Restore pick up a further 2 direct Reform defectors on Warwickshire council
Wow. I thought Restore were merely a fringe outfit and completely non-serious. Why are they starting to cause problems for Reform? Does Nigel need to take action here? How likely that a trickle becomes a flood?
13 so far. Announcement every day since launch. I think Reform do have a (limited so far) problem Some chatter that this may cost Reform control of one or more of their county councils.......
All I can think of is 'The Peoples Front front of Judea' right now.
Reform UK vs Restore Britain vs Recover England vs Resuscitate Essex vs Remember Basildon...
Pakistan cricketers are not being considered by Indian-owned sides for next month's Hundred auction, sources have told BBC Sport.
Players from Pakistan have not featured in the Indian Premier League (IPL) since 2009 because of diplomatic tensions between the two countries.
Four of The Hundred's eight franchises - Manchester Super Giants, MI London, Southern Brave and Sunrisers Leeds - are now at least part-owned by companies that control IPL teams.
In messages seen by the BBC, a senior official from the England and Wales Cricket Board (ECB) indicated to an agent that interest in his Pakistan players would be limited to sides not linked to the IPL.
Another agent described the situation as "an unwritten rule" across T20 leagues with Indian investment.
ECB chief executive Richard Gould said last year he expected "players from all nations to be selected for all teams" in The Hundred and warned "clear anti-discrimination policies" were in place.
None of the four teams or ownership groups in question responded to requests for comment.
I heard Nasser Husain talking about this on the Sky Sports Cricket pod. He was saying how disgraceful it was that Pakistani players weren't allowed to play for Indian franchises, and that he hoped that wouldn't be the case in the Hundred now that Indian Consortiums have bought some sides. The rules quoted, that no players were banned from playing for any team, didn't seem convincing to me.
Unless the rules require teams to employ Pakistan cricketers you can simply decide not to employ them...
Nationality falls under racial discrimination laws. Difficult to prove when you are employing individual talent though, as in cricket
👀 Robert Jenrick texted a copy of his speech on the economy to George Osborne after he gave it yesterday, the former chancellor reveals on @polcurrency.
Reform’s new Treasury spokesperson said he hopes Osborne will “approve” of it.
Jenrick wrote in full: “George, trust you’re well. Here’s a copy of a speech I gave today on the economy.
“It commits to the OBR and to fiscal responsibility, which I hope you will approve of.”
Osborne responded on his podcast: “I say yes, I do. Although I’m not sure I approve of much else in the Reform programme.”
Restore pick up a further 2 direct Reform defectors on Warwickshire council
At an amateurish level I try to keep track of councillor defections. What started as a simple train-spotterish hobby has now become rather complicated. So far this year there have been defections to UKIP, Advance UK (Ben Habib's lot) and now Restore Britain. That's an awful lot of political mparties on the right who are not the Conservative party. Is there a market for a merger between Advance and Restore?
Does it match to this? No sign of the additional Warwickshire Two yet.
Neither YG or MiC who have polled since Restore launchrd have found a surge yet. We have Opinium Saturday and next weeks YG and MiC will have had time for the news to sink in so we will see if this is just a FoN house effect
“UK blocking Trump from using RAF bases for strikes on IranThe disagreement over the use of British sites is behind the US president’s withdrawal of support for the Chagos Islands deal, The Times understands”
I’ve just had look round everywhere. Apart from The Times, no other news organisation is touching this. Is it actually true, or will The Times take it down any moment? How could The Times have got this scoop, this side of the pond?
It’s too risky for Starmer to believe this is actually true. Hard for me to believe he said no. Does anyone have any example of such a request turned down before? I think for Vietnam US never asked Labour government to use an RAF base at any point?
IF true, it is a very big moment in UK US special relationship I think. But also huge implications in UK domestic politics. If Kemi says she would have given a different answer, straight away a huge and explosive differential between Conservative and Labour. Because, if any US plane goes down, with US service lives lost, anywhere in the battle space, Trump will blame the British Labour government for their deaths, and so can Farage, Kemi and Priti.
KABOOM! now it’s kicking off.
