Listen to the media show today. Bezos who is having his wedding in Venice and has booked every hotel room there says it will be good for Venice and will help put it on the map!
Americans have completely lost their marbles. The less the UK has to do with them the better.
I think that’s the first time I’ve ever agreed with Tucker. Need to wash my mouth out with soap
The disturbing thing is that in this instance, even he has done a better job of challenging someone like Cruz than has the 'mainstream media'. Which has adopted a position of neutral cowardice.
I was compared to David Cameron by somebody who knows him.
'Neither of you have ever been plagued by self doubt have you?'
Because of that over confidence from Dave we have Brexit, he thought after the 2014 Scottish referendum scraped a Union win he would easily win another referendum for Remain and put Farage back in his box too. He failed on both counts
Yes, quite, that insouciant over-rating of his own expertise was actually the downfall of Cameron. He only just got away with Scottish indy, and - filled with undeserved self esteem - he then completely fucked the puppy on Brexit. He is a grand failure. I'm not sure why @TSE is keen to be compared to him on this metric
Note Boris has a favourable rating of 28% however, significantly higher than the current Tory voteshare and 9% higher than Badenoch's and 15% higher than Jenrick's and 5% higher than that for the Conservative Party. While also being level with Starmer's and only just behind Farage's.
If you solely want to look at net favourable ratings Shadow Chancellor Stride's is best for the Conservatives, higher than Johnson's, Badenoch's and Jenrick's (and indeed that for Starmer or Farage) and unlike Boris he is still an MP and eligible to be leader now. Remember last time the Conservatives removed a LOTO midterm they replaced IDS with their Shadow Chancellor, Michael Howard
I knew you would champion your beloved Johnson, and fair play you have been consistent
However, Johnson is not coming back no matter how much you want it to be an answer to your prayers
Well he would need to become an MP again first yes, however in his absence as I said Stride is probably most likely pick for a Tory MP coronation if Kemi is removed
Interesting to consider how much favourability is a proxy for name recognition. There may be a reason no-one hates Mel Stride.
Jenrick's nailed on for me if there's a vacancy any time soon. Because the Tories just can't get out of their heads that they're only fighting on one flank, plus he can walk and talk at the same time in those incessantly infuriating social vids he does, plus he's lost a few stone, got a tidy haircut, and is as close as a pin-up as Edith and Beryl at the Conservative club (ie the electorate) are likely to get.
Not entirely, Stride is on the Cameroon Sunakite wing of the party so unlikely to have excessive negatives for a Tory. As a fiscal conservative he might win back a few who voted for Rishi, have since gone Reform but are concerned by some of Farage's spending pledges.
I can't see Jenrick getting the Tory MPs he would need for a coronation or even to get it to the membership, most likely if Kemi was removed and lost a VONC the 1922 would say 2/3 of Tory MPs behind you elects you and that is doable for Stride. The 2024 Cleverly and most of the Badenoch backers would back Stride over Jenrick
If the PCP tried to vote in Stride in preference to Jenrick over the heads of the membership there would be an effing riot. The party would just leave the PCP en masse, and it would become another Change UK - a grouping of MPs with no grassroots and only their personalities and looks to recommend them. Even Tory MPs aren't that stupid - this idea of yours is wholly fanciful and I have no idea where you're getting it from.
There wouldn't, latest ConHome survey had Stride with a +34% rating with party members and of course party members rejected Jenrick for Kemi in the first place.
There is simply no poll evidence Jenrick can win back lots of Reform voters from Farage, Stride may at least hold those who voted for Rish last year and get the Tories back to the mid twenties. Far more Tory MPs hate Jenrick than hate Stride too.
I think this is a pretty shrewd analysis. If Kemi goes the Tories really need a "prime ministerial" candidate the party can unite behind. Could be Cleverly, could be Stride. Not Jenrick tho. It needs to be someone who, personally, contrasts with Farage and attracts the support of traditional Tories wary of populism. Rebuilding the Boris coalition is not an option.
Bring back Michael Portillo. He's put the work in doing mini-breaks on BBC money. Surely he's served his time?
He's probably over the 'blame single mothers for everything' phase by now.
I was compared to David Cameron by somebody who knows him.
'Neither of you have ever been plagued by self doubt have you?'
Cameron described AV as "undemocratic, obscure, unfair and crazy".
Prime Minister David Cameron has branded the alternative vote (AV) system "undemocratic, obscure, unfair and crazy", ahead of May's referendum on changing the way MPs are elected to Westminster.
Speaking in Swansea, Mr Cameron said the vote was "hugely important" to Britain and went on to quote Sir Winston Churchill, who stood against the introduction of AV in 1931.
On topic, top Cons are uttering the B-Word but I don't think seriously with a view to his return, but just in despair as in he couldn't be any worse (they expect Kemi out shortly).
Plus Boris does appeal to a large number of people - not People Like US off of PB but the masses. You know, those people who you step over on your way out of the opera.
Cargo Cult politics
You'll have to explain a) what that means; and b) why that is different from every other type of politics.
Cargo cults are millenarian movements that arose in Melanesia under colonial rule, and inspired Richard Feynman to coin the expression cargo cult science. In Feynman's description, after the end of the Second World War practitioners believed that air delivery of cargo would resume if they carried out the proper rituals, such as building runways, lighting fires next to them, and wearing headphones carved from wood while sitting in fabricated control towers. "The form is perfect. It looks exactly the way it looked before. But it doesn’t work."
The term then became used more widely as a metaphor for empty rituals.
In this context "the last time we had BoZo as leader we got lots of votes. If BoZo is leader again we will get lots of votes"
"The form is perfect. It looks exactly the way it looked before. But it doesn’t work."
The views on this seem so extraordinarily entrenched I’ve concluded it’s not worth the bother. There is a subset of our society that refuses to believe an unborn baby has any rights whatsoever no matter how far into term. And a subset of those who seem to get incredibly aggressive at the idea that anyone else takes a different view.
We seem to have in this country the opposite of the debate in the US, where the argument is “legal, safe & rare” vs fairly extreme pro-life. Instead we live in a society where vanishingly few hold an extreme pro-life view. And the extremism is instead in the pro-choice camp. One in four conceptions being aborted is apparently still far too few.
Notwithstanding universal sex education, there is of course a double digit number of types of contraception available on the nhs, including the morning after pill, which as best as I can tell does not appear to be included in the above statistical definition of abortion.
So I agree, I too was staggered by the one in four stat.
BBC did a thing about how STI rates are way up last week, which we can presume is down to unprotected sex / not being as careful.
Their interviewee had got an STI twice in a year, turns out he was head of an sexual health education programme......
The uk abortion rate per conception is not even particularly unusual. In Canada, it’s 33%. Incidentally the only other notable country to have decriminalised full term abortion. But it’s at around UK levels in France, Germany, the US etc…
It sounds remarkably high, but it's one of those stats that makes sense when you think about it:
Most women who are having sex do not want to conceive. So you've got contraception failure rate multiplied by a very large number. This is probably higher than we realise, because some women cannot utilise some forms of contraception
Only a very small number of women are trying to conceive. Of them, a proportion will be aborted for some medical issue.
