhaps they would. Many have families still in Iran so it's not wholly an ex-pat thing.
Quite seriouly, on the Israel-Iran "28th small disagreement", I think Netanyahu, like Trump, is perhaps overemphasising the short term - he is nearly as old as Trump and will not have to bear the consequences, whilst keeping himself out the of the orbit of the corruption investigation he faces.
There a rhetoric around of needing Iran never to have nuclear weapons (eg Trump), and 'fix this once and for all', but istm that this will no more ensure a peaceful Middle East than did Operation Peace for Galilee in 1982 (invasion of Lebanon) ensured a peaceful northern region of Israel - especially at it was launched out of the blue whilst a dialogue process was ongoing.
And there are two things I think are pretty-much guaranteed:
1 - A further half century of hostility to Israel. 2 - Countries in the region, especially but not limited to Iran, will consider a nuclear deterrent to be essential. Just as Trump's demolition of the international order will very likely result in nuclear proliferation; the Victorian age is not coming back.
They might imo get 15 years of peace.
Exactly. Israel will win in the short term and probably lose in the long term.
There does seem to be this unproven assumption that you just have to whack the Iranian regime and a friendly, liberal, democracy will emerge that never again threatens Israel.
It seems just as probable to me that Iran ends up with some broadly secular strongman type of government, and unshackled by sanctions grows into the preeminent regional power that in the long term will be a much larger threat to Israel. Think Turkey but bigger and wealthier.
The mere fact Israel has the bomb will damn near guarantee that all future Iranian governments will want it too.
Oh: one of the negative consequences of Putin and Trump is that nuclear proliferation is now essentially guaranteed. And yes, that probably includes Iran getting the bomb.
Quite seriouly, on the Israel-Iran "28th small disagreement", I think Netanyahu, like Trump, is perhaps overemphasising the short term - he is nearly as old as Trump and will not have to bear the consequences, whilst keeping himself out the of the orbit of the corruption investigation he faces.
There a rhetoric around of needing Iran never to have nuclear weapons (eg Trump), and 'fix this once and for all', but istm that this will no more ensure a peaceful Middle East than did Operation Peace for Galilee in 1982 (invasion of Lebanon) ensured a peaceful northern region of Israel - especially at it was launched out of the blue whilst a dialogue process was ongoing.
And there are two things I think are pretty-much guaranteed:
1 - A further half century of hostility to Israel. 2 - Countries in the region, especially but not limited to Iran, will consider a nuclear deterrent to be essential. Just as Trump's demolition of the international order will very likely result in nuclear proliferation; the Victorian age is not coming back.
They might imo get 15 years of peace.
An important factor is that Iran is a Shia country, and it isn't an Arab country, which means you'll get a lot of "thoughts and prayers" type of reactions among Sunni Arabs.
The governing elites in the Gulf States are probably more scared than Israel, of a nuclear-armed Iran & they'll be quietly cheering the bombing campaign. A complete destruction of Iran's nuclear capability would make it less likely that countries like Saudi would pursue the Bomb.
I've been doing a bit of research, and I fully get why Israel attacked now. Between February and May of this year, Iran's 60% Uranium (i.e. enriched to be be 60% U235) surged from 250kg to over 400kg.
The good news is that 60% enriched uranium is not *quite* enough for a bomb: that requires getting up to 80% enriched uranium. The bad news is that while the attacks will significantly impact Iran's ability to further enrich uranium for a while... it almost certainly won't have destroyed any of the 400+kg of 60% enriched uranium.
And those 400kg are enough to make about 9 "bombs". And getting from 60% to 80% - while difficult - is not that difficult.
If you’re correct that explains Trump’s behaviour. Israel has persuaded Washington that Iran is now an existential threat to Israel
Only the USAF can take out that underground nuke base. So the USAF will do it
Quite seriouly, on the Israel-Iran "28th small disagreement", I think Netanyahu, like Trump, is perhaps overemphasising the short term - he is nearly as old as Trump and will not have to bear the consequences, whilst keeping himself out the of the orbit of the corruption investigation he faces.
There a rhetoric around of needing Iran never to have nuclear weapons (eg Trump), and 'fix this once and for all', but istm that this will no more ensure a peaceful Middle East than did Operation Peace for Galilee in 1982 (invasion of Lebanon) ensured a peaceful northern region of Israel - especially at it was launched out of the blue whilst a dialogue process was ongoing.
And there are two things I think are pretty-much guaranteed:
1 - A further half century of hostility to Israel. 2 - Countries in the region, especially but not limited to Iran, will consider a nuclear deterrent to be essential. Just as Trump's demolition of the international order will very likely result in nuclear proliferation; the Victorian age is not coming back.
They might imo get 15 years of peace.
An important factor is that Iran is a Shia country, and it isn't an Arab country, which means you'll get a lot of "thoughts and prayers" type of reactions among Sunni Arabs.
The governing elites in the Gulf States are probably more scared than Israel, of a nuclear-armed Iran & they'll be quietly cheering the bombing campaign. A complete destruction of Iran's nuclear capability would make it less likely that countries like Saudi would pursue the Bomb.
I've been doing a bit of research, and I fully get why Israel attacked now. Between February and May of this year, Iran's 60% Uranium (i.e. enriched to be be 60% U235) surged from 250kg to over 400kg.
The good news is that 60% enriched uranium is not *quite* enough for a bomb: that requires getting up to 80% enriched uranium. The bad news is that while the attacks will significantly impact Iran's ability to further enrich uranium for a while... it almost certainly won't have destroyed any of the 400+kg of 60% enriched uranium.
And those 400kg are enough to make about 9 "bombs". And getting from 60% to 80% - while difficult - is not that difficult.
If you’re correct that explains Trump’s behaviour. Israel has persuaded Washington that Iran is now an existential threat to Israel
Only the USAF can take out that underground nuke base. So the USAF will do it
Brace!
I don't believe that even the USAF can easily destroy Iran's stockpile of enriched uranium. Destroying things that have been tunnelled under massive amounts of rock is really, really difficult.
Anyone looking for Ref gain from LD BTW, don't waste your money on North Norfolk Not happening
13.5% for Reform in this seat was one of their most disappointing results at the last election.
No, its absolutely not Reform territory. They'll bomb here in the County vote next year too
It ought to be Reform territory simply by dint of the fact that the population is so elderly.
A lot of money floating about. Wealthy rural, Tory pensioner types rather than Frinton on sea type pensioners. Twee villages, wealthy market town, bit of Reform strength round Cromer/Sheringham Cannot see Reform taking it. I have been wrong before
Quite seriouly, on the Israel-Iran "28th small disagreement", I think Netanyahu, like Trump, is perhaps overemphasising the short term - he is nearly as old as Trump and will not have to bear the consequences, whilst keeping himself out the of the orbit of the corruption investigation he faces.
There a rhetoric around of needing Iran never to have nuclear weapons (eg Trump), and 'fix this once and for all', but istm that this will no more ensure a peaceful Middle East than did Operation Peace for Galilee in 1982 (invasion of Lebanon) ensured a peaceful northern region of Israel - especially at it was launched out of the blue whilst a dialogue process was ongoing.
And there are two things I think are pretty-much guaranteed:
1 - A further half century of hostility to Israel. 2 - Countries in the region, especially but not limited to Iran, will consider a nuclear deterrent to be essential. Just as Trump's demolition of the international order will very likely result in nuclear proliferation; the Victorian age is not coming back.
They might imo get 15 years of peace.
An important factor is that Iran is a Shia country, and it isn't an Arab country, which means you'll get a lot of "thoughts and prayers" type of reactions among Sunni Arabs.
The governing elites in the Gulf States are probably more scared than Israel, of a nuclear-armed Iran & they'll be quietly cheering the bombing campaign. A complete destruction of Iran's nuclear capability would make it less likely that countries like Saudi would pursue the Bomb.
I've been doing a bit of research, and I fully get why Israel attacked now. Between February and May of this year, Iran's 60% Uranium (i.e. enriched to be be 60% U235) surged from 250kg to over 400kg.
The good news is that 60% enriched uranium is not *quite* enough for a bomb: that requires getting up to 80% enriched uranium. The bad news is that while the attacks will significantly impact Iran's ability to further enrich uranium for a while... it almost certainly won't have destroyed any of the 400+kg of 60% enriched uranium.
And those 400kg are enough to make about 9 "bombs". And getting from 60% to 80% - while difficult - is not that difficult.
By the time you are at 60% enriched you have already done over 90% of the work required to produce weapons grade uranium.
Quite seriouly, on the Israel-Iran "28th small disagreement", I think Netanyahu, like Trump, is perhaps overemphasising the short term - he is nearly as old as Trump and will not have to bear the consequences, whilst keeping himself out the of the orbit of the corruption investigation he faces.
There a rhetoric around of needing Iran never to have nuclear weapons (eg Trump), and 'fix this once and for all', but istm that this will no more ensure a peaceful Middle East than did Operation Peace for Galilee in 1982 (invasion of Lebanon) ensured a peaceful northern region of Israel - especially at it was launched out of the blue whilst a dialogue process was ongoing.
And there are two things I think are pretty-much guaranteed:
1 - A further half century of hostility to Israel. 2 - Countries in the region, especially but not limited to Iran, will consider a nuclear deterrent to be essential. Just as Trump's demolition of the international order will very likely result in nuclear proliferation; the Victorian age is not coming back.
They might imo get 15 years of peace.
An important factor is that Iran is a Shia country, and it isn't an Arab country, which means you'll get a lot of "thoughts and prayers" type of reactions among Sunni Arabs.
The governing elites in the Gulf States are probably more scared than Israel, of a nuclear-armed Iran & they'll be quietly cheering the bombing campaign. A complete destruction of Iran's nuclear capability would make it less likely that countries like Saudi would pursue the Bomb.
I've been doing a bit of research, and I fully get why Israel attacked now. Between February and May of this year, Iran's 60% Uranium (i.e. enriched to be be 60% U235) surged from 250kg to over 400kg.
The good news is that 60% enriched uranium is not *quite* enough for a bomb: that requires getting up to 80% enriched uranium. The bad news is that while the attacks will significantly impact Iran's ability to further enrich uranium for a while... it almost certainly won't have destroyed any of the 400+kg of 60% enriched uranium.
And those 400kg are enough to make about 9 "bombs". And getting from 60% to 80% - while difficult - is not that difficult.
If you’re correct that explains Trump’s behaviour. Israel has persuaded Washington that Iran is now an existential threat to Israel
Only the USAF can take out that underground nuke base. So the USAF will do it
Brace!
I don't believe that even the USAF can easily destroy Iran's stockpile of enriched uranium. Destroying things that have been tunnelled under massive amounts of rock is really, really difficult.
Musing on tax and pension matters after my debate with MaxPB and others yesterday evening, I'm left with two thoughts.
The sense of being "over taxed" is compounded by the failure to raise thresholds. This "fiscal drag" or "stealth tax" instigated by the high-tax Conservative Government and now initated by its Labour successor has dragged so many more people into the higher tax bracket in the sense more of their income is now taxed at the 40% rate.
When I argued for a new 50% higher rate, apart from the usual howl of outrage, one or two failed to read the next bit which was to bring the thresholds to where they would have been allowing for annual RPI so the rates would rise so many middle to high income earners wouldm probably be better off from a simple 25p basic rate and 50p higher rate if the threshold from the former to the latter was set much higher than now.
The second point was about pensions - again, the usual wailing and gnashing of teeth about "public sector pensions" which are complex and by no means all the same - a Teacher's Pension is not a Local Government Officer's pension which in turn is not a Police pension or a civil servant pension.
In the Local Government Scheme (LPGS), there are swingeing penalties if you leave to take your benefits early - up to 25% if you go five years before your retirement. The problem is those staff are a) not likely to progress further andf b) are simply place-sitting preventing younger (and possibly more productive) staff from moving up and progressing. This needs to be re-thought within LPGS and elsewhere.
There are options for flexible retirement within LPGS whereby you can work fewer hours and start taking some of your pension and we might need to think about how we employ those 60 or above not only in terms of NI contribution but in terms of flexible hours and pension/salary provision.
We come back to the central question of how to being the public finances closer to balance in terms of reducing borrowing and the deficit. The debate can't be simply abandoned to the "supply side reform" proponents whose sole mantra is "tax cuts and spending cuts". We are well past it being either/or - it has to be tax rises AND spending cuts but getting the balance right between the two isn't easy. Osborne went for £5 of cuts for every £1 of tax rises but that was a different time and it may well be a more even apportion is apposite.