Tories say Starmer should let Trump dispatch US bombers to Iran from British bases The Conservative party has also responded to the Times story. (See 4.40pm.) They say Keir Starmer should let the Americans launch a bombing attack against Iran from Diego Garcia in the Chagos Islands.
James Cartlidge, the shadow defence secretary, said:
Iran’s nuclear programme has been a grave threat to Britain and our allies. That is why Conservatives supported the US strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities last summer. Iran must never obtain a nuclear bomb. While speculative, if the US judges that further action is needed to deal with that specific threat, and if again we believe such action is in our national interest and to protect vital UK security interests, then we should grant the use of our bases if and where required, including RAF bases in the UK, and Diego Garcia.
This is probably why Reform won't win G&D. Their ground game is s**t. You would have thought that sending someone who is antisemitic to the Manchester area would be a fail. Double that for the recent deaths there. They're running out of road and Nigel's media supporters are going to find it difficult to continue the pantomime.
So where does the sizable Jewish vote go?
LD wasted vote Con wasted vote Green a Jewish leader but not a Zionist Labour not for Starmer, may be for Burnham factor Abstain?
Labour 15/8 Reform 2/1 Conservatives 13/2 Green 10/1 Restore 18/1 Lib Dem 40/1
200/1 Bar
Incredible prices
2/9 Lab, Reform or Conservatives cant be the worst bet in the world can it? I just can't see the Greens or Restore being anywhere close
The issue is that -unless the prices move and you can trade earlier- you're locking your money up for a minimum of two years, and probably more like three. So that 25% return becomes 8% per year, less Befair fees.
So, yes, probably a value bet. But there are places where you can recycling your capital more quickly.
Its a consistently pretty liquid market - at any point you can quickly rebalance your book for a few % or gradually rebalance for a couple of %. So this is overblown as a reason not to get involved.
Fair point. Yes, you probably should bet on Lab/Con/Reform, because a 25% chance of LibDem or Green or Repair or SNP or PC leading the seats market is too high.
PC are only fighting 32 seats. So the chances of them being in a majority, or even really significant position are, surely, low.
Non-existent, surely?
More chance of Raducanu winning another Slam or anyone wearing Yankees headgear in London being able to name one of the players.
👀 Robert Jenrick texted a copy of his speech on the economy to George Osborne after he gave it yesterday, the former chancellor reveals on @polcurrency.
Reform’s new Treasury spokesperson said he hopes Osborne will “approve” of it.
Jenrick wrote in full: “George, trust you’re well. Here’s a copy of a speech I gave today on the economy.
“It commits to the OBR and to fiscal responsibility, which I hope you will approve of.”
Osborne responded on his podcast: “I say yes, I do. Although I’m not sure I approve of much else in the Reform programme.”
"Almost every important decision of the past 36 years, by Labour, Tories and coalition Lib Dems alike – with the exception of some of John Major’s domestic reforms, the launch of auto-enrolled pensions, the legalisation of gay marriage, Michael Gove’s school reforms and Brexit – has been a disaster or backfired in catastrophic ways. Most will need to be reversed if Britain is to be saved."
It's Allister Heath, King of the unhinged headline, for goodness sake!
It's also got a touch of the 'What have the Romans" about it. And I would like to add 'increasing the personal allowance' to the list. And peace in Northern Ireland. And I can probably think of a few more things too.
“UK blocking Trump from using RAF bases for strikes on IranThe disagreement over the use of British sites is behind the US president’s withdrawal of support for the Chagos Islands deal, The Times understands”
I’ve just had look round everywhere. Apart from The Times, no other news organisation is touching this. Is it actually true, or will The Times take it down any moment? How could The Times have got this scoop, this side of the pond?
It’s too risky for Starmer to believe this is actually true. Hard for me to believe he said no. Does anyone have any example of such a request turned down before? I think for Vietnam US never asked Labour government to use an RAF base at any point?
IF true, it is a very big moment in UK US special relationship I think. But also huge implications in UK domestic politics. If Kemi says she would have given a different answer, straight away a huge and explosive differential between Conservative and Labour. Because, if any US plane goes down, with US service lives lost, anywhere in the battle space, Trump will blame the British Labour government for their deaths, and so can Farage, Kemi and Priti.