Of those wanting a family, a significant proportion of that time is actually being pregnant, so there are relatively few conceptions for those women
Some are a result of sexual assault (which may be much higher within relationships/familys than is revealed in the stats, and not subject to a stable contraception regime)
I'm not sure how the stats work, but there has been a huge drop in teen mothers. I think that's primarily due to less sex and better education, but is abortion contributing too?
I think the very rough figure is 1 in 4 aborted, 1 in 4 miscarried, both of which bias heavily towards the first 6-8 weeks post-conception, and 1 in 2 born.
No one will shed a tear if the Iranian regime falls . Unfortunately if it doesn’t fall life will be even worse for Iranians .
I have zero time for any country which treats women in such a despicable way , the same can also be said of countries like Saudi Arabia .
You are assuming that if it were to fall, life would be better. It's also possible the country goes through a decade like Syria had, with civil war, and many millions of refugees.
It's not as though either Israel or the US would make any effort to hold things together. In Israel's case, the evidence if Syria suggests they'll try to do the opposite of that.
Huge roll of the dice by two leaders who couldn't care less.
I think maybe he got carried away when he realised he could hide his weird chin with stubble. But also, this is an awful thing to say on social media, or indeed anywhere
But it is, in addition, a measure of the polarisation
I mean even you at your most excitable only wanted them locked up.
‘Too much for even Leon’ should definitely be a thing.
The views on this seem so extraordinarily entrenched I’ve concluded it’s not worth the bother. There is a subset of our society that refuses to believe an unborn baby has any rights whatsoever no matter how far into term. And a subset of those who seem to get incredibly aggressive at the idea that anyone else takes a different view.
We seem to have in this country the opposite of the debate in the US, where the argument is “legal, safe & rare” vs fairly extreme pro-life. Instead we live in a society where vanishingly few hold an extreme pro-life view. And the extremism is instead in the pro-choice camp. One in four conceptions being aborted is apparently still far too few.
Notwithstanding universal sex education, there is of course a double digit number of types of contraception available on the nhs, including the morning after pill, which as best as I can tell does not appear to be included in the above statistical definition of abortion.
So I agree, I too was staggered by the one in four stat.
BBC did a thing about how STI rates are way up last week, which we can presume is down to unprotected sex / not being as careful.
Their interviewee had got an STI twice in a year, turns out he was head of an sexual health education programme......
The uk abortion rate per conception is not even particularly unusual. In Canada, it’s 33%. Incidentally the only other notable country to have decriminalised full term abortion. But it’s at around UK levels in France, Germany, the US etc…
It sounds remarkably high, but it's one of those stats that makes sense when you think about it:
Most women who are having sex do not want to conceive. So you've got contraception failure rate multiplied by a very large number. This is probably higher than we realise, because some women cannot utilise some forms of contraception
Only a very small number of women are trying to conceive. Of them, a proportion will be aborted for some medical issue.
Of those wanting a family, a significant proportion of that time is actually being pregnant, so there are relatively few conceptions for those women
Some are a result of sexual assault (which may be much higher within relationships/familys than is revealed in the stats, and not subject to a stable contraception regime)
I'm not sure how the stats work, but there has been a huge drop in teen mothers. I think that's primarily due to less sex and better education, but is abortion contributing too?
The views on this seem so extraordinarily entrenched I’ve concluded it’s not worth the bother. There is a subset of our society that refuses to believe an unborn baby has any rights whatsoever no matter how far into term. And a subset of those who seem to get incredibly aggressive at the idea that anyone else takes a different view.
We seem to have in this country the opposite of the debate in the US, where the argument is “legal, safe & rare” vs fairly extreme pro-life. Instead we live in a society where vanishingly few hold an extreme pro-life view. And the extremism is instead in the pro-choice camp. One in four conceptions being aborted is apparently still far too few.
Notwithstanding universal sex education, there is of course a double digit number of types of contraception available on the nhs, including the morning after pill, which as best as I can tell does not appear to be included in the above statistical definition of abortion.
So I agree, I too was staggered by the one in four stat.
BBC did a thing about how STI rates are way up last week, which we can presume is down to unprotected sex / not being as careful.
Their interviewee had got an STI twice in a year, turns out he was head of an sexual health education programme......
The uk abortion rate per conception is not even particularly unusual. In Canada, it’s 33%. Incidentally the only other notable country to have decriminalised full term abortion. But it’s at around UK levels in France, Germany, the US etc…
It sounds remarkably high, but it's one of those stats that makes sense when you think about it:
Most women who are having sex do not want to conceive. So you've got contraception failure rate multiplied by a very large number. This is probably higher than we realise, because some women cannot utilise some forms of contraception
Only a very small number of women are trying to conceive. Of them, a proportion will be aborted for some medical issue.
Of those wanting a family, a significant proportion of that time is actually being pregnant, so there are relatively few conceptions for those women
Some are a result of sexual assault (which may be much higher within relationships/familys than is revealed in the stats, and not subject to a stable contraception regime)
I'm not sure how the stats work, but there has been a huge drop in teen mothers. I think that's primarily due to less sex and better education, but is abortion contributing too?
I think maybe he got carried away when he realised he could hide his weird chin with stubble. But also, this is an awful thing to say on social media, or indeed anywhere
But it is, in addition, a measure of the polarisation
I mean even you at your most excitable only wanted them locked up.
‘Too much for even Leon’ should definitely be a thing.
It should. Let's make it a thing
#TooMuchEvenForLeon
Other people will look at it in perplexity, bewildered by the fact a vaguely posh fast food chain has such a political footprint
British Prime Minister Keir Starmer has put his cabinet on alert for a possible US attack on Iran, just 24 hours after insisting Donald Trump had given no indication he was about to “get involved in this conflict”.
The views on this seem so extraordinarily entrenched I’ve concluded it’s not worth the bother. There is a subset of our society that refuses to believe an unborn baby has any rights whatsoever no matter how far into term. And a subset of those who seem to get incredibly aggressive at the idea that anyone else takes a different view.
We seem to have in this country the opposite of the debate in the US, where the argument is “legal, safe & rare” vs fairly extreme pro-life. Instead we live in a society where vanishingly few hold an extreme pro-life view. And the extremism is instead in the pro-choice camp. One in four conceptions being aborted is apparently still far too few.
Notwithstanding universal sex education, there is of course a double digit number of types of contraception available on the nhs, including the morning after pill, which as best as I can tell does not appear to be included in the above statistical definition of abortion.
So I agree, I too was staggered by the one in four stat.
BBC did a thing about how STI rates are way up last week, which we can presume is down to unprotected sex / not being as careful.
Their interviewee had got an STI twice in a year, turns out he was head of an sexual health education programme......
The uk abortion rate per conception is not even particularly unusual. In Canada, it’s 33%. Incidentally the only other notable country to have decriminalised full term abortion. But it’s at around UK levels in France, Germany, the US etc…
It sounds remarkably high, but it's one of those stats that makes sense when you think about it:
Most women who are having sex do not want to conceive. So you've got contraception failure rate multiplied by a very large number. This is probably higher than we realise, because some women cannot utilise some forms of contraception
Only a very small number of women are trying to conceive. Of them, a proportion will be aborted for some medical issue.