25% reduction for starting a DB pension 5 years early isn't really a "penalty" though is it ? It's a rough approximation of the extra net present value of the income stream. If you took £1m to an insurance company at age 55 and said "How much less annuity will you give me if it starts today rather than in 5 years time", I'm sure it would be in the region of 25%
I'm sure you're right but that's not how it looks to the member of the scheme where it looks like a penalty and sounds like a penalty but if you have someone who has paid off their mortgage (thanks to low interest rates) and perhaps downsized to a smaller property and taken a nice capital receipt as a result, even the lower figure might be enough for the decision to be made to retire early.
That "paid off mortgage, don't give a stuff" thing isn't new- it was the point of departure for the plots of both The Good Life and Howards' Way. And I can vouch for the extra sang-froid it gives someone in the face of workplace unpleasantness.
It's clearly not helpful for our national lifestyle if people opt out of work in mid middle age. But motivating an employee who has decided they aren't bothered about the money isn't easy, and I'm not sure how many businesses are up to the challenge.
Yes. The Good Life started with the Goods having paid off their mortgage on a large house in Surbiton's premier road on a single income before Tom's 40th birthday. Try doing that now!
No kids, mind. And probably joined the company aged 17, no university and worked his way up. (Good friends with one of the higher ups, too, so a helping hand?)
Quite seriouly, on the Israel-Iran "28th small disagreement", I think Netanyahu, like Trump, is perhaps overemphasising the short term - he is nearly as old as Trump and will not have to bear the consequences, whilst keeping himself out the of the orbit of the corruption investigation he faces.
There a rhetoric around of needing Iran never to have nuclear weapons (eg Trump), and 'fix this once and for all', but istm that this will no more ensure a peaceful Middle East than did Operation Peace for Galilee in 1982 (invasion of Lebanon) ensured a peaceful northern region of Israel - especially at it was launched out of the blue whilst a dialogue process was ongoing.
And there are two things I think are pretty-much guaranteed:
1 - A further half century of hostility to Israel. 2 - Countries in the region, especially but not limited to Iran, will consider a nuclear deterrent to be essential. Just as Trump's demolition of the international order will very likely result in nuclear proliferation; the Victorian age is not coming back.
They might imo get 15 years of peace.
An important factor is that Iran is a Shia country, and it isn't an Arab country, which means you'll get a lot of "thoughts and prayers" type of reactions among Sunni Arabs.
The governing elites in the Gulf States are probably more scared than Israel, of a nuclear-armed Iran & they'll be quietly cheering the bombing campaign. A complete destruction of Iran's nuclear capability would make it less likely that countries like Saudi would pursue the Bomb.
I've been doing a bit of research, and I fully get why Israel attacked now. Between February and May of this year, Iran's 60% Uranium (i.e. enriched to be be 60% U235) surged from 250kg to over 400kg.
The good news is that 60% enriched uranium is not *quite* enough for a bomb: that requires getting up to 80% enriched uranium. The bad news is that while the attacks will significantly impact Iran's ability to further enrich uranium for a while... it almost certainly won't have destroyed any of the 400+kg of 60% enriched uranium.
And those 400kg are enough to make about 9 "bombs". And getting from 60% to 80% - while difficult - is not that difficult.
If you’re correct that explains Trump’s behaviour. Israel has persuaded Washington that Iran is now an existential threat to Israel
Only the USAF can take out that underground nuke base. So the USAF will do it
Brace!
I don't believe that even the USAF can easily destroy Iran's stockpile of enriched uranium. Destroying things that have been tunnelled under massive amounts of rock is really, really difficult.
Doesn't that cut both ways though, if its under a massive amount of rock then if you can bring that massive amount of rock down upon it, then it will be well buried and inaccessible?
Then ensure that there's no excavations permitted there and that land is off limits or conflict resumes.
What's the path to global conflict, though. G7 have just issued a call for restraint which leaves, er, Russia, to fight the US. Or China. But we know that China has other fish to fry and therefore we're not 100% sure that they will arm Iran and all of a sudden be in a proxy war in the ME.
Not to say we won't get to Armageddon but it's not as though Trump ordered the 30th Armoured Heavy Brigade to Odessa.
I think the most likely scenario for Farage appearing on Strictly is after he is hoofed out of Reform UK, or if the party disintegrates or fractures around him. Without that, I think his ambition will rule his actions whilst he assesses he has a chance of a serious political role.
Given his Merrie Englande image, it should perhaps be Morris Dancing.
BTW They may have lost another Councillor up @Taz 's way, one Michael David Ramage. As has been remarked elsewhere - is someone taking the P ?
The guy is not listed as being in the RefUK group on the Council website, and as an ex-Member of the relevant Ref UK facebook group, but does seem to know a fair but about construction - especially bus stations (that's a complement - he knows his stuff in this area, and is taking a real interest):
"Rushworth MP won't help people he considers are Reform Party members or Reform supporters or Reform Activists. So having alleged I am a Reform activist (I'm probably more socialist than him) he won't help me.... (case summary).
I think the most likely scenario for Farage appearing on Strictly is after he is hoofed out of Reform UK, or if the party disintegrates or fractures around him. Without that, I think his ambition will rule his actions whilst he assesses he has a chance of a serious political role.
Given his Merrie Englande image, it should perhaps be Morris Dancing.
BTW They may have lost another Councillor up @Taz 's way, one Michael David Ramage. As has been remarked elsewhere - is someone taking the P ?
The guy is not listed as being in the RefUK group on the Council website, and as an ex-Member of the relevant Ref UK facebook group, but does seem to know a fair but about construction - especially bus stations (that's a complement - he knows his stuff in this area, and is taking a real interest):
"Rushworth MP won't help people he considers are Reform Party members or Reform supporters or Reform Activists. So having alleged I am a Reform activist (I'm probably more socialist than him) he won't help me.... (case summary).
Alleged?
Possibly although the council webpage does have his party as Reform.
It’s interesting how people seem to be really scrutinising Reform here but yesterday Labour lost its majority on a council in Cheshire with two councillors switching to independent and rather critical about Labour too.
Barely a murmur,
At this point, Reform are beating the Conservatives and Labour almost everywhere, and the minor parties/independents.
They’ll have reached 1,000 councillors, even before next May.
Hmmm... the political ghosts of the New Party, Doctor Death´s SDP, Dick Taverne´s SDP, Change UK and many others all say hello. While I agree the Tories are very sick and deserve obliteration, the positive narrative for the Faragistas is pretty thin. Not convinced that the next three years will bring the far right home. The party isn´t a party and there is little beyond the Mosleyiste glamour of NF that keeps them together,
With a GE looming the disinterested will refocus and decide which 'Big party' to go for. Polling still shows that's LabCon in much higher % than RefLib and the trailing greens Its all about the order Lab, Con and Ref finish (and how much the LDs hold/progress)
I'm sure that was what the Socialists and the RFR thought in France.
Well other outcones are possible, sure. Nothing is set in stone so you go with what you reckon
Hot take (from my mate who's an Iranian exile so make of that what you will):
My Question: What do ordinary Iranians think of it all His Answer: They just want to get rid of the mullahs
Q: Do they care that it's Israel doing the getting rid of A: No, in fact on X Iranians are tagging IGRC targets for the IDF and then the IDF attacks those targets [!!!!!!]
Q: What is the concern, if any A: We are worried about the infrastructure
While that might be true do these exiles really think that the majority of Iranians who remain in the country will vote for a reformer government that will step back from hard-line Islamism? Seems a bit naïve.
The answer is who knows? because the religious authorities vet all candidates before allowing them to stand. So we have no idea how well supported a genuinely more liberal candidate would be, because the Mullahs don't risk them being on the ballot paper.
Is though? The Arab spring shows that the silent majority in these countries wants the Islamic rule.
What's the path to global conflict, though. G7 have just issued a call for restraint which leaves, er, Russia, to fight the US. Or China. But we know that China has other fish to fry and therefore we're not 100% sure that they will arm Iran and all of a sudden be in a proxy war in the ME.
Not to say we won't get to Armageddon but it's not as though Trump ordered the 30th Armoured Heavy Brigade to Odessa.
'Calls for restraint' are meanimgless. Its the G7 trying to show they are nice people really. Theyll fire up the bombs the second war expands
Quite seriouly, on the Israel-Iran "28th small disagreement", I think Netanyahu, like Trump, is perhaps overemphasising the short term - he is nearly as old as Trump and will not have to bear the consequences, whilst keeping himself out the of the orbit of the corruption investigation he faces.
There a rhetoric around of needing Iran never to have nuclear weapons (eg Trump), and 'fix this once and for all', but istm that this will no more ensure a peaceful Middle East than did Operation Peace for Galilee in 1982 (invasion of Lebanon) ensured a peaceful northern region of Israel - especially at it was launched out of the blue whilst a dialogue process was ongoing.
And there are two things I think are pretty-much guaranteed:
1 - A further half century of hostility to Israel. 2 - Countries in the region, especially but not limited to Iran, will consider a nuclear deterrent to be essential. Just as Trump's demolition of the international order will very likely result in nuclear proliferation; the Victorian age is not coming back.
They might imo get 15 years of peace.
An important factor is that Iran is a Shia country, and it isn't an Arab country, which means you'll get a lot of "thoughts and prayers" type of reactions among Sunni Arabs.
The governing elites in the Gulf States are probably more scared than Israel, of a nuclear-armed Iran & they'll be quietly cheering the bombing campaign. A complete destruction of Iran's nuclear capability would make it less likely that countries like Saudi would pursue the Bomb.
I've been doing a bit of research, and I fully get why Israel attacked now. Between February and May of this year, Iran's 60% Uranium (i.e. enriched to be be 60% U235) surged from 250kg to over 400kg.
The good news is that 60% enriched uranium is not *quite* enough for a bomb: that requires getting up to 80% enriched uranium. The bad news is that while the attacks will significantly impact Iran's ability to further enrich uranium for a while... it almost certainly won't have destroyed any of the 400+kg of 60% enriched uranium.
And those 400kg are enough to make about 9 "bombs". And getting from 60% to 80% - while difficult - is not that difficult.
If you’re correct that explains Trump’s behaviour. Israel has persuaded Washington that Iran is now an existential threat to Israel
Only the USAF can take out that underground nuke base. So the USAF will do it
Brace!
I don't believe that even the USAF can easily destroy Iran's stockpile of enriched uranium. Destroying things that have been tunnelled under massive amounts of rock is really, really difficult.
Doesn't that cut both ways though, if its under a massive amount of rock then if you can bring that massive amount of rock down upon it, then it will be well buried and inaccessible?
Then ensure that there's no excavations permitted there and that land is off limits or conflict resumes.
Luckily Russian nuclear guards don't take bribes and Pakistani ones feel no religious brotherhood.
Quite seriouly, on the Israel-Iran "28th small disagreement", I think Netanyahu, like Trump, is perhaps overemphasising the short term - he is nearly as old as Trump and will not have to bear the consequences, whilst keeping himself out the of the orbit of the corruption investigation he faces.
There a rhetoric around of needing Iran never to have nuclear weapons (eg Trump), and 'fix this once and for all', but istm that this will no more ensure a peaceful Middle East than did Operation Peace for Galilee in 1982 (invasion of Lebanon) ensured a peaceful northern region of Israel - especially at it was launched out of the blue whilst a dialogue process was ongoing.
And there are two things I think are pretty-much guaranteed:
1 - A further half century of hostility to Israel. 2 - Countries in the region, especially but not limited to Iran, will consider a nuclear deterrent to be essential. Just as Trump's demolition of the international order will very likely result in nuclear proliferation; the Victorian age is not coming back.
They might imo get 15 years of peace.
An important factor is that Iran is a Shia country, and it isn't an Arab country, which means you'll get a lot of "thoughts and prayers" type of reactions among Sunni Arabs.
The governing elites in the Gulf States are probably more scared than Israel, of a nuclear-armed Iran & they'll be quietly cheering the bombing campaign. A complete destruction of Iran's nuclear capability would make it less likely that countries like Saudi would pursue the Bomb.
I've been doing a bit of research, and I fully get why Israel attacked now. Between February and May of this year, Iran's 60% Uranium (i.e. enriched to be be 60% U235) surged from 250kg to over 400kg.
The good news is that 60% enriched uranium is not *quite* enough for a bomb: that requires getting up to 80% enriched uranium. The bad news is that while the attacks will significantly impact Iran's ability to further enrich uranium for a while... it almost certainly won't have destroyed any of the 400+kg of 60% enriched uranium.