KABOOM! now it’s kicking off.
Tories say Starmer should let Trump dispatch US bombers to Iran from British bases The Conservative party has also responded to the Times story. (See 4.40pm.) They say Keir Starmer should let the Americans launch a bombing attack against Iran from Diego Garcia in the Chagos Islands.
James Cartlidge, the shadow defence secretary, said:
Iran’s nuclear programme has been a grave threat to Britain and our allies. That is why Conservatives supported the US strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities last summer. Iran must never obtain a nuclear bomb. While speculative, if the US judges that further action is needed to deal with that specific threat, and if again we believe such action is in our national interest and to protect vital UK security interests, then we should grant the use of our bases if and where required, including RAF bases in the UK, and Diego Garcia.
The Shadow Defence Secretary understands we have an RAF base somewhere in Diego Garcia? Well it’s his job to know I suppose. The Leader of the Liberal Democrat’s believe we have an RAF base somewhere in Diego Garcia too. Must be me that’s wrong then, I didn’t think we did.
It’s very very risky from Starmer. Hard to believe he said no.
It is a very big moment in UK US special relationship I think. Does anyone have any example of such a request turned down before? I think for Vietnam US never asked Labour government to use an RAF base at any point?
If Kemi says she would have given a different answer, straight away a huge and explosive differential between Conservative and Labour. Because, if any US plane goes down, with U’S service lives lost, anywhere in the battle space, Trump will blame the British Labour government for their deaths.
Yes - I have such an example.
The Conservative Government in 2012 rebuffed any attempt to use Diego-Garcia for a pre-emptive attack on Iran in advance, because they had official legal advice that could be against international law.
The Guardian has been told that US diplomats have also lobbied for the use of British bases in Cyprus, and for permission to fly from US bases on Ascension Island in the Atlantic and Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean, both of which are British territories. .. The UK would be in breach of international law if it facilitated what amounted to a pre-emptive strike on Iran," said a senior Whitehall source. "It is explicit. The government has been using this to push back against the Americans." .. "I think the US has been surprised that ministers have been reluctant to provide assurances about this kind of upfront assistance," said one source. "They'd expect resistance from senior Liberal Democrats, but it's Tories as well. That has come as a bit of a surprise." https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/oct/25/uk-reject-us-request-bases-iran
It will be fun if SKS finds that, given that the Shadow Def Sec is jumping up and down demanding the Govt do the opposite.
28% is Reforns joint lowest with FoN since early April and what they were averaging with them a year ago before the 'surge' So as well as the others score worth watching if Reform start breaching post LE 2025 lows with other pollsters
16 is just 2 points above both Con and Labs bottom and 10 is the LDs lowest ever with FoN
It’s very very risky from Starmer. Hard to believe he said no.
It is a very big moment in UK US special relationship I think. Does anyone have any example of such a request turned down before? I think for Vietnam US never asked Labour government to use an RAF base at any point?
If Kemi says she would have given a different answer, straight away a huge and explosive differential between Conservative and Labour. Because, if any US plane goes down, with U’S service lives lost, anywhere in the battle space, Trump will blame the British Labour government for their deaths.
Yes - I have such an example.
The Conservative Government in 2012 rebuffed any attempt to use Diego-Garcia for a pre-emptive attack on Iran, because they had official legal advice that could be against international law.
The Guardian has been told that US diplomats have also lobbied for the use of British bases in Cyprus, and for permission to fly from US bases on Ascension Island in the Atlantic and Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean, both of which are British territories. .. The UK would be in breach of international law if it facilitated what amounted to a pre-emptive strike on Iran," said a senior Whitehall source. "It is explicit. The government has been using this to push back against the Americans." .. "I think the US has been surprised that ministers have been reluctant to provide assurances about this kind of upfront assistance," said one source. "They'd expect resistance from senior Liberal Democrats, but it's Tories as well. That has come as a bit of a surprise." https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/oct/25/uk-reject-us-request-bases-iran
It will be fun if SKS finds that, given that the Shadow Def Sec is jumping up and down demanding the Govt do the opposite.
Surely SKS's view is that under international law, it's for Mauritius to decide, not us?