Of those wanting a family, a significant proportion of that time is actually being pregnant, so there are relatively few conceptions for those women
Some are a result of sexual assault (which may be much higher within relationships/familys than is revealed in the stats, and not subject to a stable contraception regime)
I'm not sure how the stats work, but there has been a huge drop in teen mothers. I think that's primarily due to less sex and better education, but is abortion contributing too?
I think the very rough figure is 1 in 4 aborted, 1 in 4 miscarried, both of which bias heavily towards the first 6-8 weeks post-conception, and 1 in 2 born.
Slight misremembering of the stats there compounded by the fact that abortions and miscarriages are quoted against live births but never against each other. So best estimate for last year would be 600k live births (64.5%), 200k abortions (21.5%), 130k miscarriages (14%).
I was compared to David Cameron by somebody who knows him.
'Neither of you have ever been plagued by self doubt have you?'
Because of that over confidence from Dave we have Brexit, he thought after the 2014 Scottish referendum scraped a Union win he would easily win another referendum for Remain and put Farage back in his box too. He failed on both counts
Yes, quite, that insouciant over-rating of his own expertise was actually the downfall of Cameron. He only just got away with Scottish indy, and - filled with undeserved self esteem - he then completely fucked the puppy on Brexit. He is a grand failure. I'm not sure why @TSE is keen to be compared to him on this metric
Arguably the Queen won both those referenda.
Cameron's problem is he and Osborne convinced themselves of the value of negative campaigning. It won them the 2010 general election and they missed that actually it converted large poll leads into just a hung parliament.
Sindyref had the government line that Scotland was too wee, too poor, too stupid which led to Yes rising up the polls until the late intervention of Gordon Brown and ScotCon Ruth Davidson with positive messages about the union.
Brexit was the same. The government's Remain campaign was Project Fear. Nothing positive.
PBers should watch Times Radio's DPMQs Unpacked which today included Starmer's PPS and PMQs-prepper Chris Ward who gave some fascinating insights, not least that Labour now sees PMQs as a glorified press conference to the nation rather than a parliamentary battle with an increasingly irrelevant Opposition over who will win the next election. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=df1C4nz0-sc
I think maybe he got carried away when he realised he could hide his weird chin with stubble. But also, this is an awful thing to say on social media, or indeed anywhere
But it is, in addition, a measure of the polarisation
The art of the shock merchant is to know when to stop. How outrageous you can be without being too outrageous. Kelvin MacKenzie had "it" for a very long time, Nick Ferrari still does. In a different key, Boris had it in his prime, but it seems to have left him along with a fair proportion of his barnet. Plenty of columnists make a career out of that sort of thing.
Farage has it to an incredible degree. Like a particularly annoying class wiseguy, he has a perfect instinct for what to say to make an impact and what to not say to avoid real trouble. How to hint without leaving a shred of evidence in the written record.
One of his challenges to turn Reform into a genuinely plausible government-in-waiting is that he is surrounded by chumps who haven't learned how to avoid saying the quiet bit out loud.
PBers should watch Times Radio's DPMQs Unpacked which today included Starmer's PPS and PMQs-prepper Chris Ward who gave some fascinating insights, not least that Labour now sees PMQs as a glorified press conference to the nation rather than a parliamentary battle with an increasingly irrelevant Opposition over who will win the next election. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=df1C4nz0-sc
Hasn't that been the case for ages. PMs have increasingly ignored all questions and just want to get their soundbite in. And opposition's plan is to set some trap relating to some inconvenient or obscure factoid and hope the PM jumps into it by waving it away with some BS and have the follow press release ready for post PMQs, which was Boris speciality of walking right into those.
HS2 is an utter disaster, but scrapping it now is simply making it a monument to the failure to execute an enormous project and leave it as a permanent scar across whole parts of England
It needs to be finished even if it takes to the late 2030s (Birmingham to Euston)
It also seems Farage and Reform have misjudged the public's mood on the 2 child benefit cap by supporting it's abolition
We appear to have spent something like 160% of the cost of the full HS2 to get 20% of the benefit. The bits of the network that were dropped were actually the cheapest parts to build, having vastly overspent on the southern parts. Northern Powerhouse rail (or whatever they’re calling it these days) still requires the same works at Piccadilly (& was justified in part originally on the grounds that it could piggyback on the HS2 Piccadilly works), leaving only the rail-line itself to build out.
Those who sourly predicted fifteen years ago that the Treasury would fund the southern bits of HS2 & then pull the plug were sadly confirmed in their prescience. Complete debacle. A national embarrassment.
HS2 is an utter disaster, but scrapping it now is simply making it a monument to the failure to execute an enormous project and leave it as a permanent scar across whole parts of England
It needs to be finished even if it takes to the late 2030s (Birmingham to Euston)
It also seems Farage and Reform have misjudged the public's mood on the 2 child benefit cap by supporting it's abolition
We appear to have spent something like 160% of the cost of the full HS2 to get 20% of the benefit. The bits of the network that were dropped were actually the cheapest parts to build, having vastly overspent on the southern parts. Northern Powerhouse rail (or whatever they’re calling it these days) still requires the same works at Piccadilly (& was justified in part originally on the grounds that it could piggyback on the HS2 Piccadilly works), leaving only the rail-line itself to build out.
Those who sourly predicted fifteen years ago that the Treasury would fund the southern bits of HS2 & then pull the plug were sadly confirmed in their prescience. Complete debacle. A national embarrassment.
Legislate so that all national infrastructure projects should start at the end furthest away from London.
(or that the proportion of government investment by region is the inverse of the average full-time wage)
President Donald Trump is heading to the Situation Room to meet with his top generals. Trump said he was going from the Oval Office 'downstairs' for a key meeting.
It came as at least three Iranian planes landed on Wednesday in the capital of Oman - the previous site of U.S.-Iran nuclear talks. Al Jazeera verified flight data that showed two Iranian government planes and one from Iran's privately-owned Meraj Airlines landing in Muscat.
PBers should watch Times Radio's DPMQs Unpacked which today included Starmer's PPS and PMQs-prepper Chris Ward who gave some fascinating insights, not least that Labour now sees PMQs as a glorified press conference to the nation rather than a parliamentary battle with an increasingly irrelevant Opposition over who will win the next election. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=df1C4nz0-sc
Hasn't that been the case for ages. PMs have increasingly ignored all questions and just want to get their soundbite in. And opposition's plan is to set some trap relating to some inconvenient or obscure factoid and how they jump into it by waving it away with some BS, which was Boris speciality.
Even then it was Boris vs Corbyn, or Starmer vs Boris about who should be next leader. That has now changed, it is said, because Labour does not regard Kemi or her party as viable contenders.
PBers should watch Times Radio's DPMQs Unpacked which today included Starmer's PPS and PMQs-prepper Chris Ward who gave some fascinating insights, not least that Labour now sees PMQs as a glorified press conference to the nation rather than a parliamentary battle with an increasingly irrelevant Opposition over who will win the next election. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=df1C4nz0-sc
Hasn't that been the case for ages. PMs have increasingly ignored all questions and just want to get their soundbite in. And opposition's plan is to set some trap relating to some inconvenient or obscure factoid and how they jump into it by waving it away with some BS, which was Boris speciality.
Even then it was Boris vs Corbyn, or Starmer vs Boris about who should be next leader. That has now changed, it is said, because Labour does not regard Kemi or her party as viable contenders.