And those 400kg are enough to make about 9 "bombs". And getting from 60% to 80% - while difficult - is not that difficult.
If you’re correct that explains Trump’s behaviour. Israel has persuaded Washington that Iran is now an existential threat to Israel
Only the USAF can take out that underground nuke base. So the USAF will do it
Brace!
I don't believe that even the USAF can easily destroy Iran's stockpile of enriched uranium. Destroying things that have been tunnelled under massive amounts of rock is really, really difficult.
Nuke the Nukes?
Alternatively, bomb Iran into regime change
Either seems a tiny bit risky
Radiological incident chances are high even if we dont see a portobello cloud
Hot take (from my mate who's an Iranian exile so make of that what you will):
My Question: What do ordinary Iranians think of it all His Answer: They just want to get rid of the mullahs
Q: Do they care that it's Israel doing the getting rid of A: No, in fact on X Iranians are tagging IGRC targets for the IDF and then the IDF attacks those targets [!!!!!!]
Q: What is the concern, if any A: We are worried about the infrastructure
An Iranian friend (more my wife's than mine - and this comes via my wife, who spoke to her yesterday) who has lived in Australia for the past decade, but still has family in Shiraz and visits a few times a year, is far more anti-Israel but also very much in favour of the Iranian government being toppled. She's had to run from the morality police a number of times. She'd like both governments to fall.
Quite seriouly, on the Israel-Iran "28th small disagreement", I think Netanyahu, like Trump, is perhaps overemphasising the short term - he is nearly as old as Trump and will not have to bear the consequences, whilst keeping himself out the of the orbit of the corruption investigation he faces.
There a rhetoric around of needing Iran never to have nuclear weapons (eg Trump), and 'fix this once and for all', but istm that this will no more ensure a peaceful Middle East than did Operation Peace for Galilee in 1982 (invasion of Lebanon) ensured a peaceful northern region of Israel - especially at it was launched out of the blue whilst a dialogue process was ongoing.
And there are two things I think are pretty-much guaranteed:
1 - A further half century of hostility to Israel. 2 - Countries in the region, especially but not limited to Iran, will consider a nuclear deterrent to be essential. Just as Trump's demolition of the international order will very likely result in nuclear proliferation; the Victorian age is not coming back.
They might imo get 15 years of peace.
An important factor is that Iran is a Shia country, and it isn't an Arab country, which means you'll get a lot of "thoughts and prayers" type of reactions among Sunni Arabs.
The governing elites in the Gulf States are probably more scared than Israel, of a nuclear-armed Iran & they'll be quietly cheering the bombing campaign. A complete destruction of Iran's nuclear capability would make it less likely that countries like Saudi would pursue the Bomb.
I've been doing a bit of research, and I fully get why Israel attacked now. Between February and May of this year, Iran's 60% Uranium (i.e. enriched to be be 60% U235) surged from 250kg to over 400kg.
The good news is that 60% enriched uranium is not *quite* enough for a bomb: that requires getting up to 80% enriched uranium. The bad news is that while the attacks will significantly impact Iran's ability to further enrich uranium for a while... it almost certainly won't have destroyed any of the 400+kg of 60% enriched uranium.
And those 400kg are enough to make about 9 "bombs". And getting from 60% to 80% - while difficult - is not that difficult.
If you’re correct that explains Trump’s behaviour. Israel has persuaded Washington that Iran is now an existential threat to Israel
Only the USAF can take out that underground nuke base. So the USAF will do it
Brace!
I don't believe that even the USAF can easily destroy Iran's stockpile of enriched uranium. Destroying things that have been tunnelled under massive amounts of rock is really, really difficult.
Doesn't that cut both ways though, if its under a massive amount of rock then if you can bring that massive amount of rock down upon it, then it will be well buried and inaccessible?
Then ensure that there's no excavations permitted there and that land is off limits or conflict resumes.
From a physics perspective, it's just really tough to do - unless you go the nuclear route, because millions of tonnes of rock is not easily moved. The US's most powerful bomb - the GBU-57A/B - can blow a hole up to 40 meters deep... But 40 meters isn't necessarily that much. Now, sure, you can drop more than one, but a few hundred meters of mountain is really hard to get through.
Hot take (from my mate who's an Iranian exile so make of that what you will):
My Question: What do ordinary Iranians think of it all His Answer: They just want to get rid of the mullahs
Q: Do they care that it's Israel doing the getting rid of A: No, in fact on X Iranians are tagging IGRC targets for the IDF and then the IDF attacks those targets [!!!!!!]
Q: What is the concern, if any A: We are worried about the infrastructure
While that might be true do these exiles really think that the majority of Iranians who remain in the country will vote for a reformer government that will step back from hard-line Islamism? Seems a bit naïve.
The answer is who knows? because the religious authorities vet all candidates before allowing them to stand. So we have no idea how well supported a genuinely more liberal candidate would be, because the Mullahs don't risk them being on the ballot paper.
Is though? The Arab spring shows that the silent majority in these countries wants the Islamic rule.
Not sure that’s true of Egypt, for a start; and certainly not sure that’s true of Iran
Notably, both countries have grand imperial histories stretching back way before Islam - so they have alternatives views of themselves. They have been great yet NOT Islamic in the past
I think the most likely scenario for Farage appearing on Strictly is after he is hoofed out of Reform UK, or if the party disintegrates or fractures around him. Without that, I think his ambition will rule his actions whilst he assesses he has a chance of a serious political role.
Given his Merrie Englande image, it should perhaps be Morris Dancing.
BTW They may have lost another Councillor up @Taz 's way, one Michael David Ramage. As has been remarked elsewhere - is someone taking the P ?
The guy is not listed as being in the RefUK group on the Council website, and as an ex-Member of the relevant Ref UK facebook group, but does seem to know a fair but about construction - especially bus stations (that's a complement - he knows his stuff in this area, and is taking a real interest):
"Rushworth MP won't help people he considers are Reform Party members or Reform supporters or Reform Activists. So having alleged I am a Reform activist (I'm probably more socialist than him) he won't help me.... (case summary).
I think the most likely scenario for Farage appearing on Strictly is after he is hoofed out of Reform UK, or if the party disintegrates or fractures around him. Without that, I think his ambition will rule his actions whilst he assesses he has a chance of a serious political role.
Given his Merrie Englande image, it should perhaps be Morris Dancing.
BTW They may have lost another Councillor up @Taz 's way, one Michael David Ramage. As has been remarked elsewhere - is someone taking the P ?
The guy is not listed as being in the RefUK group on the Council website, and as an ex-Member of the relevant Ref UK facebook group, but does seem to know a fair but about construction - especially bus stations (that's a complement - he knows his stuff in this area, and is taking a real interest):
"Rushworth MP won't help people he considers are Reform Party members or Reform supporters or Reform Activists. So having alleged I am a Reform activist (I'm probably more socialist than him) he won't help me.... (case summary).
Alleged?
Possibly although the council webpage does have his party as Reform.
It’s interesting how people seem to be really scrutinising Reform here but yesterday Labour lost its majority on a council in Cheshire with two councillors switching to independent and rather critical about Labour too.
Barely a murmur,
At this point, Reform are beating the Conservatives and Labour almost everywhere, and the minor parties/independents.
They’ll have reached 1,000 councillors, even before next May.
Hmmm... the political ghosts of the New Party, Doctor Death´s SDP, Dick Taverne´s SDP, Change UK and many others all say hello. While I agree the Tories are very sick and deserve obliteration, the positive narrative for the Faragistas is pretty thin. Not convinced that the next three years will bring the far right home. The party isn´t a party and there is little beyond the Mosleyiste glamour of NF that keeps them together,
But sometimes parties do break through. It's rare but it's not an impossibility. Labour did. The SNP did in Scotland.
Yes, you can argue 'special case' for both of them; one down to WWI / Liberal splits / changing electorate, the other to the Scottish parliament, PR and both UK and Scottish Labour being vulnerable in UKLab's 3rd term. But other special cases will occur too.
Are we in one now? Both historic dominant parties are led by weak leaders who don't get, or can't do, the basics. One is a bureaucrat; one is an easily-distracted internet-focused activist. Both parties are unpopular and have reputations tied down with failures and a lack of vision. So yes, this is an opportunity.
Sure, there have been such opportunities in the past too - 1981 and 2019 both being cases in point - but while they didn't ultimately break the mould that wasn't a preordained outcome in either instance.
And the political environment is different from the past, particularly in terms of media but also a declining former First World. We only have to look at other countries further down the same road to know it's possible here too. We are not much different to other OECD countries. Effective populists can take on the old mainstream more easily.
Of course Reform have weaknesses, most obviously in their over-reliance on Farage, and Farage's own lack of dedication to the task. But while that does matter it won't necessarily be fatal, depending on how annoyed the electorate is come 2028/29 and what the alternatives are. I certainly think it unlikely the Reform bubble will burst any time this year.
Hot take (from my mate who's an Iranian exile so make of that what you will):
My Question: What do ordinary Iranians think of it all His Answer: They just want to get rid of the mullahs
Q: Do they care that it's Israel doing the getting rid of A: No, in fact on X Iranians are tagging IGRC targets for the IDF and then the IDF attacks those targets [!!!!!!]
Q: What is the concern, if any A: We are worried about the infrastructure
An Iranian friend (more my wife's than mine - and this comes via my wife, who spoke to her yesterday) who has lived in Australia for the past decade, but still has family in Shiraz and visits a few times a year, is far more anti-Israel but also very much in favour of the Iranian government being toppled. She's had to run from the morality police a number of times. She'd like both governments to fall.
I have an Iranian friend living in the UK who is farsee. We've fallen out of touch, so it would be crass to get back in contact just to ask her views. She is non-fan of the regime, but must be worried.
Hot take (from my mate who's an Iranian exile so make of that what you will):
My Question: What do ordinary Iranians think of it all His Answer: They just want to get rid of the mullahs
Q: Do they care that it's Israel doing the getting rid of A: No, in fact on X Iranians are tagging IGRC targets for the IDF and then the IDF attacks those targets [!!!!!!]
Q: What is the concern, if any A: We are worried about the infrastructure
While that might be true do these exiles really think that the majority of Iranians who remain in the country will vote for a reformer government that will step back from hard-line Islamism? Seems a bit naïve.
The answer is who knows? because the religious authorities vet all candidates before allowing them to stand. So we have no idea how well supported a genuinely more liberal candidate would be, because the Mullahs don't risk them being on the ballot paper.
Is though? The Arab spring shows that the silent majority in these countries wants the Islamic rule.
Well, Iran is not an Arab country. And if the religious authorities were sure that the people would always vote the right way why would they need to bar candidates from the ballot?
Quite seriouly, on the Israel-Iran "28th small disagreement", I think Netanyahu, like Trump, is perhaps overemphasising the short term - he is nearly as old as Trump and will not have to bear the consequences, whilst keeping himself out the of the orbit of the corruption investigation he faces.
There a rhetoric around of needing Iran never to have nuclear weapons (eg Trump), and 'fix this once and for all', but istm that this will no more ensure a peaceful Middle East than did Operation Peace for Galilee in 1982 (invasion of Lebanon) ensured a peaceful northern region of Israel - especially at it was launched out of the blue whilst a dialogue process was ongoing.
And there are two things I think are pretty-much guaranteed:
1 - A further half century of hostility to Israel. 2 - Countries in the region, especially but not limited to Iran, will consider a nuclear deterrent to be essential. Just as Trump's demolition of the international order will very likely result in nuclear proliferation; the Victorian age is not coming back.
They might imo get 15 years of peace.
An important factor is that Iran is a Shia country, and it isn't an Arab country, which means you'll get a lot of "thoughts and prayers" type of reactions among Sunni Arabs.
The governing elites in the Gulf States are probably more scared than Israel, of a nuclear-armed Iran & they'll be quietly cheering the bombing campaign. A complete destruction of Iran's nuclear capability would make it less likely that countries like Saudi would pursue the Bomb.
I've been doing a bit of research, and I fully get why Israel attacked now. Between February and May of this year, Iran's 60% Uranium (i.e. enriched to be be 60% U235) surged from 250kg to over 400kg.
The good news is that 60% enriched uranium is not *quite* enough for a bomb: that requires getting up to 80% enriched uranium. The bad news is that while the attacks will significantly impact Iran's ability to further enrich uranium for a while... it almost certainly won't have destroyed any of the 400+kg of 60% enriched uranium.
And those 400kg are enough to make about 9 "bombs". And getting from 60% to 80% - while difficult - is not that difficult.