Gordon Brown's journalism on Andrew continues, he now says he has sent a five page document to a number of police forces about flight rosters at Stansted and other airports. Another extraordinary element of this crisis is the former PM's service here.
It’s very very risky from Starmer. Hard to believe he said no.
It is a very big moment in UK US special relationship I think. Does anyone have any example of such a request turned down before? I think for Vietnam US never asked Labour government to use an RAF base at any point?
If Kemi says she would have given a different answer, straight away a huge and explosive differential between Conservative and Labour. Because, if any US plane goes down, with U’S service lives lost, anywhere in the battle space, Trump will blame the British Labour government for their deaths.
Yes - I have such an example.
The Conservative Government in 2012 rebuffed any attempt to use Diego-Garcia for a pre-emptive attack on Iran, because they had official legal advice that could be against international law.
The Guardian has been told that US diplomats have also lobbied for the use of British bases in Cyprus, and for permission to fly from US bases on Ascension Island in the Atlantic and Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean, both of which are British territories. .. The UK would be in breach of international law if it facilitated what amounted to a pre-emptive strike on Iran," said a senior Whitehall source. "It is explicit. The government has been using this to push back against the Americans." .. "I think the US has been surprised that ministers have been reluctant to provide assurances about this kind of upfront assistance," said one source. "They'd expect resistance from senior Liberal Democrats, but it's Tories as well. That has come as a bit of a surprise." https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/oct/25/uk-reject-us-request-bases-iran
It will be fun if SKS finds that, given that the Shadow Def Sec is jumping up and down demanding the Govt do the opposite.
That was 2012, when Dave was PM.
It might as well have been 1912 for all its relevance to how the Conservatives think today.
It’s very very risky from Starmer. Hard to believe he said no.
It is a very big moment in UK US special relationship I think. Does anyone have any example of such a request turned down before? I think for Vietnam US never asked Labour government to use an RAF base at any point?
If Kemi says she would have given a different answer, straight away a huge and explosive differential between Conservative and Labour. Because, if any US plane goes down, with U’S service lives lost, anywhere in the battle space, Trump will blame the British Labour government for their deaths.
Yes - I have such an example.
The Conservative Government in 2012 rebuffed any attempt to use Diego-Garcia for a pre-emptive attack on Iran, because they had official legal advice that could be against international law.
The Guardian has been told that US diplomats have also lobbied for the use of British bases in Cyprus, and for permission to fly from US bases on Ascension Island in the Atlantic and Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean, both of which are British territories. .. The UK would be in breach of international law if it facilitated what amounted to a pre-emptive strike on Iran," said a senior Whitehall source. "It is explicit. The government has been using this to push back against the Americans." .. "I think the US has been surprised that ministers have been reluctant to provide assurances about this kind of upfront assistance," said one source. "They'd expect resistance from senior Liberal Democrats, but it's Tories as well. That has come as a bit of a surprise." https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/oct/25/uk-reject-us-request-bases-iran
It will be fun if SKS finds that, given that the Shadow Def Sec is jumping up and down demanding the Govt do the opposite.
Surely SKS's view is that under international law, it's for Mauritius to decide, not us?
Thats why he's declined.
Thats why Trump has had a hissy fit
Thats why Pritti and Badenoch look utterly stupid in attacking him
It’s very very risky from Starmer. Hard to believe he said no.
It is a very big moment in UK US special relationship I think. Does anyone have any example of such a request turned down before? I think for Vietnam US never asked Labour government to use an RAF base at any point?
If Kemi says she would have given a different answer, straight away a huge and explosive differential between Conservative and Labour. Because, if any US plane goes down, with U’S service lives lost, anywhere in the battle space, Trump will blame the British Labour government for their deaths.
Yes - I have such an example.
The Conservative Government in 2012 rebuffed any attempt to use Diego-Garcia for a pre-emptive attack on Iran, because they had official legal advice that could be against international law.