Fair point. And a fair assessment.
I haven't watched PMQs in ages, but if Kemi is trying to setup Starmer, she clearly is doing a terrible job as she has had zero hits.
HS2 is an utter disaster, but scrapping it now is simply making it a monument to the failure to execute an enormous project and leave it as a permanent scar across whole parts of England
It needs to be finished even if it takes to the late 2030s (Birmingham to Euston)
It also seems Farage and Reform have misjudged the public's mood on the 2 child benefit cap by supporting it's abolition
We appear to have spent something like 160% of the cost of the full HS2 to get 20% of the benefit. The bits of the network that were dropped were actually the cheapest parts to build, having vastly overspent on the southern parts. Northern Powerhouse rail (or whatever they’re calling it these days) still requires the same works at Piccadilly (& was justified in part originally on the grounds that it could piggyback on the HS2 Piccadilly works), leaving only the rail-line itself to build out.
Those who sourly predicted fifteen years ago that the Treasury would fund the southern bits of HS2 & then pull the plug were sadly confirmed in their prescience. Complete debacle. A national embarrassment.
And an excellent demonstration of the fallacy that the Treasury assessment of likely return on investment for a project is any kind of objective measure.
President Donald Trump is heading to the Situation Room to meet with his top generals. Trump said he was going from the Oval Office 'downstairs' for a key meeting.
It came as at least three Iranian planes landed on Wednesday in the capital of Oman - the previous site of U.S.-Iran nuclear talks. Al Jazeera verified flight data that showed two Iranian government planes and one from Iran's privately-owned Meraj Airlines landing in Muscat.
I’m calling it. Trump will vanquish the demons of the Bush era by successfully executing regime change the old-fashioned way - the British way - by installing a monarch and not trying to impose Western institutions.
He will tell the ayatollahs, “You’re fired,” and America will look the most powerful it has done since 9/11.
I think maybe he got carried away when he realised he could hide his weird chin with stubble. But also, this is an awful thing to say on social media, or indeed anywhere
But it is, in addition, a measure of the polarisation
I mean even you at your most excitable only wanted them locked up. .
I’m calling it. Trump will vanquish the demons of the Bush era by successfully executing regime change the old-fashioned way - the British way - by installing a monarch and not trying to impose Western institutions.
He will tell the ayatollahs, “You’re fired,” and America will look the most powerful it has done since 9/11.
I want you to define "successfully" as part of your calling it.
I’m calling it. Trump will vanquish the demons of the Bush era by successfully executing regime change the old-fashioned way - the British way - by installing a monarch and not trying to impose Western institutions.
He will tell the ayatollahs, “You’re fired,” and America will look the most powerful it has done since 9/11.
I want you to define "successfully" as part of your calling it.
I think maybe he got carried away when he realised he could hide his weird chin with stubble. But also, this is an awful thing to say on social media, or indeed anywhere
But it is, in addition, a measure of the polarisation
What’s the point if him even saying it? I can’t see how anyone can think it is remotely possible to undo the damage done by mass immigration
I’m calling it. Trump will vanquish the demons of the Bush era by successfully executing regime change the old-fashioned way - the British way - by installing a monarch and not trying to impose Western institutions.
He will tell the ayatollahs, “You’re fired,” and America will look the most powerful it has done since 9/11.
I’m calling it. Trump will vanquish the demons of the Bush era by successfully executing regime change the old-fashioned way - the British way - by installing a monarch and not trying to impose Western institutions.
He will tell the ayatollahs, “You’re fired,” and America will look the most powerful it has done since 9/11.
Trump might hope for a happier precedent. The British don't have a good record with installing a Shah on an unwilling country:
I think maybe he got carried away when he realised he could hide his weird chin with stubble. But also, this is an awful thing to say on social media, or indeed anywhere
But it is, in addition, a measure of the polarisation
What’s the point if him even saying it? I can’t see how anyone can think it is remotely possible to undo the damage done by mass immigration
The views on this seem so extraordinarily entrenched I’ve concluded it’s not worth the bother. There is a subset of our society that refuses to believe an unborn baby has any rights whatsoever no matter how far into term. And a subset of those who seem to get incredibly aggressive at the idea that anyone else takes a different view.
We seem to have in this country the opposite of the debate in the US, where the argument is “legal, safe & rare” vs fairly extreme pro-life. Instead we live in a society where vanishingly few hold an extreme pro-life view. And the extremism is instead in the pro-choice camp. One in four conceptions being aborted is apparently still far too few.
Notwithstanding universal sex education, there is of course a double digit number of types of contraception available on the nhs, including the morning after pill, which as best as I can tell does not appear to be included in the above statistical definition of abortion.
So I agree, I too was staggered by the one in four stat.
BBC did a thing about how STI rates are way up last week, which we can presume is down to unprotected sex / not being as careful.
Their interviewee had got an STI twice in a year, turns out he was head of an sexual health education programme......
The uk abortion rate per conception is not even particularly unusual. In Canada, it’s 33%. Incidentally the only other notable country to have decriminalised full term abortion. But it’s at around UK levels in France, Germany, the US etc…
It sounds remarkably high, but it's one of those stats that makes sense when you think about it:
Most women who are having sex do not want to conceive. So you've got contraception failure rate multiplied by a very large number. This is probably higher than we realise, because some women cannot utilise some forms of contraception
Only a very small number of women are trying to conceive. Of them, a proportion will be aborted for some medical issue.
Of those wanting a family, a significant proportion of that time is actually being pregnant, so there are relatively few conceptions for those women
Some are a result of sexual assault (which may be much higher within relationships/familys than is revealed in the stats, and not subject to a stable contraception regime)
I'm not sure how the stats work, but there has been a huge drop in teen mothers. I think that's primarily due to less sex and better education, but is abortion contributing too?
I think the very rough figure is 1 in 4 aborted, 1 in 4 miscarried, both of which bias heavily towards the first 6-8 weeks post-conception, and 1 in 2 born.
Those figures are presuming the embryo has gotten as far as uterine implantation. If you go back very early, pre-implantation in the uterus, a few days after conception, the natural, spontaneous abortion rate is maybe 50% or higher, a high proportion of which go unnoticed by the mother.
50% or higher of zygotes, which some people insist have souls, never make it to full term, without any artificial intervention. So that means that most souls you encounter in heaven only ever lived for a few days as a small ball of cells in a Fallopian tube. Which was all ordained by God.
I’m calling it. Trump will vanquish the demons of the Bush era by successfully executing regime change the old-fashioned way - the British way - by installing a monarch and not trying to impose Western institutions.
He will tell the ayatollahs, “You’re fired,” and America will look the most powerful it has done since 9/11.
I’m calling it. Trump will vanquish the demons of the Bush era by successfully executing regime change the old-fashioned way - the British way - by installing a monarch and not trying to impose Western institutions.
He will tell the ayatollahs, “You’re fired,” and America will look the most powerful it has done since 9/11.
Without boots on the ground? I am skeptical.
I have been watching that Tehran tv show, I am now led to believe every second Iranian actually works for Mossad.
I’m calling it. Trump will vanquish the demons of the Bush era by successfully executing regime change the old-fashioned way - the British way - by installing a monarch and not trying to impose Western institutions.