If you’re correct that explains Trump’s behaviour. Israel has persuaded Washington that Iran is now an existential threat to Israel
Only the USAF can take out that underground nuke base. So the USAF will do it
Brace!
I don't believe that even the USAF can easily destroy Iran's stockpile of enriched uranium. Destroying things that have been tunnelled under massive amounts of rock is really, really difficult.
Doesn't that cut both ways though, if its under a massive amount of rock then if you can bring that massive amount of rock down upon it, then it will be well buried and inaccessible?
Then ensure that there's no excavations permitted there and that land is off limits or conflict resumes.
From a physics perspective, it's just really tough to do - unless you go the nuclear route, because millions of tonnes of rock is not easily moved. The US's most powerful bomb - the GBU-57A/B - can blow a hole up to 40 meters deep... But 40 meters isn't necessarily that much. Now, sure, you can drop more than one, but a few hundred meters of mountain is really hard to get through.
Precisely. Cheyenne can apparently take several multi megaton nukes directly and theyll still be tinkering about underneath. The stuff isnt in a sub basement of an office block
Hot take (from my mate who's an Iranian exile so make of that what you will):
My Question: What do ordinary Iranians think of it all His Answer: They just want to get rid of the mullahs
Q: Do they care that it's Israel doing the getting rid of A: No, in fact on X Iranians are tagging IGRC targets for the IDF and then the IDF attacks those targets [!!!!!!]
Q: What is the concern, if any A: We are worried about the infrastructure
An Iranian friend (more my wife's than mine - and this comes via my wife, who spoke to her yesterday) who has lived in Australia for the past decade, but still has family in Shiraz and visits a few times a year, is far more anti-Israel but also very much in favour of the Iranian government being toppled. She's had to run from the morality police a number of times. She'd like both governments to fall.
I have an Iranian friend living in the UK who is farsee. We've fallen out of touch, so it would be crass to get back in contact just to ask her views. She is non-fan of the regime, but must be worried.
I know *many* Iranians (or ex-Iranians). None are fans of the regime. But, of course, that's one of the reasons they're not in Iran.
What's the path to global conflict, though. G7 have just issued a call for restraint which leaves, er, Russia, to fight the US. Or China. But we know that China has other fish to fry and therefore we're not 100% sure that they will arm Iran and all of a sudden be in a proxy war in the ME.
Not to say we won't get to Armageddon but it's not as though Trump ordered the 30th Armoured Heavy Brigade to Odessa.
The two most damaging consequences would seem to be Iran causing an oil crisis, and Russia's nose being put out of joint by seeing their ally demolished.
Both would seem to encourage Russia to fight for longer in Ukraine, by providing more money and making a reconciliation with the West more difficult. Potentially that ultimately leads to direct military conflict between European NATO countries and Russia - and that might convince Xi that he has a window of opportunity to invade Taiwan. Maybe.
More evidence - striking evidence - that Iran is not some unshiftable Islamic monolith
“In February, a senior Iranian cleric, Mohammad Abolghassem Doulabi, revealed that 50,000 out of 75,000 mosques nationwide had been closed due to a significant decline in attendance.
“Doulabi,, an intermediary between President Ebrahim Raisi's administration and the country's seminaries, expressed concern over the fall and its implications for a state founded on Islamic principles”
I suspect at least half of Iranians would throw off the mullahs tomorrow, given the chance. Unfortunately you probably cannot bomb your way to this outcome via the Israeli military
‘I tried to warn them, but no one listened’ – one man’s crusade against HS2 ... [Big snip] ... Fast forward to today and the cost of HS2 has reached as high as £100bn from an initial budget of £38bn (by 2009 prices), despite cancellation of the entire northern section to Manchester.
Earlier this year, MPs on the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) concluded it was a “casebook example of how not to run a project” and a risk to the UK’s reputation.
Quite seriouly, on the Israel-Iran "28th small disagreement", I think Netanyahu, like Trump, is perhaps overemphasising the short term - he is nearly as old as Trump and will not have to bear the consequences, whilst keeping himself out the of the orbit of the corruption investigation he faces.
There a rhetoric around of needing Iran never to have nuclear weapons (eg Trump), and 'fix this once and for all', but istm that this will no more ensure a peaceful Middle East than did Operation Peace for Galilee in 1982 (invasion of Lebanon) ensured a peaceful northern region of Israel - especially at it was launched out of the blue whilst a dialogue process was ongoing.
And there are two things I think are pretty-much guaranteed:
1 - A further half century of hostility to Israel. 2 - Countries in the region, especially but not limited to Iran, will consider a nuclear deterrent to be essential. Just as Trump's demolition of the international order will very likely result in nuclear proliferation; the Victorian age is not coming back.
They might imo get 15 years of peace.
An important factor is that Iran is a Shia country, and it isn't an Arab country, which means you'll get a lot of "thoughts and prayers" type of reactions among Sunni Arabs.
The governing elites in the Gulf States are probably more scared than Israel, of a nuclear-armed Iran & they'll be quietly cheering the bombing campaign. A complete destruction of Iran's nuclear capability would make it less likely that countries like Saudi would pursue the Bomb.
Three observations.
1 - We have had an Iran-Saudi proxy war for a long time (is 1979 a fair time to date the rivalry's re-emergence?), at various levels, as they struggle for whom will be regionally dominant.
2 - The Oct 7 attacks on Israel came at a time when Israel-Saudi relations had been improving for a long time, and Israel had recent agreements with various Arab nations in the Gulf.
3 - IMO long-term peace may be about reversing an instability dynamic of Arab vs Persian vs Israel, where one blows up positive moves between the other two in search off loss to "us". I have no idea what that could look like, but I don't think knocking out Iran is a good option for longer term resolution; it may be a shorter term gain for Saudi and Israel.
Are there lessons to be learnt from the rebuilding of Axis countries after WW2, however distant ?
Quite seriouly, on the Israel-Iran "28th small disagreement", I think Netanyahu, like Trump, is perhaps overemphasising the short term - he is nearly as old as Trump and will not have to bear the consequences, whilst keeping himself out the of the orbit of the corruption investigation he faces.
There a rhetoric around of needing Iran never to have nuclear weapons (eg Trump), and 'fix this once and for all', but istm that this will no more ensure a peaceful Middle East than did Operation Peace for Galilee in 1982 (invasion of Lebanon) ensured a peaceful northern region of Israel - especially at it was launched out of the blue whilst a dialogue process was ongoing.
And there are two things I think are pretty-much guaranteed:
1 - A further half century of hostility to Israel. 2 - Countries in the region, especially but not limited to Iran, will consider a nuclear deterrent to be essential. Just as Trump's demolition of the international order will very likely result in nuclear proliferation; the Victorian age is not coming back.
They might imo get 15 years of peace.
An important factor is that Iran is a Shia country, and it isn't an Arab country, which means you'll get a lot of "thoughts and prayers" type of reactions among Sunni Arabs.
The governing elites in the Gulf States are probably more scared than Israel, of a nuclear-armed Iran & they'll be quietly cheering the bombing campaign. A complete destruction of Iran's nuclear capability would make it less likely that countries like Saudi would pursue the Bomb.
I've been doing a bit of research, and I fully get why Israel attacked now. Between February and May of this year, Iran's 60% Uranium (i.e. enriched to be be 60% U235) surged from 250kg to over 400kg.
The good news is that 60% enriched uranium is not *quite* enough for a bomb: that requires getting up to 80% enriched uranium. The bad news is that while the attacks will significantly impact Iran's ability to further enrich uranium for a while... it almost certainly won't have destroyed any of the 400+kg of 60% enriched uranium.
And those 400kg are enough to make about 9 "bombs". And getting from 60% to 80% - while difficult - is not that difficult.
If you’re correct that explains Trump’s behaviour. Israel has persuaded Washington that Iran is now an existential threat to Israel
Only the USAF can take out that underground nuke base. So the USAF will do it
Brace!
I don't believe that even the USAF can easily destroy Iran's stockpile of enriched uranium. Destroying things that have been tunnelled under massive amounts of rock is really, really difficult.
Doesn't that cut both ways though, if its under a massive amount of rock then if you can bring that massive amount of rock down upon it, then it will be well buried and inaccessible?
Then ensure that there's no excavations permitted there and that land is off limits or conflict resumes.
From a physics perspective, it's just really tough to do - unless you go the nuclear route, because millions of tonnes of rock is not easily moved. The US's most powerful bomb - the GBU-57A/B - can blow a hole up to 40 meters deep... But 40 meters isn't necessarily that much. Now, sure, you can drop more than one, but a few hundred meters of mountain is really hard to get through.
Interesting that Labour has been consistently gaining in the polls since they did the WFA U-turn.
It was a good political decision to do the U-turn.
A good political decision, a bad decision for the country's long term future. Unfortunately, giving people money they don't need is always going to be more popular than investing for the long term or putting our fiscal house in order. This is how countries fail, death by a thousand refusals to take difficult decisions. To be fair to the government, they did try. This one is on the voters, and the populists who are indulging them.
We say we want politicians to put country over party but when it happens they get slagged off for being "shit at politics".
If a Labour chancellor had
1) merged Income Tax and NI 2) new rate specifically for pensioners, so lower rate tax pensioners don’t get hit 3) but those on higher rate get to pay the combined tax 4) all non-pension old age benefits go in a blender and come out taxable. 5) while you are at it, overall tax rates are up a bit.
That could have been sold as “more money for ordinary pensioners. Pensioners on £50k+ pay more.”
Overall, I think that would have pleased the party, taken the edge off “cuts” and raised more money. While probably losing less votes.
Hot take (from my mate who's an Iranian exile so make of that what you will):
My Question: What do ordinary Iranians think of it all His Answer: They just want to get rid of the mullahs
Q: Do they care that it's Israel doing the getting rid of A: No, in fact on X Iranians are tagging IGRC targets for the IDF and then the IDF attacks those targets [!!!!!!]
Q: What is the concern, if any A: We are worried about the infrastructure
While that might be true do these exiles really think that the majority of Iranians who remain in the country will vote for a reformer government that will step back from hard-line Islamism? Seems a bit naïve.
The answer is who knows? because the religious authorities vet all candidates before allowing them to stand. So we have no idea how well supported a genuinely more liberal candidate would be, because the Mullahs don't risk them being on the ballot paper.
Is though? The Arab spring shows that the silent majority in these countries wants the Islamic rule.
Not sure that’s true of Egypt, for a start; and certainly not sure that’s true of Iran
Notably, both countries have grand imperial histories stretching back way before Islam - so they have alternatives views of themselves. They have been great yet NOT Islamic in the past
This is not the case for Saudi, Yemen, Oman etc
While I hate to agree with you (on principle), this is an excellent point. Having a national identity matters.
Quite seriouly, on the Israel-Iran "28th small disagreement", I think Netanyahu, like Trump, is perhaps overemphasising the short term - he is nearly as old as Trump and will not have to bear the consequences, whilst keeping himself out the of the orbit of the corruption investigation he faces.
There a rhetoric around of needing Iran never to have nuclear weapons (eg Trump), and 'fix this once and for all', but istm that this will no more ensure a peaceful Middle East than did Operation Peace for Galilee in 1982 (invasion of Lebanon) ensured a peaceful northern region of Israel - especially at it was launched out of the blue whilst a dialogue process was ongoing.
And there are two things I think are pretty-much guaranteed:
1 - A further half century of hostility to Israel. 2 - Countries in the region, especially but not limited to Iran, will consider a nuclear deterrent to be essential. Just as Trump's demolition of the international order will very likely result in nuclear proliferation; the Victorian age is not coming back.
They might imo get 15 years of peace.
Exactly. Israel will win in the short term and probably lose in the long term.
There does seem to be this unproven assumption that you just have to whack the Iranian regime and a friendly, liberal, democracy will emerge that never again threatens Israel.
It seems just as probable to me that Iran ends up with some broadly secular strongman type of government, and unshackled by sanctions grows into the preeminent regional power that in the long term will be a much larger threat to Israel. Think Turkey but bigger and wealthier.
The mere fact Israel has the bomb will damn near guarantee that all future Iranian governments will want it too.
Hypothetical question, if Iran already had the bomb and hadn't immediately use it to turn Israel and environs into an irradiated desert, would Israel (and possibly its big fat sugar daddy) have attacked Iran? If the answer is no, as you say every version of Iran will want a bomb.