The Guardian has been told that US diplomats have also lobbied for the use of British bases in Cyprus, and for permission to fly from US bases on Ascension Island in the Atlantic and Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean, both of which are British territories. .. The UK would be in breach of international law if it facilitated what amounted to a pre-emptive strike on Iran," said a senior Whitehall source. "It is explicit. The government has been using this to push back against the Americans." .. "I think the US has been surprised that ministers have been reluctant to provide assurances about this kind of upfront assistance," said one source. "They'd expect resistance from senior Liberal Democrats, but it's Tories as well. That has come as a bit of a surprise." https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/oct/25/uk-reject-us-request-bases-iran
It will be fun if SKS finds that, given that the Shadow Def Sec is jumping up and down demanding the Govt do the opposite.
Surely SKS's view is that under international law, it's for Mauritius to decide, not us?
Thats why he's declined.
Thats why Trump has had a hissy fit
Thats why Pritti and Badenoch look utterly stupid in attacking him
The treaty with Mauritius is not in effect. And they will have no say in operational decisions even it does take effect
Gordon Brown's journalism on Andrew continues, he now says he has sent a five page document to a number of police forces about flight rosters at Stansted and other airports. Another extraordinary element of this crisis is the former PM's service here.
It’s very very risky from Starmer. Hard to believe he said no.
It is a very big moment in UK US special relationship I think. Does anyone have any example of such a request turned down before? I think for Vietnam US never asked Labour government to use an RAF base at any point?
If Kemi says she would have given a different answer, straight away a huge and explosive differential between Conservative and Labour. Because, if any US plane goes down, with U’S service lives lost, anywhere in the battle space, Trump will blame the British Labour government for their deaths.
Yes - I have such an example.
The Conservative Government in 2012 rebuffed any attempt to use Diego-Garcia for a pre-emptive attack on Iran, because they had official legal advice that could be against international law.
The Guardian has been told that US diplomats have also lobbied for the use of British bases in Cyprus, and for permission to fly from US bases on Ascension Island in the Atlantic and Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean, both of which are British territories. .. The UK would be in breach of international law if it facilitated what amounted to a pre-emptive strike on Iran," said a senior Whitehall source. "It is explicit. The government has been using this to push back against the Americans." .. "I think the US has been surprised that ministers have been reluctant to provide assurances about this kind of upfront assistance," said one source. "They'd expect resistance from senior Liberal Democrats, but it's Tories as well. That has come as a bit of a surprise." https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/oct/25/uk-reject-us-request-bases-iran
It will be fun if SKS finds that, given that the Shadow Def Sec is jumping up and down demanding the Govt do the opposite.
Surely SKS's view is that under international law, it's for Mauritius to decide, not us?
Red herring I think. The lease agreement on the base is between us and the USA. No agreement is in place with Mauritius yet.
The law is not even passed, which is why there is still mileage in flapping.
It’s very very risky from Starmer. Hard to believe he said no.
It is a very big moment in UK US special relationship I think. Does anyone have any example of such a request turned down before? I think for Vietnam US never asked Labour government to use an RAF base at any point?
If Kemi says she would have given a different answer, straight away a huge and explosive differential between Conservative and Labour. Because, if any US plane goes down, with U’S service lives lost, anywhere in the battle space, Trump will blame the British Labour government for their deaths.
Yes - I have such an example.
The Conservative Government in 2012 rebuffed any attempt to use Diego-Garcia for a pre-emptive attack on Iran, because they had official legal advice that could be against international law.
The Guardian has been told that US diplomats have also lobbied for the use of British bases in Cyprus, and for permission to fly from US bases on Ascension Island in the Atlantic and Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean, both of which are British territories. .. The UK would be in breach of international law if it facilitated what amounted to a pre-emptive strike on Iran," said a senior Whitehall source. "It is explicit. The government has been using this to push back against the Americans." .. "I think the US has been surprised that ministers have been reluctant to provide assurances about this kind of upfront assistance," said one source. "They'd expect resistance from senior Liberal Democrats, but it's Tories as well. That has come as a bit of a surprise." https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/oct/25/uk-reject-us-request-bases-iran
It will be fun if SKS finds that, given that the Shadow Def Sec is jumping up and down demanding the Govt do the opposite.
Surely SKS's view is that under international law, it's for Mauritius to decide, not us?
Taking it purely at face value; no.
Firstly because the handover to Mauritius has not happened yet so it is still a British decision.