He will tell the ayatollahs, “You’re fired,” and America will look the most powerful it has done since 9/11.
Without boots on the ground? I am skeptical.
I have been watching that Tehran tv show, I am now led to believe every second Iranian actually works for Mossad.
I'm pretty certain Israel won't give any of them asylum, however.
I’m calling it. Trump will vanquish the demons of the Bush era by successfully executing regime change the old-fashioned way - the British way - by installing a monarch and not trying to impose Western institutions.
He will tell the ayatollahs, “You’re fired,” and America will look the most powerful it has done since 9/11.
Without boots on the ground? I am skeptical.
I have been watching that Tehran tv show, I am now led to believe every second Iranian actually works for Mossad.
I'm pretty certain Israel won't give any of them asylum, however.
Without spoiling the show, they appear to have an extremely high likelihood of ending up dead.
It seems scarcely believable that a US administration is again contemplating violent regime change in a country beginning with Ira*, let alone one supposedly committed to avoiding forever wars, but here we are.
If for whatever combination of reasons the theocracy ruling Iran ends up falling, the question is what comes in its place. Evidence from the fall of secular Middle Eastern regimes is that the Islamists come next. But evidence from the fall of Islamist regimes is rather scant, because the only example I can think of if Afghanistan, and in that case the Islamists a. were more popular than the Iranian Ayatollahs and b. came back.
So we need to think creatively. Now’s not really the time for liberal democracy, it’s on the decline everywhere, so what else? My betting would be either a populist Persian nationalist regime (similar to what happened briefly in Myanmar, what happened in Russia, and what’s seemingly happening albeit with religious overtones in India) or a kleptocracy. Persian nationalism I can imagine being relatively better for the West but rather bad if you’re an Iranian Kurd or Arab, and probably not exactly best mates with Israel either.
On the Moral Maze just now Sir Richard Dalton and Professor Mary Kaldor demonstrate the purblindness of de haut en bas expertise no matter what evidence is presented to them
Can you give an English translation of that? I honestly don't understand what it means.
PBers should watch Times Radio's DPMQs Unpacked which today included Starmer's PPS and PMQs-prepper Chris Ward who gave some fascinating insights, not least that Labour now sees PMQs as a glorified press conference to the nation rather than a parliamentary battle with an increasingly irrelevant Opposition over who will win the next election. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=df1C4nz0-sc
Hasn't that been the case for ages. PMs have increasingly ignored all questions and just want to get their soundbite in. And opposition's plan is to set some trap relating to some inconvenient or obscure factoid and how they jump into it by waving it away with some BS, which was Boris speciality.
Even then it was Boris vs Corbyn, or Starmer vs Boris about who should be next leader. That has now changed, it is said, because Labour does not regard Kemi or her party as viable contenders.
Sounds rather hubristic to me. But yes, Labour do seem to be rightly or wrongly focussing on Reform and Farage.
I’m calling it. Trump will vanquish the demons of the Bush era by successfully executing regime change the old-fashioned way - the British way - by installing a monarch and not trying to impose Western institutions.
He will tell the ayatollahs, “You’re fired,” and America will look the most powerful it has done since 9/11.
You seem to be under the misguided impression that Trump is some kind of genius rather than a senile old man who doesn’t know his arse from his elbow
It seems scarcely believable that a US administration is again contemplating violent regime change in a country beginning with Ira*, let alone one supposedly committed to avoiding forever wars, but here we are.
If for whatever combination of reasons the theocracy ruling Iran ends up falling, the question is what comes in its place. Evidence from the fall of secular Middle Eastern regimes is that the Islamists come next. But evidence from the fall of Islamist regimes is rather scant, because the only example I can think of if Afghanistan, and in that case the Islamists a. were more popular than the Iranian Ayatollahs and b. came back.
So we need to think creatively. Now’s not really the time for liberal democracy, it’s on the decline everywhere, so what else? My betting would be either a populist Persian nationalist regime (similar to what happened briefly in Myanmar, what happened in Russia, and what’s seemingly happening albeit with religious overtones in India) or a kleptocracy. Persian nationalism I can imagine being relatively better for the West but rather bad if you’re an Iranian Kurd or Arab, and probably not exactly best mates with Israel either.
The US may join in with bombing Iran, but Trump is never going to commit ground troops. (Nor am I clear from where a ground invasion could even happen!) Bombing alone does not have a great track record of producing regime change. It's not impossible, but I think the more likely outcome is lots of dead people and a degraded infrastructure in Iran, but the regime continues. Trump/Bibi declare they've won and stop at some point. Or maybe there's some sort of negotiated settlement (which Trump clearly wants): where Iran promises to give up its nuclear programme.
On the Moral Maze just now Sir Richard Dalton and Professor Mary Kaldor demonstrate the purblindness of de haut en bas expertise no matter what evidence is presented to them
Can you give an English translation of that? I honestly don't understand what it means.
It seems scarcely believable that a US administration is again contemplating violent regime change in a country beginning with Ira*, let alone one supposedly committed to avoiding forever wars, but here we are.
If for whatever combination of reasons the theocracy ruling Iran ends up falling, the question is what comes in its place. Evidence from the fall of secular Middle Eastern regimes is that the Islamists come next. But evidence from the fall of Islamist regimes is rather scant, because the only example I can think of if Afghanistan, and in that case the Islamists a. were more popular than the Iranian Ayatollahs and b. came back.
So we need to think creatively. Now’s not really the time for liberal democracy, it’s on the decline everywhere, so what else? My betting would be either a populist Persian nationalist regime (similar to what happened briefly in Myanmar, what happened in Russia, and what’s seemingly happening albeit with religious overtones in India) or a kleptocracy. Persian nationalism I can imagine being relatively better for the West but rather bad if you’re an Iranian Kurd or Arab, and probably not exactly best mates with Israel either.
The US may join in with bombing Iran, but Trump is never going to commit ground troops. (Nor am I clear from where a ground invasion could even happen!) Bombing alone does not have a great track record of producing regime change. It's not impossible, but I think the more likely outcome is lots of dead people and a degraded infrastructure in Iran, but the regime continues. Trump/Bibi declare they've won and stop at some point. Or maybe there's some sort of negotiated settlement (which Trump clearly wants): where Iran promises to give up its nuclear programme.
It’s very unclear what the “face saving” way out is for Iran. Trump is offering them a humiliating defeat
Iranian state TV has warned users about an "irrelevant" clip calling for the public to "rise up" against government that was reportedly seen by those accessing its channels via satellite.
“If you notice irrelevant messages while watching TV, it is due to the enemy jamming satellite signals,” state TV said.
The video, which has since been shared by social media users, accused the Iranian establishment of “failing” its own people and called on viewers to "take control of your future”. The source of the clip and the alleged hack are currently unknown.
I think maybe he got carried away when he realised he could hide his weird chin with stubble. But also, this is an awful thing to say on social media, or indeed anywhere
But it is, in addition, a measure of the polarisation
Why would someone like Carswell write something so stupid?
Iranian state TV has warned users about an "irrelevant" clip calling for the public to "rise up" against government that was reportedly seen by those accessing its channels via satellite.
“If you notice irrelevant messages while watching TV, it is due to the enemy jamming satellite signals,” state TV said.