Quite seriouly, on the Israel-Iran "28th small disagreement", I think Netanyahu, like Trump, is perhaps overemphasising the short term - he is nearly as old as Trump and will not have to bear the consequences, whilst keeping himself out the of the orbit of the corruption investigation he faces.
There a rhetoric around of needing Iran never to have nuclear weapons (eg Trump), and 'fix this once and for all', but istm that this will no more ensure a peaceful Middle East than did Operation Peace for Galilee in 1982 (invasion of Lebanon) ensured a peaceful northern region of Israel - especially at it was launched out of the blue whilst a dialogue process was ongoing.
And there are two things I think are pretty-much guaranteed:
1 - A further half century of hostility to Israel. 2 - Countries in the region, especially but not limited to Iran, will consider a nuclear deterrent to be essential. Just as Trump's demolition of the international order will very likely result in nuclear proliferation; the Victorian age is not coming back.
They might imo get 15 years of peace.
An important factor is that Iran is a Shia country, and it isn't an Arab country, which means you'll get a lot of "thoughts and prayers" type of reactions among Sunni Arabs.
The governing elites in the Gulf States are probably more scared than Israel, of a nuclear-armed Iran & they'll be quietly cheering the bombing campaign. A complete destruction of Iran's nuclear capability would make it less likely that countries like Saudi would pursue the Bomb.
I've been doing a bit of research, and I fully get why Israel attacked now. Between February and May of this year, Iran's 60% Uranium (i.e. enriched to be be 60% U235) surged from 250kg to over 400kg.
The good news is that 60% enriched uranium is not *quite* enough for a bomb: that requires getting up to 80% enriched uranium. The bad news is that while the attacks will significantly impact Iran's ability to further enrich uranium for a while... it almost certainly won't have destroyed any of the 400+kg of 60% enriched uranium.
And those 400kg are enough to make about 9 "bombs". And getting from 60% to 80% - while difficult - is not that difficult.
If you’re correct that explains Trump’s behaviour. Israel has persuaded Washington that Iran is now an existential threat to Israel
Only the USAF can take out that underground nuke base. So the USAF will do it
Brace!
I don't believe that even the USAF can easily destroy Iran's stockpile of enriched uranium. Destroying things that have been tunnelled under massive amounts of rock is really, really difficult.
Doesn't that cut both ways though, if its under a massive amount of rock then if you can bring that massive amount of rock down upon it, then it will be well buried and inaccessible?
Then ensure that there's no excavations permitted there and that land is off limits or conflict resumes.
From a physics perspective, it's just really tough to do - unless you go the nuclear route, because millions of tonnes of rock is not easily moved. The US's most powerful bomb - the GBU-57A/B - can blow a hole up to 40 meters deep... But 40 meters isn't necessarily that much. Now, sure, you can drop more than one, but a few hundred meters of mountain is really hard to get through.
Sounds like a commando raid is needed
Well yes: the problem is that (as the Americans discovered in Iran in 1980) sending a team thousands of miles by air, landing them, achieving a mission, and then getting back out again is really difficult.
I’ve always thought that if the decades long surge in Islamic conservatism comes to an end - inshallah - then that end will happen in Iran, where it began with the 1979 Revolution
They are a proud people. A great imperial nation with a long history, at least half of it pre Islamic. They are NOT Arabs. They are not Sunni - the mainstream of Islam. They are also bored of nearly 50 years of numbing orthodox theocracy and they want to be free. So they’ve stopped going to mosques, en masse
May Allah give them strength to rid themselves of their truly evil regime
More evidence - striking evidence - that Iran is not some unshiftable Islamic monolith
“In February, a senior Iranian cleric, Mohammad Abolghassem Doulabi, revealed that 50,000 out of 75,000 mosques nationwide had been closed due to a significant decline in attendance.
“Doulabi,, an intermediary between President Ebrahim Raisi's administration and the country's seminaries, expressed concern over the fall and its implications for a state founded on Islamic principles”
I suspect at least half of Iranians would throw off the mullahs tomorrow, given the chance. Unfortunately you probably cannot bomb your way to this outcome via the Israeli military
As a serious enquiry, what could be in its place 5-10 years after the Mullahs were thrown off in Iran?
That's a serious enquiry - which other country would be the historical prototype?
I'm struggling to see something positive, though perhaps less negative is the best we can hope for. Is some distant analogue of post-Ottoman Turkey possible (constructed by whom?) ? Or will it turn into another Syria / Libya?
I'm reminded of my favourite Terry Waite quote (pataphrased):
'When all is done, there needs to exist a door through which you can leave together."
Musing on tax and pension matters after my debate with MaxPB and others yesterday evening, I'm left with two thoughts.
The sense of being "over taxed" is compounded by the failure to raise thresholds. This "fiscal drag" or "stealth tax" instigated by the high-tax Conservative Government and now initated by its Labour successor has dragged so many more people into the higher tax bracket in the sense more of their income is now taxed at the 40% rate.
When I argued for a new 50% higher rate, apart from the usual howl of outrage, one or two failed to read the next bit which was to bring the thresholds to where they would have been allowing for annual RPI so the rates would rise so many middle to high income earners wouldm probably be better off from a simple 25p basic rate and 50p higher rate if the threshold from the former to the latter was set much higher than now.
The second point was about pensions - again, the usual wailing and gnashing of teeth about "public sector pensions" which are complex and by no means all the same - a Teacher's Pension is not a Local Government Officer's pension which in turn is not a Police pension or a civil servant pension.
In the Local Government Scheme (LPGS), there are swingeing penalties if you leave to take your benefits early - up to 25% if you go five years before your retirement. The problem is those staff are a) not likely to progress further andf b) are simply place-sitting preventing younger (and possibly more productive) staff from moving up and progressing. This needs to be re-thought within LPGS and elsewhere.
There are options for flexible retirement within LPGS whereby you can work fewer hours and start taking some of your pension and we might need to think about how we employ those 60 or above not only in terms of NI contribution but in terms of flexible hours and pension/salary provision.
We come back to the central question of how to being the public finances closer to balance in terms of reducing borrowing and the deficit. The debate can't be simply abandoned to the "supply side reform" proponents whose sole mantra is "tax cuts and spending cuts". We are well past it being either/or - it has to be tax rises AND spending cuts but getting the balance right between the two isn't easy. Osborne went for £5 of cuts for every £1 of tax rises but that was a different time and it may well be a more even apportion is apposite.
25% reduction for starting a DB pension 5 years early isn't really a "penalty" though is it ? It's a rough approximation of the extra net present value of the income stream. If you took £1m to an insurance company at age 55 and said "How much less annuity will you give me if it starts today rather than in 5 years time", I'm sure it would be in the region of 25%
I'm sure you're right but that's not how it looks to the member of the scheme where it looks like a penalty and sounds like a penalty but if you have someone who has paid off their mortgage (thanks to low interest rates) and perhaps downsized to a smaller property and taken a nice capital receipt as a result, even the lower figure might be enough for the decision to be made to retire early.
That "paid off mortgage, don't give a stuff" thing isn't new- it was the point of departure for the plots of both The Good Life and Howards' Way. And I can vouch for the extra sang-froid it gives someone in the face of workplace unpleasantness.
It's clearly not helpful for our national lifestyle if people opt out of work in mid middle age. But motivating an employee who has decided they aren't bothered about the money isn't easy, and I'm not sure how many businesses are up to the challenge.
Yes. The Good Life started with the Goods having paid off their mortgage on a large house in Surbiton's premier road on a single income before Tom's 40th birthday. Try doing that now!
No kids, mind. And probably joined the company aged 17, no university and worked his way up. (Good friends with one of the higher ups, too, so a helping hand?)
Art school almost certainly as Tom was a graphic designer (or maybe product designer in which case an engineering background).
Hot take (from my mate who's an Iranian exile so make of that what you will):
My Question: What do ordinary Iranians think of it all His Answer: They just want to get rid of the mullahs
Q: Do they care that it's Israel doing the getting rid of A: No, in fact on X Iranians are tagging IGRC targets for the IDF and then the IDF attacks those targets [!!!!!!]
Q: What is the concern, if any A: We are worried about the infrastructure
While that might be true do these exiles really think that the majority of Iranians who remain in the country will vote for a reformer government that will step back from hard-line Islamism? Seems a bit naïve.
The answer is who knows? because the religious authorities vet all candidates before allowing them to stand. So we have no idea how well supported a genuinely more liberal candidate would be, because the Mullahs don't risk them being on the ballot paper.
Is though? The Arab spring shows that the silent majority in these countries wants the Islamic rule.
Not sure that’s true of Egypt, for a start; and certainly not sure that’s true of Iran
Notably, both countries have grand imperial histories stretching back way before Islam - so they have alternatives views of themselves. They have been great yet NOT Islamic in the past
This is not the case for Saudi, Yemen, Oman etc
While I hate to agree with you (on principle), this is an excellent point. Having a national identity matters.
I had an excellently witty guide on a recent trip to Egypt. He was about 50, smart, highly educated. Father of two daughters (and v proud of them)
We spent a few days together and talked a lot about Egyptian politics and he was quite frank about Egypt’s horrendous problem - mainly socialism in the past and islamism and over-population now
Then he showed me one of their gleaming new museums and he made the emphatic point “this is our past, long before Islam….”
He was proud of Egypt in a way that Chinese people are proud of China in a form that has zero to do with communism
Quite seriouly, on the Israel-Iran "28th small disagreement", I think Netanyahu, like Trump, is perhaps overemphasising the short term - he is nearly as old as Trump and will not have to bear the consequences, whilst keeping himself out the of the orbit of the corruption investigation he faces.
There a rhetoric around of needing Iran never to have nuclear weapons (eg Trump), and 'fix this once and for all', but istm that this will no more ensure a peaceful Middle East than did Operation Peace for Galilee in 1982 (invasion of Lebanon) ensured a peaceful northern region of Israel - especially at it was launched out of the blue whilst a dialogue process was ongoing.
And there are two things I think are pretty-much guaranteed:
1 - A further half century of hostility to Israel. 2 - Countries in the region, especially but not limited to Iran, will consider a nuclear deterrent to be essential. Just as Trump's demolition of the international order will very likely result in nuclear proliferation; the Victorian age is not coming back.
They might imo get 15 years of peace.
Exactly. Israel will win in the short term and probably lose in the long term.
There does seem to be this unproven assumption that you just have to whack the Iranian regime and a friendly, liberal, democracy will emerge that never again threatens Israel.
It seems just as probable to me that Iran ends up with some broadly secular strongman type of government, and unshackled by sanctions grows into the preeminent regional power that in the long term will be a much larger threat to Israel. Think Turkey but bigger and wealthier.
The mere fact Israel has the bomb will damn near guarantee that all future Iranian governments will want it too.
Hypothetical question, if Iran already had the bomb and hadn't immediately use it to turn Israel and environs into an irradiated desert, would Israel (and possibly its big fat sugar daddy) have attacked Iran? If the answer is no, as you say every version of Iran will want a bomb.
Not necessarily.
If Iran weren't seeking the bomb, would Israel have attacked Iran?
If the answer is no, then that's a reason not to seek the bomb.
Wanting it and seeking it are two different things.
More evidence - striking evidence - that Iran is not some unshiftable Islamic monolith
“In February, a senior Iranian cleric, Mohammad Abolghassem Doulabi, revealed that 50,000 out of 75,000 mosques nationwide had been closed due to a significant decline in attendance.
“Doulabi,, an intermediary between President Ebrahim Raisi's administration and the country's seminaries, expressed concern over the fall and its implications for a state founded on Islamic principles”
I suspect at least half of Iranians would throw off the mullahs tomorrow, given the chance. Unfortunately you probably cannot bomb your way to this outcome via the Israeli military
As a serious enquiry, what could be in its place 5-10 years after the Mullahs were thrown off in Iran?
That's a serious enquiry - which other country would be the historical prototype?
I'm struggling to see something positive, though perhaps less negative is the best we can hope for. Is some distant analogue of post-Ottoman Turkey possible (constructed by whom?) ? Or will it turn into another Syria / Libya?
I'm reminded of my favourite Terry Waite quote (pataphrased):
'When all is done, there needs to exist a door through which you can leave together."
Yes it’s tricky. Also Iran is a great mosaic of different ethnicities - Kurdish, Azeri, many others, as well as Persians. So if the mullahs fall there will be a severe risk it all falls apart quite violently
But, again, they do have that magnificent history to inspire them. 🙏
More evidence - striking evidence - that Iran is not some unshiftable Islamic monolith
“In February, a senior Iranian cleric, Mohammad Abolghassem Doulabi, revealed that 50,000 out of 75,000 mosques nationwide had been closed due to a significant decline in attendance.