And secondly because as I understand it the agreement with Mauritius when it does eventually pass will prevent them from interferring with US/UK operational usage of DG.
It’s very very risky from Starmer. Hard to believe he said no.
It is a very big moment in UK US special relationship I think. Does anyone have any example of such a request turned down before? I think for Vietnam US never asked Labour government to use an RAF base at any point?
If Kemi says she would have given a different answer, straight away a huge and explosive differential between Conservative and Labour. Because, if any US plane goes down, with U’S service lives lost, anywhere in the battle space, Trump will blame the British Labour government for their deaths.
Yes - I have such an example.
The Conservative Government in 2012 rebuffed any attempt to use Diego-Garcia for a pre-emptive attack on Iran, because they had official legal advice that could be against international law.
The Guardian has been told that US diplomats have also lobbied for the use of British bases in Cyprus, and for permission to fly from US bases on Ascension Island in the Atlantic and Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean, both of which are British territories. .. The UK would be in breach of international law if it facilitated what amounted to a pre-emptive strike on Iran," said a senior Whitehall source. "It is explicit. The government has been using this to push back against the Americans." .. "I think the US has been surprised that ministers have been reluctant to provide assurances about this kind of upfront assistance," said one source. "They'd expect resistance from senior Liberal Democrats, but it's Tories as well. That has come as a bit of a surprise." https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/oct/25/uk-reject-us-request-bases-iran
It will be fun if SKS finds that, given that the Shadow Def Sec is jumping up and down demanding the Govt do the opposite.
That was 2012, when Dave was PM.
It might as well have been 1912 for all its relevance to how the Conservatives think today.
That's cruel. Are you suggesting that today's - outside PB - Conservatives think?
👀 Robert Jenrick texted a copy of his speech on the economy to George Osborne after he gave it yesterday, the former chancellor reveals on @polcurrency.
Reform’s new Treasury spokesperson said he hopes Osborne will “approve” of it.
Jenrick wrote in full: “George, trust you’re well. Here’s a copy of a speech I gave today on the economy.
“It commits to the OBR and to fiscal responsibility, which I hope you will approve of.”
Osborne responded on his podcast: “I say yes, I do. Although I’m not sure I approve of much else in the Reform programme.”
I take it this happened before Jenrick's defection, otherwise the implications are too mind blowing for words.
Why ?
Because the only blow that Labour has been able to land on Reform - that they're a bunch of fading Tories who were all up for austerity - has now received a gold-plated endorsement from Jenrick himself. How can Reform portray themselves as the wreckers of the old order when their would-be CoE is craving approval - and receiving it - from his hero and mentor Osborne? Nigel will need to sack Jenrick on grounds of treason.
"Almost every important decision of the past 36 years, by Labour, Tories and coalition Lib Dems alike – with the exception of some of John Major’s domestic reforms, the launch of auto-enrolled pensions, the legalisation of gay marriage, Michael Gove’s school reforms and Brexit – has been a disaster or backfired in catastrophic ways. Most will need to be reversed if Britain is to be saved."
Gordon Brown's journalism on Andrew continues, he now says he has sent a five page document to a number of police forces about flight rosters at Stansted and other airports. Another extraordinary element of this crisis is the former PM's service here.
It’s very very risky from Starmer. Hard to believe he said no.
It is a very big moment in UK US special relationship I think. Does anyone have any example of such a request turned down before? I think for Vietnam US never asked Labour government to use an RAF base at any point?
If Kemi says she would have given a different answer, straight away a huge and explosive differential between Conservative and Labour. Because, if any US plane goes down, with U’S service lives lost, anywhere in the battle space, Trump will blame the British Labour government for their deaths.
Yes - I have such an example.
The Conservative Government in 2012 rebuffed any attempt to use Diego-Garcia for a pre-emptive attack on Iran, because they had official legal advice that could be against international law.