The video, which has since been shared by social media users, accused the Iranian establishment of “failing” its own people and called on viewers to "take control of your future”. The source of the clip and the alleged hack are currently unknown.
Iranian state TV has warned users about an "irrelevant" clip calling for the public to "rise up" against government that was reportedly seen by those accessing its channels via satellite.
“If you notice irrelevant messages while watching TV, it is due to the enemy jamming satellite signals,” state TV said.
The video, which has since been shared by social media users, accused the Iranian establishment of “failing” its own people and called on viewers to "take control of your future”. The source of the clip and the alleged hack are currently unknown.
Let me guess...
The same people who made a lot of pagers blow up at the same time I'm guessing.
It seems scarcely believable that a US administration is again contemplating violent regime change in a country beginning with Ira*, let alone one supposedly committed to avoiding forever wars, but here we are.
If for whatever combination of reasons the theocracy ruling Iran ends up falling, the question is what comes in its place. Evidence from the fall of secular Middle Eastern regimes is that the Islamists come next. But evidence from the fall of Islamist regimes is rather scant, because the only example I can think of if Afghanistan, and in that case the Islamists a. were more popular than the Iranian Ayatollahs and b. came back.
So we need to think creatively. Now’s not really the time for liberal democracy, it’s on the decline everywhere, so what else? My betting would be either a populist Persian nationalist regime (similar to what happened briefly in Myanmar, what happened in Russia, and what’s seemingly happening albeit with religious overtones in India) or a kleptocracy. Persian nationalism I can imagine being relatively better for the West but rather bad if you’re an Iranian Kurd or Arab, and probably not exactly best mates with Israel either.
The US may join in with bombing Iran, but Trump is never going to commit ground troops. (Nor am I clear from where a ground invasion could even happen!) Bombing alone does not have a great track record of producing regime change. It's not impossible, but I think the more likely outcome is lots of dead people and a degraded infrastructure in Iran, but the regime continues. Trump/Bibi declare they've won and stop at some point. Or maybe there's some sort of negotiated settlement (which Trump clearly wants): where Iran promises to give up its nuclear programme.
It’s very unclear what the “face saving” way out is for Iran. Trump is offering them a humiliating defeat
Trump, above perhaps all else, is terrible at negotiating deals. He just wants something so he can claim he won, but he doesn't seem to particularly notice what he's agreed to. I think there's potential for the Iranian government to negotiate something that is not existential for them and gives Trump enough.
Or there would be if they were just dealing with Trump, but they're dealing with Bibi, who is like Trump in some ways, but actually clever. Netanyahu is demanding much more and is not interested in some quick win pretend deal.
However, what can Israel and the US do? They can win the air war, destroy Iran's military, bomb the country... and then what? What do they do if/when Iran doesn't surrender? Has Bibi over-reached?
I don't know what will happen. (If I did, I'd make a lot of money in the markets.) But it seems to me that there's a biiiiiiiiiiiig gap between this "regime change" rhetoric and regime change actually occurring.
On the Moral Maze just now Sir Richard Dalton and Professor Mary Kaldor demonstrate the purblindness of de haut en bas expertise no matter what evidence is presented to them
Can you give an English translation of that? I honestly don't understand what it means.
NEW: President Trump told senior aides late Tuesday that he approved of attack plans for Iran, but was holding off on giving the final order to see if Tehran will abandon its nuclear program, three people familiar with the deliberations said.
I think maybe he got carried away when he realised he could hide his weird chin with stubble. But also, this is an awful thing to say on social media, or indeed anywhere
But it is, in addition, a measure of the polarisation
Why would someone like Carswell write something so stupid?
Some people seem to get sucked into an alt right social media bubble and slip 'n slide into more and more extreme views.
NEW: President Trump told senior aides late Tuesday that he approved of attack plans for Iran, but was holding off on giving the final order to see if Tehran will abandon its nuclear program, three people familiar with the deliberations said.
I think maybe he got carried away when he realised he could hide his weird chin with stubble. But also, this is an awful thing to say on social media, or indeed anywhere
But it is, in addition, a measure of the polarisation
Why would someone like Carswell write something so stupid?
Some people seem to get sucked into an alt right social media bubble and slip 'n slide into more and more extreme views.
On the Moral Maze just now Sir Richard Dalton and Professor Mary Kaldor demonstrate the purblindness of de haut en bas expertise no matter what evidence is presented to them
Can you give an English translation of that? I honestly don't understand what it means.
I think maybe he got carried away when he realised he could hide his weird chin with stubble. But also, this is an awful thing to say on social media, or indeed anywhere
But it is, in addition, a measure of the polarisation
Why would someone like Carswell write something so stupid?
Some people seem to get sucked into an alt right social media bubble and slip 'n slide into more and more extreme views.
Didn't Carswell relocate to the USA to become a MAGA disciple? If so, then his behaviour makes perfect sense. In his world, and with the people he needs to court, that sort of language is simply expected.
The US dropped 539,000 tons of bombs on Cambodia from about 1969-70, about three times what they had dropped on Japan in WWII. Maybe 300k Cambodians were killed. Did the US achieve its war aims? No. They maybe achieved some delay in things they didn't want, but basically, no.
NEW: President Trump told senior aides late Tuesday that he approved of attack plans for Iran, but was holding off on giving the final order to see if Tehran will abandon its nuclear program, three people familiar with the deliberations said.
Art of the Deal....check notes on success rate so far....
Peace in Ukraine Peace in Gaza Partial deal with Starmer over lower tariffs on hoola hoops. ....
I’m calling it. Trump will vanquish the demons of the Bush era by successfully executing regime change the old-fashioned way - the British way - by installing a monarch and not trying to impose Western institutions.
He will tell the ayatollahs, “You’re fired,” and America will look the most powerful it has done since 9/11.
You seem to be under the misguided impression that Trump is some kind of genius rather than a senile old man who doesn’t know his arse from his elbow
It seems scarcely believable that a US administration is again contemplating violent regime change in a country beginning with Ira*, let alone one supposedly committed to avoiding forever wars, but here we are.
If for whatever combination of reasons the theocracy ruling Iran ends up falling, the question is what comes in its place. Evidence from the fall of secular Middle Eastern regimes is that the Islamists come next. But evidence from the fall of Islamist regimes is rather scant, because the only example I can think of if Afghanistan, and in that case the Islamists a. were more popular than the Iranian Ayatollahs and b. came back.
So we need to think creatively. Now’s not really the time for liberal democracy, it’s on the decline everywhere, so what else? My betting would be either a populist Persian nationalist regime (similar to what happened briefly in Myanmar, what happened in Russia, and what’s seemingly happening albeit with religious overtones in India) or a kleptocracy. Persian nationalism I can imagine being relatively better for the West but rather bad if you’re an Iranian Kurd or Arab, and probably not exactly best mates with Israel either.
The US may join in with bombing Iran, but Trump is never going to commit ground troops. (Nor am I clear from where a ground invasion could even happen!) Bombing alone does not have a great track record of producing regime change. It's not impossible, but I think the more likely outcome is lots of dead people and a degraded infrastructure in Iran, but the regime continues. Trump/Bibi declare they've won and stop at some point. Or maybe there's some sort of negotiated settlement (which Trump clearly wants): where Iran promises to give up its nuclear programme.