“Doulabi,, an intermediary between President Ebrahim Raisi's administration and the country's seminaries, expressed concern over the fall and its implications for a state founded on Islamic principles”
I suspect at least half of Iranians would throw off the mullahs tomorrow, given the chance. Unfortunately you probably cannot bomb your way to this outcome via the Israeli military
As a serious enquiry, what could be in its place 5-10 years after the Mullahs were thrown off in Iran?
That's a serious enquiry - which other country would be the historical prototype?
I'm struggling to see something positive, though perhaps less negative is the best we can hope for. Is some distant analogue of post-Ottoman Turkey possible (constructed by whom?) ? Or will it turn into another Syria / Libya?
I'm reminded of my favourite Terry Waite quote (pataphrased):
'When all is done, there needs to exist a door through which you can leave together."
Something like Turkey under Erdogan is possible, perhaps the best-case scenario.
Not a theocracy, but the government still relying on a bulwark of conservative Islamic support. Pretensions to be a regional power, supporting proxy forces across the region. Probably (unlike Turkey) an ally of Russia. A closer relationship with China, almost certainly.
I struggle to see a more dramatic change, such as a rapprochement with Saudi Arabia, or a break with Russia, or giving up on regional geopolitics.
If Iran weren't seeking the bomb, would Israel have attacked Iran?
If the answer is no, then that's a reason not to seek the bomb.
Wanting it and seeking it are two different things.
Iran has a whole bunch of nuisance neighbours, so even if by some miracle Israel and Iran can live in peace Iran would still need to consider other regional threats.
In his most recent financial disclosure, Trump reported making more than $600m last year, including millions from items such as Trump-branded bibles, watches sneakers and fragrances.
Forbes in March estimated his net worth was $5.1bn, more than double what it was a year earlier.
The country that separated from India in 1948 (is that name illegal on site in a Middle East War context??) Is threatening to get involved 'if things deteriorate further' However that nations government are massive bullshitters as we saw recently
‘I tried to warn them, but no one listened’ – one man’s crusade against HS2 ... [Big snip] ... Fast forward to today and the cost of HS2 has reached as high as £100bn from an initial budget of £38bn (by 2009 prices), despite cancellation of the entire northern section to Manchester.
Earlier this year, MPs on the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) concluded it was a “casebook example of how not to run a project” and a risk to the UK’s reputation.
Lord Framlingham's opposition to HS2, with walk-on parts for several ministers and prime ministers.
HS2 is the UK’s infrastructure disease writ large. Something that the UK rail network would obviously benefit from & where any reasonable cost / benefit estimate would easily justify its cost was allowed to turn into an enormous white elephant that eventually collapsed under the weight of the expense loaded on it by vested interests.
Short version: endless legal costs bundled on the front end, which not only drive up costs directly but also indirectly via the inevitable inflation in costs which occurs due to the legal delays, which (for national infrastructure) inevitably means going back to the Treasury for more £, which leads to further delays & cost-cutting which ends up only making projects even more expensive in the long term. HS2 is all of this, cubed.
Interesting NY Times article on the new Syrian government's silence regarding the Israeli attacks on Iran:
In the hours after Israel launched its most brazen attacks yet on Iran, Arab countries — many of which are no real friends of the Islamic republic — quickly condemned the Israeli aggression.
But amid the chorus of criticism, one key player in the region has remained notably silent: Syria.
The decision by Syria’s new government, led by President Ahmed al-Shara, to remain silent is a sign of just how much the geopolitical sands have shifted in the country since rebels toppled the Assad regime in December, analysts say.
Quite seriouly, on the Israel-Iran "28th small disagreement", I think Netanyahu, like Trump, is perhaps overemphasising the short term - he is nearly as old as Trump and will not have to bear the consequences, whilst keeping himself out the of the orbit of the corruption investigation he faces.
There a rhetoric around of needing Iran never to have nuclear weapons (eg Trump), and 'fix this once and for all', but istm that this will no more ensure a peaceful Middle East than did Operation Peace for Galilee in 1982 (invasion of Lebanon) ensured a peaceful northern region of Israel - especially at it was launched out of the blue whilst a dialogue process was ongoing.
And there are two things I think are pretty-much guaranteed:
1 - A further half century of hostility to Israel. 2 - Countries in the region, especially but not limited to Iran, will consider a nuclear deterrent to be essential. Just as Trump's demolition of the international order will very likely result in nuclear proliferation; the Victorian age is not coming back.
They might imo get 15 years of peace.
Exactly. Israel will win in the short term and probably lose in the long term.
There does seem to be this unproven assumption that you just have to whack the Iranian regime and a friendly, liberal, democracy will emerge that never again threatens Israel.
It seems just as probable to me that Iran ends up with some broadly secular strongman type of government, and unshackled by sanctions grows into the preeminent regional power that in the long term will be a much larger threat to Israel. Think Turkey but bigger and wealthier.
The mere fact Israel has the bomb will damn near guarantee that all future Iranian governments will want it too.
Hypothetical question, if Iran already had the bomb and hadn't immediately use it to turn Israel and environs into an irradiated desert, would Israel (and possibly its big fat sugar daddy) have attacked Iran? If the answer is no, as you say every version of Iran will want a bomb.
Surely not the version of Iran in which they stop sponsoring terrorism all over the Middle East and pointlessly try to sow chaos in neighbouring countries while their own economy and society circle the drain?
Why would a civilised, humane version of Iran that respects international norms want a bomb?
Iran has been sowing the wind for 40 years. It's now reaping a whirlwind.
Musing on tax and pension matters after my debate with MaxPB and others yesterday evening, I'm left with two thoughts.
The sense of being "over taxed" is compounded by the failure to raise thresholds. This "fiscal drag" or "stealth tax" instigated by the high-tax Conservative Government and now initated by its Labour successor has dragged so many more people into the higher tax bracket in the sense more of their income is now taxed at the 40% rate.
When I argued for a new 50% higher rate, apart from the usual howl of outrage, one or two failed to read the next bit which was to bring the thresholds to where they would have been allowing for annual RPI so the rates would rise so many middle to high income earners wouldm probably be better off from a simple 25p basic rate and 50p higher rate if the threshold from the former to the latter was set much higher than now.
The second point was about pensions - again, the usual wailing and gnashing of teeth about "public sector pensions" which are complex and by no means all the same - a Teacher's Pension is not a Local Government Officer's pension which in turn is not a Police pension or a civil servant pension.
In the Local Government Scheme (LPGS), there are swingeing penalties if you leave to take your benefits early - up to 25% if you go five years before your retirement. The problem is those staff are a) not likely to progress further andf b) are simply place-sitting preventing younger (and possibly more productive) staff from moving up and progressing. This needs to be re-thought within LPGS and elsewhere.
There are options for flexible retirement within LPGS whereby you can work fewer hours and start taking some of your pension and we might need to think about how we employ those 60 or above not only in terms of NI contribution but in terms of flexible hours and pension/salary provision.
We come back to the central question of how to being the public finances closer to balance in terms of reducing borrowing and the deficit. The debate can't be simply abandoned to the "supply side reform" proponents whose sole mantra is "tax cuts and spending cuts". We are well past it being either/or - it has to be tax rises AND spending cuts but getting the balance right between the two isn't easy. Osborne went for £5 of cuts for every £1 of tax rises but that was a different time and it may well be a more even apportion is apposite.
25% reduction for starting a DB pension 5 years early isn't really a "penalty" though is it ? It's a rough approximation of the extra net present value of the income stream. If you took £1m to an insurance company at age 55 and said "How much less annuity will you give me if it starts today rather than in 5 years time", I'm sure it would be in the region of 25%
I'm sure you're right but that's not how it looks to the member of the scheme where it looks like a penalty and sounds like a penalty but if you have someone who has paid off their mortgage (thanks to low interest rates) and perhaps downsized to a smaller property and taken a nice capital receipt as a result, even the lower figure might be enough for the decision to be made to retire early.
That "paid off mortgage, don't give a stuff" thing isn't new- it was the point of departure for the plots of both The Good Life and Howards' Way. And I can vouch for the extra sang-froid it gives someone in the face of workplace unpleasantness.
It's clearly not helpful for our national lifestyle if people opt out of work in mid middle age. But motivating an employee who has decided they aren't bothered about the money isn't easy, and I'm not sure how many businesses are up to the challenge.
Yes. The Good Life started with the Goods having paid off their mortgage on a large house in Surbiton's premier road on a single income before Tom's 40th birthday. Try doing that now!
No kids, mind. And probably joined the company aged 17, no university and worked his way up. (Good friends with one of the higher ups, too, so a helping hand?)
Yes, Tom Good and Jerry Leadbetter both joined the company at the same time as draughtsmen. Jerry worked his way up - Tom didn't. It didn't really occur to him that he was supposed to and he suddenly found all his colleagues were 20 years younger than him.
There are few better social histories than British sitcoms. See also "Whatever Happened to the Likely Lads", "I Never Knew You Cared", etc.
Quite seriouly, on the Israel-Iran "28th small disagreement", I think Netanyahu, like Trump, is perhaps overemphasising the short term - he is nearly as old as Trump and will not have to bear the consequences, whilst keeping himself out the of the orbit of the corruption investigation he faces.
There a rhetoric around of needing Iran never to have nuclear weapons (eg Trump), and 'fix this once and for all', but istm that this will no more ensure a peaceful Middle East than did Operation Peace for Galilee in 1982 (invasion of Lebanon) ensured a peaceful northern region of Israel - especially at it was launched out of the blue whilst a dialogue process was ongoing.
And there are two things I think are pretty-much guaranteed:
1 - A further half century of hostility to Israel. 2 - Countries in the region, especially but not limited to Iran, will consider a nuclear deterrent to be essential. Just as Trump's demolition of the international order will very likely result in nuclear proliferation; the Victorian age is not coming back.
They might imo get 15 years of peace.
Exactly. Israel will win in the short term and probably lose in the long term.
There does seem to be this unproven assumption that you just have to whack the Iranian regime and a friendly, liberal, democracy will emerge that never again threatens Israel.
It seems just as probable to me that Iran ends up with some broadly secular strongman type of government, and unshackled by sanctions grows into the preeminent regional power that in the long term will be a much larger threat to Israel. Think Turkey but bigger and wealthier.
The mere fact Israel has the bomb will damn near guarantee that all future Iranian governments will want it too.
Hypothetical question, if Iran already had the bomb and hadn't immediately use it to turn Israel and environs into an irradiated desert, would Israel (and possibly its big fat sugar daddy) have attacked Iran? If the answer is no, as you say every version of Iran will want a bomb.
Not necessarily.
If Iran weren't seeking the bomb, would Israel have attacked Iran?
If the answer is no, then that's a reason not to seek the bomb.
Wanting it and seeking it are two different things.
Israel's record on not attacking countries not seeking the bomb is of course impeccable.
Hot take (from my mate who's an Iranian exile so make of that what you will):
My Question: What do ordinary Iranians think of it all His Answer: They just want to get rid of the mullahs
Q: Do they care that it's Israel doing the getting rid of A: No, in fact on X Iranians are tagging IGRC targets for the IDF and then the IDF attacks those targets [!!!!!!]
Q: What is the concern, if any A: We are worried about the infrastructure
While that might be true do these exiles really think that the majority of Iranians who remain in the country will vote for a reformer government that will step back from hard-line Islamism? Seems a bit naïve.
The answer is who knows? because the religious authorities vet all candidates before allowing them to stand. So we have no idea how well supported a genuinely more liberal candidate would be, because the Mullahs don't risk them being on the ballot paper.
Is though? The Arab spring shows that the silent majority in these countries wants the Islamic rule.
Well, Iran is not an Arab country. And if the religious authorities were sure that the people would always vote the right way why would they need to bar candidates from the ballot?
Never underestimate the appetite for old Islamic men to impose their will on women and young people. Egypt is the best example, we left them to it after the Arab spring and they voted for the Muslim brotherhood and then we (the west) had to intervene to put a secularism dictator back in charge because the Muslim brotherhood were imposing Islamist rule on the country and threatening to restrict usage of canal.
Quite seriouly, on the Israel-Iran "28th small disagreement", I think Netanyahu, like Trump, is perhaps overemphasising the short term - he is nearly as old as Trump and will not have to bear the consequences, whilst keeping himself out the of the orbit of the corruption investigation he faces.