It’s very unclear what the “face saving” way out is for Iran. Trump is offering them a humiliating defeat
Trump, above perhaps all else, is terrible at negotiating deals. He just wants something so he can claim he won, but he doesn't seem to particularly notice what he's agreed to. I think there's potential for the Iranian government to negotiate something that is not existential for them and gives Trump enough.
Or there would be if they were just dealing with Trump, but they're dealing with Bibi, who is like Trump in some ways, but actually clever. Netanyahu is demanding much more and is not interested in some quick win pretend deal.
However, what can Israel and the US do? They can win the air war, destroy Iran's military, bomb the country... and then what? What do they do if/when Iran doesn't surrender? Has Bibi over-reached?
I don't know what will happen. (If I did, I'd make a lot of money in the markets.) But it seems to me that there's a biiiiiiiiiiiig gap between this "regime change" rhetoric and regime change actually occurring.
It did occur to me on hearing the complete IDF air superiority stuff to ask to what end? Historically it’s almost always been in support of a land offensive but that’s extremely unlikely to happen in Iran.
It seems scarcely believable that a US administration is again contemplating violent regime change in a country beginning with Ira*, let alone one supposedly committed to avoiding forever wars, but here we are.
If for whatever combination of reasons the theocracy ruling Iran ends up falling, the question is what comes in its place. Evidence from the fall of secular Middle Eastern regimes is that the Islamists come next. But evidence from the fall of Islamist regimes is rather scant, because the only example I can think of if Afghanistan, and in that case the Islamists a. were more popular than the Iranian Ayatollahs and b. came back.
So we need to think creatively. Now’s not really the time for liberal democracy, it’s on the decline everywhere, so what else? My betting would be either a populist Persian nationalist regime (similar to what happened briefly in Myanmar, what happened in Russia, and what’s seemingly happening albeit with religious overtones in India) or a kleptocracy. Persian nationalism I can imagine being relatively better for the West but rather bad if you’re an Iranian Kurd or Arab, and probably not exactly best mates with Israel either.
The US may join in with bombing Iran, but Trump is never going to commit ground troops. (Nor am I clear from where a ground invasion could even happen!) Bombing alone does not have a great track record of producing regime change. It's not impossible, but I think the more likely outcome is lots of dead people and a degraded infrastructure in Iran, but the regime continues. Trump/Bibi declare they've won and stop at some point. Or maybe there's some sort of negotiated settlement (which Trump clearly wants): where Iran promises to give up its nuclear programme.
It’s very unclear what the “face saving” way out is for Iran. Trump is offering them a humiliating defeat
Trump, above perhaps all else, is terrible at negotiating deals. He just wants something so he can claim he won, but he doesn't seem to particularly notice what he's agreed to. I think there's potential for the Iranian government to negotiate something that is not existential for them and gives Trump enough.
Or there would be if they were just dealing with Trump, but they're dealing with Bibi, who is like Trump in some ways, but actually clever. Netanyahu is demanding much more and is not interested in some quick win pretend deal.
However, what can Israel and the US do? They can win the air war, destroy Iran's military, bomb the country... and then what? What do they do if/when Iran doesn't surrender? Has Bibi over-reached?
I don't know what will happen. (If I did, I'd make a lot of money in the markets.) But it seems to me that there's a biiiiiiiiiiiig gap between this "regime change" rhetoric and regime change actually occurring.
It did occur to me on hearing the complete IDF air superiority stuff to ask to what end? Historically it’s almost always been in support of a land offensive but that’s extremely unlikely to happen in Iran.
It buys Netanyahu another six months outside of the clinker. Is there anything more important?
On the Moral Maze just now Sir Richard Dalton and Professor Mary Kaldor demonstrate the purblindness of de haut en bas expertise no matter what evidence is presented to them
Can you give an English translation of that? I honestly don't understand what it means.
They were condescending, but wrong.
I heard it too. These people are bonkers and yet oh so superior.
What the programme did explain to me was why Chagos was given away, even though it wasn't mentioned once.
I think maybe he got carried away when he realised he could hide his weird chin with stubble. But also, this is an awful thing to say on social media, or indeed anywhere
But it is, in addition, a measure of the polarisation
Why would someone like Carswell write something so stupid?
Some people seem to get sucked into an alt right social media bubble and slip 'n slide into more and more extreme views.
Radicalisation spiral.
An early version, in the U.K., was drinking in a series of pubs and clubs in Northern Ireland. As one progressed to the more extreme views in each, one walked down the road to hell in the next.
Since the start of the shooting war on Friday Iran has fired over 400 ballistic missiles (stocks rumoured to be c2000). Landed in populated areas of some sort: 20. The rest were out in the arse ends of nowhere or mostly just never arrived.
Over 1000 drones fired. Reporting suggests not one struck an object, or even the ground.
The IDF thinks it may run out of munitions of choice in about two weeks, but then again they reckoned they had 10-14 days to go at it at the start of this.
I remember a match in about 1995 being stopped by the sun shining off a window into the batsman's eyes. The famous Dickie Bird was the umpire involved IIRC.
On the Moral Maze just now Sir Richard Dalton and Professor Mary Kaldor demonstrate the purblindness of de haut en bas expertise no matter what evidence is presented to them
Can you give an English translation of that? I honestly don't understand what it means.
They were condescending, but wrong.
I heard it too. These people are bonkers and yet oh so superior.
What the programme did explain to me was why Chagos was given away, even though it wasn't mentioned once.
The thing that connects the Old10K to the NU10K is
- their innate sense of entitlement - their innate sense of being absolutely right. About everything
On the Moral Maze just now Sir Richard Dalton and Professor Mary Kaldor demonstrate the purblindness of de haut en bas expertise no matter what evidence is presented to them
Can you give an English translation of that? I honestly don't understand what it means.
I’m calling it. Trump will vanquish the demons of the Bush era by successfully executing regime change the old-fashioned way - the British way - by installing a monarch and not trying to impose Western institutions.
He will tell the ayatollahs, “You’re fired,” and America will look the most powerful it has done since 9/11.
Who's that clip clopping over William's bridge?
I can just envision lots of dead Persian people on the whim of two sociopathic a,,,holes.
NEW: President Trump told senior aides late Tuesday that he approved of attack plans for Iran, but was holding off on giving the final order to see if Tehran will abandon its nuclear program, three people familiar with the deliberations said.
Gideon levy a rare sane voice in Israel on how Trumps ignorance could easily lead to something very serious indeed.
Comments
He's probably over the 'blame single mothers for everything' phase by now.
Prime Minister David Cameron has branded the alternative vote (AV) system "undemocratic, obscure, unfair and crazy", ahead of May's referendum on changing the way MPs are elected to Westminster.
Speaking in Swansea, Mr Cameron said the vote was "hugely important" to Britain and went on to quote Sir Winston Churchill, who stood against the introduction of AV in 1931.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-politics-12934509
The term then became used more widely as a metaphor for empty rituals.
In this context "the last time we had BoZo as leader we got lots of votes. If BoZo is leader again we will get lots of votes"
"The form is perfect. It looks exactly the way it looked before. But it doesn’t work."
It's also possible the country goes through a decade like Syria had, with civil war, and many millions of refugees.
It's not as though either Israel or the US would make any effort to hold things together.