There a rhetoric around of needing Iran never to have nuclear weapons (eg Trump), and 'fix this once and for all', but istm that this will no more ensure a peaceful Middle East than did Operation Peace for Galilee in 1982 (invasion of Lebanon) ensured a peaceful northern region of Israel - especially at it was launched out of the blue whilst a dialogue process was ongoing.
And there are two things I think are pretty-much guaranteed:
1 - A further half century of hostility to Israel. 2 - Countries in the region, especially but not limited to Iran, will consider a nuclear deterrent to be essential. Just as Trump's demolition of the international order will very likely result in nuclear proliferation; the Victorian age is not coming back.
They might imo get 15 years of peace.
Exactly. Israel will win in the short term and probably lose in the long term.
There does seem to be this unproven assumption that you just have to whack the Iranian regime and a friendly, liberal, democracy will emerge that never again threatens Israel.
It seems just as probable to me that Iran ends up with some broadly secular strongman type of government, and unshackled by sanctions grows into the preeminent regional power that in the long term will be a much larger threat to Israel. Think Turkey but bigger and wealthier.
The mere fact Israel has the bomb will damn near guarantee that all future Iranian governments will want it too.
Hypothetical question, if Iran already had the bomb and hadn't immediately use it to turn Israel and environs into an irradiated desert, would Israel (and possibly its big fat sugar daddy) have attacked Iran? If the answer is no, as you say every version of Iran will want a bomb.
Surely not the version of Iran in which they stop sponsoring terrorism all over the Middle East and pointlessly try to sow chaos in neighbouring countries while their own economy and society circle the drain?
Why would a civilised, humane version of Iran that respects international norms want a bomb?
Iran has been sowing the wind for 40 years. It's now reaping a whirlwind.
Thank goodness it's only civilised, humane countries that respect international norms that already possess the bomb.
On Air Force One, President Trump was asked whether he plans to call Gov. Tim Walz: “I’m not calling him. Why would I call him? I could call and say, ‘Hi, how you doing?’ The guy doesn’t have a clue. He’s a mess. I could be nice and call, but why waste time?”
Quite seriouly, on the Israel-Iran "28th small disagreement", I think Netanyahu, like Trump, is perhaps overemphasising the short term - he is nearly as old as Trump and will not have to bear the consequences, whilst keeping himself out the of the orbit of the corruption investigation he faces.
There a rhetoric around of needing Iran never to have nuclear weapons (eg Trump), and 'fix this once and for all', but istm that this will no more ensure a peaceful Middle East than did Operation Peace for Galilee in 1982 (invasion of Lebanon) ensured a peaceful northern region of Israel - especially at it was launched out of the blue whilst a dialogue process was ongoing.
And there are two things I think are pretty-much guaranteed:
1 - A further half century of hostility to Israel. 2 - Countries in the region, especially but not limited to Iran, will consider a nuclear deterrent to be essential. Just as Trump's demolition of the international order will very likely result in nuclear proliferation; the Victorian age is not coming back.
They might imo get 15 years of peace.
Exactly. Israel will win in the short term and probably lose in the long term.
There does seem to be this unproven assumption that you just have to whack the Iranian regime and a friendly, liberal, democracy will emerge that never again threatens Israel.
It seems just as probable to me that Iran ends up with some broadly secular strongman type of government, and unshackled by sanctions grows into the preeminent regional power that in the long term will be a much larger threat to Israel. Think Turkey but bigger and wealthier.
The mere fact Israel has the bomb will damn near guarantee that all future Iranian governments will want it too.
Hypothetical question, if Iran already had the bomb and hadn't immediately use it to turn Israel and environs into an irradiated desert, would Israel (and possibly its big fat sugar daddy) have attacked Iran? If the answer is no, as you say every version of Iran will want a bomb.
Not necessarily.
If Iran weren't seeking the bomb, would Israel have attacked Iran?
If the answer is no, then that's a reason not to seek the bomb.
Wanting it and seeking it are two different things.
Israel's record on not attacking countries not seeking the bomb is of course impeccable.
I feel you're gearing up for a march, come this weekend. Don't mix up your flags.
Hot take (from my mate who's an Iranian exile so make of that what you will):
My Question: What do ordinary Iranians think of it all His Answer: They just want to get rid of the mullahs
Q: Do they care that it's Israel doing the getting rid of A: No, in fact on X Iranians are tagging IGRC targets for the IDF and then the IDF attacks those targets [!!!!!!]
Q: What is the concern, if any A: We are worried about the infrastructure
While that might be true do these exiles really think that the majority of Iranians who remain in the country will vote for a reformer government that will step back from hard-line Islamism? Seems a bit naïve.
The answer is who knows? because the religious authorities vet all candidates before allowing them to stand. So we have no idea how well supported a genuinely more liberal candidate would be, because the Mullahs don't risk them being on the ballot paper.
Is though? The Arab spring shows that the silent majority in these countries wants the Islamic rule.
Well, Iran is not an Arab country. And if the religious authorities were sure that the people would always vote the right way why would they need to bar candidates from the ballot?
Never underestimate the appetite for old Islamic men to impose their will on women and young people. Egypt is the best example, we left them to it after the Arab spring and they voted for the Muslim brotherhood and then we (the west) had to intervene to put a secularism dictator back in charge because the Muslim brotherhood were imposing Islamist rule on the country and threatening to restrict usage of canal.
I'm sure many people would happily adopt a "live and let live" approach to the most bonkers of regimes ("regime" = those countries whose governance we disagree with).
But it's the old wipe X off the face of the earth/expand the caliphate/all non-believers must be destroyed thing that we don't like.
Hot take (from my mate who's an Iranian exile so make of that what you will):
My Question: What do ordinary Iranians think of it all His Answer: They just want to get rid of the mullahs
Q: Do they care that it's Israel doing the getting rid of A: No, in fact on X Iranians are tagging IGRC targets for the IDF and then the IDF attacks those targets [!!!!!!]
Q: What is the concern, if any A: We are worried about the infrastructure
While that might be true do these exiles really think that the majority of Iranians who remain in the country will vote for a reformer government that will step back from hard-line Islamism? Seems a bit naïve.
The answer is who knows? because the religious authorities vet all candidates before allowing them to stand. So we have no idea how well supported a genuinely more liberal candidate would be, because the Mullahs don't risk them being on the ballot paper.
Is though? The Arab spring shows that the silent majority in these countries wants the Islamic rule.
Well, Iran is not an Arab country. And if the religious authorities were sure that the people would always vote the right way why would they need to bar candidates from the ballot?
Never underestimate the appetite for old Islamic men to impose their will on women and young people. Egypt is the best example, we left them to it after the Arab spring and they voted for the Muslim brotherhood and then we (the west) had to intervene to put a secularism dictator back in charge because the Muslim brotherhood were imposing Islamist rule on the country and threatening to restrict usage of canal.
That is in part because the main opposition to the old, hated regime were extremists. Most non-extremists, ordinary people, keep their heads down and struggle through life. It was the same after British decolonisation.
Hot take (from my mate who's an Iranian exile so make of that what you will):
My Question: What do ordinary Iranians think of it all His Answer: They just want to get rid of the mullahs
Q: Do they care that it's Israel doing the getting rid of A: No, in fact on X Iranians are tagging IGRC targets for the IDF and then the IDF attacks those targets [!!!!!!]
Q: What is the concern, if any A: We are worried about the infrastructure
While that might be true do these exiles really think that the majority of Iranians who remain in the country will vote for a reformer government that will step back from hard-line Islamism? Seems a bit naïve.
The answer is who knows? because the religious authorities vet all candidates before allowing them to stand. So we have no idea how well supported a genuinely more liberal candidate would be, because the Mullahs don't risk them being on the ballot paper.
Is though? The Arab spring shows that the silent majority in these countries wants the Islamic rule.
Well, Iran is not an Arab country. And if the religious authorities were sure that the people would always vote the right way why would they need to bar candidates from the ballot?
Never underestimate the appetite for old Islamic men to impose their will on women and young people. Egypt is the best example, we left them to it after the Arab spring and they voted for the Muslim brotherhood and then we (the west) had to intervene to put a secularism dictator back in charge because the Muslim brotherhood were imposing Islamist rule on the country and threatening to restrict usage of canal.
I'm sure many people would happily adopt a "live and let live" approach to the most bonkers of regimes ("regime" = those countries whose governance we disagree with).
But it's the old wipe X off the face of the earth/expand the caliphate/all non-believers must be destroyed thing that we don't like.
I think the most likely scenario for Farage appearing on Strictly is after he is hoofed out of Reform UK, or if the party disintegrates or fractures around him. Without that, I think his ambition will rule his actions whilst he assesses he has a chance of a serious political role.
Given his Merrie Englande image, it should perhaps be Morris Dancing.
BTW They may have lost another Councillor up @Taz 's way, one Michael David Ramage. As has been remarked elsewhere - is someone taking the P ?
The guy is not listed as being in the RefUK group on the Council website, and as an ex-Member of the relevant Ref UK facebook group, but does seem to know a fair but about construction - especially bus stations (that's a complement - he knows his stuff in this area, and is taking a real interest):
"Rushworth MP won't help people he considers are Reform Party members or Reform supporters or Reform Activists. So having alleged I am a Reform activist (I'm probably more socialist than him) he won't help me.... (case summary).
I think the most likely scenario for Farage appearing on Strictly is after he is hoofed out of Reform UK, or if the party disintegrates or fractures around him. Without that, I think his ambition will rule his actions whilst he assesses he has a chance of a serious political role.
Given his Merrie Englande image, it should perhaps be Morris Dancing.
BTW They may have lost another Councillor up @Taz 's way, one Michael David Ramage. As has been remarked elsewhere - is someone taking the P ?
The guy is not listed as being in the RefUK group on the Council website, and as an ex-Member of the relevant Ref UK facebook group, but does seem to know a fair but about construction - especially bus stations (that's a complement - he knows his stuff in this area, and is taking a real interest):
"Rushworth MP won't help people he considers are Reform Party members or Reform supporters or Reform Activists. So having alleged I am a Reform activist (I'm probably more socialist than him) he won't help me.... (case summary).
Alleged?
Possibly although the council webpage does have his party as Reform.
It’s interesting how people seem to be really scrutinising Reform here but yesterday Labour lost its majority on a council in Cheshire with two councillors switching to independent and rather critical about Labour too.
Barely a murmur,
At this point, Reform are beating the Conservatives and Labour almost everywhere, and the minor parties/independents.
They’ll have reached 1,000 councillors, even before next May.
That would be a tall order. They currently have 832 (Wikipedia), so need another 168. There’s 46 weeks to go, I think. So they’d need to win 3.7 by-elections per week, ignoring defections to and from the party. That seems a bit more than they are doing.
3.7 seems doable. Then there are defections.
There are defections, but Reform have also been losing a steady stream of councillors, kicked out of the party for extreme views, or just resigning as they never expected to get elected.
How many local by-elections do we have in a typical week? 3, 4?
From a physics perspective, it's just really tough to do - unless you go the nuclear route, because millions of tonnes of rock is not easily moved. The US's most powerful bomb - the GBU-57A/B - can blow a hole up to 40 meters deep... But 40 meters isn't necessarily that much. Now, sure, you can drop more than one, but a few hundred meters of mountain is really hard to get through.
Indeed. Up to 40 meters is relatively easy, we were doing that in the second world war with Grand Slams.
Getting though say 400m of rock isn't impossible, but it would need complete air superiority, very accurate targetting systems and a several of dozen penetration bombs. For an enrichment facility it probably isn't necessary to actually penetrate the rock completely as shock from multiple bombs in the same place would likely damage the equipment quite severely.
But then if you have air superiority a commando raid to detonate a nuke at the main doors of the facility is probably easier and more certain.
Comments
Their win in Maldon (which they have no chance of gaining at a GE) was much more impressive than their rather tepid holds in Horsham and Eastleigh (that they'll need to hold at a GE) for example
In terms of tactical transfers they are already carrying them from July 2024 in Newton Abbott, they'll need yo hold on to them first then look for even more (from a declining Labour party?)
Edit - not to suggest they aren't doing in general well. They are atm
Queen Anne Stakes: ROSALLION
Coventry Stakes: POWER BLUE
King Charles III Stakes: WEST ACRE
St James’s Palace Stakes: HENRI MATISSE
Ascot Stakes: NURBURGRING
Wolverton Stakes: ENFJAAR
Copper Horse Stakes: FAIRBANKS
Not happening
(Sorry, I realise this is a betting site!)
Personally, I have 2-3 interests in Reform, as you know.
1 - Practically they are a new party of control come from nowhere, now running strategic Councils with 10s of k of employees, and £100s of millions or low billions in revenue - including thine and mine, plus crucial services. That needs scrutiny, and I do not think our mainstream media will deliver that, or have the skills to do so.
2 - On competence, there is no indication that RefUK came in having done any significant research before starting, even though huge amounts of information are published anyway and was available to them. They have their head in the clouds, and came with a set of nostrums and strange assumptions extracted significantly from MAGA USA. There is little in the party that will work to improve policy afaics.
I'm concerned what that are going to go for, given that the expenditure they target for their "savings" largely does not exist.
See how quickly the wheels have come off DOGE.
3 - Politically, I think they are poisonous - self-serving, dishonest, cynical and incompetent, and are probably better gone.
I think they are quite likely to achieve point 3 on their own, and my concern then becomes collateral damage done in the meantime.
This looks decidedly ominous
1. Labour supporters who are now 100% clear which party is best placed to beat the right wing opponent
2. Green supporters who quit messing around because it’s actual Reform who are the threat
3. Residual Tories who, if they’d not already switched to Reform, are most likely Cameroonians and/or remainers who would prefer the church steeple menders to the Faragistes.
Reform will pick up most ex-Tories, and a few anti-Tory or NOTA voters from 2024.
Mushroom shaped
It's clearly not helpful for our national lifestyle if people opt out of work in mid middle age. But motivating an employee who has decided they aren't bothered about the money isn't easy, and I'm not sure how many businesses are up to the challenge.
But then, you always get nice weather just before a world war, don’t you?
I don't honestly think Reform will be putting any effort into Newton Abbbot, they'll need to be flooding the Red Wall and the Tory facing East/SE
The governing elites in the Gulf States are probably more scared than Israel, of a nuclear-armed Iran & they'll be quietly cheering the bombing campaign. A complete destruction of Iran's nuclear capability would make it less likely that countries like Saudi would pursue the Bomb.
Elon Musk was guilty of that when he suggested that he could find $2 trillion of savings from a $6 trillion Federal budget. Instead, we're going to see record Federal spending this year - indeed, it's looks like it's going to rise about 7% this year, thanks to the One Big Beautiful Bill.
What is true of the US and UK central government is true of local governments too. There isn't nearly as much waste as people think, because (a) most spending is legally dictated by central government, and (b) councillors generally find their reelection chances are better if they don't hike Council Tax any more than is strictly necessary.
Those who own a property mortgage-free should still require enough income to pay their bills, including their share of taxes, and not have those who are working for a living covering it for them.
Higher taxes on land/property, and lower taxes on work, would help redress the balance.
If that is done and they still don't want to work as they still have enough, well good luck to them. So long as they're paying their own way and not expecting others to do so for them, I don't see an issue. People should be free to live as they choose.
Its all about the order Lab, Con and Ref finish (and how much the LDs hold/progress)
The good news is that 60% enriched uranium is not *quite* enough for a bomb: that requires getting up to 80% enriched uranium. The bad news is that while the attacks will significantly impact Iran's ability to further enrich uranium for a while... it almost certainly won't have destroyed any of the 400+kg of 60% enriched uranium.
And those 400kg are enough to make about 9 "bombs". And getting from 60% to 80% - while difficult - is not that difficult.
There does seem to be this unproven assumption that you just have to whack the Iranian regime and a friendly, liberal, democracy will emerge that never again threatens Israel.
It seems just as probable to me that Iran ends up with some broadly secular strongman type of government, and unshackled by sanctions grows into the preeminent regional power that in the long term will be a much larger threat to Israel. Think Turkey but bigger and wealthier.
The mere fact Israel has the bomb will damn near guarantee that all future Iranian governments will want it too.
Only the USAF can take out that underground nuke base. So the USAF will do it
Brace!
Snubbed Starmer Again Fails to Eliminate Steel Tariffs in US Deal
https://order-order.com/2025/06/17/snubbed-starmer-again-fails-to-eliminate-steel-tariffs-in-us-deal/
Investors are turning to alternative models after drip of problems with ONS figures" (£)
https://www.ft.com/content/22eecb9f-29c9-44f7-a4ec-251bfe47d08f
Cannot see Reform taking it. I have been wrong before
Alternatively, bomb Iran into regime change
Either seems a tiny bit risky
Then ensure that there's no excavations permitted there and that land is off limits or conflict resumes.
Not to say we won't get to Armageddon but it's not as though Trump ordered the 30th Armoured Heavy Brigade to Odessa.
Notably, both countries have grand imperial histories stretching back way before Islam - so they have alternatives views of themselves. They have been great yet NOT Islamic in the past
This is not the case for Saudi, Yemen, Oman etc
Yes, you can argue 'special case' for both of them; one down to WWI / Liberal splits / changing electorate, the other to the Scottish parliament, PR and both UK and Scottish Labour being vulnerable in UKLab's 3rd term. But other special cases will occur too.
Are we in one now? Both historic dominant parties are led by weak leaders who don't get, or can't do, the basics. One is a bureaucrat; one is an easily-distracted internet-focused activist. Both parties are unpopular and have reputations tied down with failures and a lack of vision. So yes, this is an opportunity.
Sure, there have been such opportunities in the past too - 1981 and 2019 both being cases in point - but while they didn't ultimately break the mould that wasn't a preordained outcome in either instance.
And the political environment is different from the past, particularly in terms of media but also a declining former First World. We only have to look at other countries further down the same road to know it's possible here too. We are not much different to other OECD countries. Effective populists can take on the old mainstream more easily.
Of course Reform have weaknesses, most obviously in their over-reliance on Farage, and Farage's own lack of dedication to the task. But while that does matter it won't necessarily be fatal, depending on how annoyed the electorate is come 2028/29 and what the alternatives are. I certainly think it unlikely the Reform bubble will burst any time this year.
The stuff isnt in a sub basement of an office block
Both would seem to encourage Russia to fight for longer in Ukraine, by providing more money and making a reconciliation with the West more difficult. Potentially that ultimately leads to direct military conflict between European NATO countries and Russia - and that might convince Xi that he has a window of opportunity to invade Taiwan. Maybe.
“In February, a senior Iranian cleric, Mohammad Abolghassem Doulabi, revealed that 50,000 out of 75,000 mosques nationwide had been closed due to a significant decline in attendance.
“Doulabi,, an intermediary between President Ebrahim Raisi's administration and the country's seminaries, expressed concern over the fall and its implications for a state founded on Islamic principles”
https://www.iranintl.com/en/202312124517
I suspect at least half of Iranians would throw off the mullahs tomorrow, given the chance. Unfortunately you probably cannot bomb your way to this outcome via the Israeli military
...
[Big snip]
...
Fast forward to today and the cost of HS2 has reached as high as £100bn from an initial budget of £38bn (by 2009 prices), despite cancellation of the entire northern section to Manchester.
Earlier this year, MPs on the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) concluded it was a “casebook example of how not to run a project” and a risk to the UK’s reputation.
It goes further, though. Whistleblowers have come out in force alleging senior officials engaged in a massive fraud by downplaying cost forecasts to ensure Whitehall cash kept flowing in.
https://www.cityam.com/i-tried-to-warn-them-but-no-one-listened-one-mans-crusade-against-hs2/
Lord Framlingham's opposition to HS2, with walk-on parts for several ministers and prime ministers.
1 - We have had an Iran-Saudi proxy war for a long time (is 1979 a fair time to date the rivalry's re-emergence?), at various levels, as they struggle for whom will be regionally dominant.
2 - The Oct 7 attacks on Israel came at a time when Israel-Saudi relations had been improving for a long time, and Israel had recent agreements with various Arab nations in the Gulf.
3 - IMO long-term peace may be about reversing an instability dynamic of Arab vs Persian vs Israel, where one blows up positive moves between the other two in search off loss to "us". I have no idea what that could look like, but I don't think knocking out Iran is a good option for longer term resolution; it may be a shorter term gain for Saudi and Israel.
Are there lessons to be learnt from the rebuilding of Axis countries after WW2, however distant ?
1) merged Income Tax and NI
2) new rate specifically for pensioners, so lower rate tax pensioners don’t get hit
3) but those on higher rate get to pay the combined tax
4) all non-pension old age benefits go in a blender and come out taxable.
5) while you are at it, overall tax rates are up a bit.
That could have been sold as “more money for ordinary pensioners. Pensioners on £50k+ pay more.”
Overall, I think that would have pleased the party, taken the edge off “cuts” and raised more money. While probably losing less votes.
They are a proud people. A great imperial nation with a long history, at least half of it pre Islamic. They are NOT Arabs. They are not Sunni - the mainstream of Islam. They are also bored of nearly 50 years of numbing orthodox theocracy and they want to be free. So they’ve stopped going to mosques, en masse
May Allah give them strength to rid themselves of their truly evil regime
That's a serious enquiry - which other country would be the historical prototype?
I'm struggling to see something positive, though perhaps less negative is the best we can hope for. Is some distant analogue of post-Ottoman Turkey possible (constructed by whom?) ? Or will it turn into another Syria / Libya?
I'm reminded of my favourite Terry Waite quote (pataphrased):
'When all is done, there needs to exist a door through which you can leave together."
We spent a few days together and talked a lot about Egyptian politics and he was quite frank about Egypt’s horrendous problem - mainly socialism in the past and islamism and over-population now
Then he showed me one of their gleaming new museums and he made the emphatic point “this is our past, long before Islam….”
He was proud of Egypt in a way that Chinese people are proud of China in a form that has zero to do with communism
If Iran weren't seeking the bomb, would Israel have attacked Iran?
If the answer is no, then that's a reason not to seek the bomb.
Wanting it and seeking it are two different things.
But, again, they do have that magnificent history to inspire them. 🙏
Not a theocracy, but the government still relying on a bulwark of conservative Islamic support. Pretensions to be a regional power, supporting proxy forces across the region. Probably (unlike Turkey) an ally of Russia. A closer relationship with China, almost certainly.
I struggle to see a more dramatic change, such as a rapprochement with Saudi Arabia, or a break with Russia, or giving up on regional geopolitics.
We are fed a diet of horse shit and love every bite
Forbes in March estimated his net worth was $5.1bn, more than double what it was a year earlier.
However that nations government are massive bullshitters as we saw recently
This report from Stonehaven is worth reading on just why UK building projects end up so very expensive: https://www.stonehavenglobal.com/making_britain_build_again
Short version: endless legal costs bundled on the front end, which not only drive up costs directly but also indirectly via the inevitable inflation in costs which occurs due to the legal delays, which (for national infrastructure) inevitably means going back to the Treasury for more £, which leads to further delays & cost-cutting which ends up only making projects even more expensive in the long term. HS2 is all of this, cubed.
In the hours after Israel launched its most brazen attacks yet on Iran, Arab countries — many of which are no real friends of the Islamic republic — quickly condemned the Israeli aggression.
But amid the chorus of criticism, one key player in the region has remained notably silent: Syria.
The decision by Syria’s new government, led by President Ahmed al-Shara, to remain silent is a sign of just how much the geopolitical sands have shifted in the country since rebels toppled the Assad regime in December, analysts say.
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/17/world/middleeast/syria-israel-iran.html?unlocked_article_code=1.Pk8.3eQ4.23Dj5KvHVZPw&smid=url-share
Why would a civilised, humane version of Iran that respects international norms want a bomb?
Iran has been sowing the wind for 40 years. It's now reaping a whirlwind.
There are few better social histories than British sitcoms. See also "Whatever Happened to the Likely Lads", "I Never Knew You Cared", etc.
On Air Force One, President Trump was asked whether he plans to call Gov. Tim Walz: “I’m not calling him. Why would I call him? I could call and say, ‘Hi, how you doing?’ The guy doesn’t have a clue. He’s a mess. I could be nice and call, but why waste time?”
But it's the old wipe X off the face of the earth/expand the caliphate/all non-believers must be destroyed thing that we don't like.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HHhZF66C1Dc
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/06/17/channel-migrants-given-free-tv-licences/
In grand scheme of things it's small amounts of money but optics plays perfectly for Reform.
How many local by-elections do we have in a typical week? 3, 4?
Getting though say 400m of rock isn't impossible, but it would need complete air superiority, very accurate targetting systems and a several of dozen penetration bombs. For an enrichment facility it probably isn't necessary to actually penetrate the rock completely as shock from multiple bombs in the same place would likely damage the equipment quite severely.
But then if you have air superiority a commando raid to detonate a nuke at the main doors of the facility is probably easier and more certain.