In Israel's case, the evidence if Syria suggests they'll try to do the opposite of that.
Huge roll of the dice by two leaders who couldn't care less.
Onglet
‘Too much for even Leon’ should definitely be a thing.
That's just maths.
#TooMuchEvenForLeon
Other people will look at it in perplexity, bewildered by the fact a vaguely posh fast food chain has such a political footprint
@yasharali.bsky.social
1. BREAKING via the Financial Times
British Prime Minister Keir Starmer has put his cabinet on alert for a possible US attack on Iran, just 24 hours after insisting Donald Trump had given no indication he was about to “get involved in this conflict”.
Donald Trump says ‘nobody knows what I’m going to do’ when asked if US plans to strike Iran
https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2025/jun/18/iran-israel-live-updates-air-strikes-tehran-trump-khamenei-middle-east-latest-news
Narcissism enabled by the Republican Congress.
Sindyref had the government line that Scotland was too wee, too poor, too stupid which led to Yes rising up the polls until the late intervention of Gordon Brown and ScotCon Ruth Davidson with positive messages about the union.
Brexit was the same. The government's Remain campaign was Project Fear. Nothing positive.
Ali you failed this weeks task of building a nuclear missile in time, you're fired.
PBers should watch Times Radio's DPMQs Unpacked which today included Starmer's PPS and PMQs-prepper Chris Ward who gave some fascinating insights, not least that Labour now sees PMQs as a glorified press conference to the nation rather than a parliamentary battle with an increasingly irrelevant Opposition over who will win the next election.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=df1C4nz0-sc
Farage has it to an incredible degree. Like a particularly annoying class wiseguy, he has a perfect instinct for what to say to make an impact and what to not say to avoid real trouble. How to hint without leaving a shred of evidence in the written record.
One of his challenges to turn Reform into a genuinely plausible government-in-waiting is that he is surrounded by chumps who haven't learned how to avoid saying the quiet bit out loud.
Those who sourly predicted fifteen years ago that the Treasury would fund the southern bits of HS2 & then pull the plug were sadly confirmed in their prescience. Complete debacle. A national embarrassment.
(or that the proportion of government investment by region is the inverse of the average full-time wage)
It came as at least three Iranian planes landed on Wednesday in the capital of Oman - the previous site of U.S.-Iran nuclear talks. Al Jazeera verified flight data that showed two Iranian government planes and one from Iran's privately-owned Meraj Airlines landing in Muscat.
I haven't watched PMQs in ages, but if Kemi is trying to setup Starmer, she clearly is doing a terrible job as she has had zero hits.
🚨 WASHINGTON (AP) — US starts evacuating nonessential diplomats and their families from its embassy in Israel as Iran conflict intensifies.
He will tell the ayatollahs, “You’re fired,” and America will look the most powerful it has done since 9/11.
WTF is this madness? Frankfurters with creamed, dice carrot-filled onions.
https://x.com/PulpLibrarian/status/1935403423312310626
"We got him!"
She had work permit—and military parole-in-place request—was separated from her 10 month old son anyway.
"Putting my life on the line for this country wasn’t easy decision. Honestly, I just feel betrayed."
Now her husband has to sell everything they own to reunite mother and child in Honduras.
Shirly Guardado was tricked into being detained by ICE in the first place—when they pretended her car had been in an accident in her work parking lot.
In 2023, U.S. Customs and Immigration Services approved her petition—making her arrest a complete shock...
https://x.com/LongTimeHistory/status/1935099157162737670
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Anglo-Afghan_War
50% or higher of zygotes, which some people insist have souls, never make it to full term, without any artificial intervention. So that means that most souls you encounter in heaven only ever lived for a few days as a small ball of cells in a Fallopian tube. Which was all ordained by God.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A_KhI-8n15s
If for whatever combination of reasons the theocracy ruling Iran ends up falling, the question is what comes in its place. Evidence from the fall of secular Middle Eastern regimes is that the Islamists come next. But evidence from the fall of Islamist regimes is rather scant, because the only example I can think of if Afghanistan, and in that case the Islamists a. were more popular than the Iranian Ayatollahs and b. came back.
So we need to think creatively. Now’s not really the time for liberal democracy, it’s on the decline everywhere, so what else? My betting would be either a populist Persian nationalist regime (similar to what happened briefly in Myanmar, what happened in Russia, and what’s seemingly happening albeit with religious overtones in India) or a kleptocracy. Persian nationalism I can imagine being relatively better for the West but rather bad if you’re an Iranian Kurd or Arab, and probably not exactly best mates with Israel either.
If Europe were to standardise on it, the unit price might even come down..
#France selects @Saab #GlobalEye as E-3F #AWACS replacement. To sign for two aircraft with contract to be finalised in coming months, per the French DGA...
https://x.com/GarethJennings3/status/1935367904939114514
Iranian state TV has warned users about an "irrelevant" clip calling for the public to "rise up" against government that was reportedly seen by those accessing its channels via satellite.
“If you notice irrelevant messages while watching TV, it is due to the enemy jamming satellite signals,” state TV said.
The video, which has since been shared by social media users, accused the Iranian establishment of “failing” its own people and called on viewers to "take control of your future”. The source of the clip and the alleged hack are currently unknown.
Or there would be if they were just dealing with Trump, but they're dealing with Bibi, who is like Trump in some ways, but actually clever. Netanyahu is demanding much more and is not interested in some quick win pretend deal.
However, what can Israel and the US do? They can win the air war, destroy Iran's military, bomb the country... and then what? What do they do if/when Iran doesn't surrender? Has Bibi over-reached?
I don't know what will happen. (If I did, I'd make a lot of money in the markets.) But it seems to me that there's a biiiiiiiiiiiig gap between this "regime change" rhetoric and regime change actually occurring.
NEW: President Trump told senior aides late Tuesday that he approved of attack plans for Iran, but was holding off on giving the final order to see if Tehran will abandon its nuclear program, three people familiar with the deliberations said.
But that doesn't make it right.
Peace in UkrainePeace in GazaPartial deal with Starmer over lower tariffs on hoola hoops.
....
Rob Key had dropped his trousers, and it was coming out of his arse.
Time for everyone to move on...
What the programme did explain to me was why Chagos was given away, even though it wasn't mentioned once.
An early version, in the U.K., was drinking in a series of pubs and clubs in Northern Ireland. As one progressed to the more extreme views in each, one walked down the road to hell in the next.
The latest theory wrt Air India flight 171 is something known as "vapour lock".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XptrHxG9dDk
"What Really Causes Dual Engine Failure? | Air India 171 Update
Captain Steeeve"
Since the start of the shooting war on Friday Iran has fired over 400 ballistic missiles (stocks rumoured to be c2000). Landed in populated areas of some sort: 20. The rest were out in the arse ends of nowhere or mostly just never arrived.
Over 1000 drones fired. Reporting suggests not one struck an object, or even the ground.
The IDF thinks it may run out of munitions of choice in about two weeks, but then again they reckoned they had 10-14 days to go at it at the start of this.
- their innate sense of entitlement
- their innate sense of being absolutely right. About everything
I can just envision lots of dead Persian people on the whim of two sociopathic a,,,holes.
SAD. Very sad.
'On the edge of WW3'
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVZjNx1ThFw