The Guardian has been told that US diplomats have also lobbied for the use of British bases in Cyprus, and for permission to fly from US bases on Ascension Island in the Atlantic and Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean, both of which are British territories. .. The UK would be in breach of international law if it facilitated what amounted to a pre-emptive strike on Iran," said a senior Whitehall source. "It is explicit. The government has been using this to push back against the Americans." .. "I think the US has been surprised that ministers have been reluctant to provide assurances about this kind of upfront assistance," said one source. "They'd expect resistance from senior Liberal Democrats, but it's Tories as well. That has come as a bit of a surprise." https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/oct/25/uk-reject-us-request-bases-iran
It will be fun if SKS finds that, given that the Shadow Def Sec is jumping up and down demanding the Govt do the opposite.
That was 2012, when Dave was PM.
It might as well have been 1912 for all its relevance to how the Conservatives think today.
That's cruel. Are you suggesting that today's - outside PB - Conservatives think?
Are Badenoch, Stride, Philp, Atkins, Whstely, Trott, Patel, Coutinho and Co capable of thought.
Gordon Brown's journalism on Andrew continues, he now says he has sent a five page document to a number of police forces about flight rosters at Stansted and other airports. Another extraordinary element of this crisis is the former PM's service here.
It’s very very risky from Starmer. Hard to believe he said no.
It is a very big moment in UK US special relationship I think. Does anyone have any example of such a request turned down before? I think for Vietnam US never asked Labour government to use an RAF base at any point?
If Kemi says she would have given a different answer, straight away a huge and explosive differential between Conservative and Labour. Because, if any US plane goes down, with U’S service lives lost, anywhere in the battle space, Trump will blame the British Labour government for their deaths.
Yes - I have such an example.
The Conservative Government in 2012 rebuffed any attempt to use Diego-Garcia for a pre-emptive attack on Iran, because they had official legal advice that could be against international law.
The Guardian has been told that US diplomats have also lobbied for the use of British bases in Cyprus, and for permission to fly from US bases on Ascension Island in the Atlantic and Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean, both of which are British territories. .. The UK would be in breach of international law if it facilitated what amounted to a pre-emptive strike on Iran," said a senior Whitehall source. "It is explicit. The government has been using this to push back against the Americans." .. "I think the US has been surprised that ministers have been reluctant to provide assurances about this kind of upfront assistance," said one source. "They'd expect resistance from senior Liberal Democrats, but it's Tories as well. That has come as a bit of a surprise." https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/oct/25/uk-reject-us-request-bases-iran
It will be fun if SKS finds that, given that the Shadow Def Sec is jumping up and down demanding the Govt do the opposite.
That was 2012, when Dave was PM.
It might as well have been 1912 for all its relevance to how the Conservatives think today.
That's cruel. Are you suggesting that today's - outside PB - Conservatives think?
Are Badenoch, Stride, Philp, Atkins, Whstely, Trott, Patel, Coutinho and Co capable of thought.
Not exactly laden with brain cells
Cameron is a colossus in comparison
We need two more Reform MPs with single syllable names, then we have a hope of getting the "Trumpton Fire Brigade" rhythm in the wild,
We need a lineup on stage going in syllables 1-1-2-2, 2-2-1.
(The last 3 words could be Farage - in-the - Pub.)
It’s very very risky from Starmer. Hard to believe he said no.
It is a very big moment in UK US special relationship I think. Does anyone have any example of such a request turned down before? I think for Vietnam US never asked Labour government to use an RAF base at any point?
If Kemi says she would have given a different answer, straight away a huge and explosive differential between Conservative and Labour. Because, if any US plane goes down, with U’S service lives lost, anywhere in the battle space, Trump will blame the British Labour government for their deaths.
Yes - I have such an example.
The Conservative Government in 2012 rebuffed any attempt to use Diego-Garcia for a pre-emptive attack on Iran in advance, because they had official legal advice that could be against international law.
The Guardian has been told that US diplomats have also lobbied for the use of British bases in Cyprus, and for permission to fly from US bases on Ascension Island in the Atlantic and Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean, both of which are British territories. .. The UK would be in breach of international law if it facilitated what amounted to a pre-emptive strike on Iran," said a senior Whitehall source. "It is explicit. The government has been using this to push back against the Americans." .. "I think the US has been surprised that ministers have been reluctant to provide assurances about this kind of upfront assistance," said one source. "They'd expect resistance from senior Liberal Democrats, but it's Tories as well. That has come as a bit of a surprise." https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/oct/25/uk-reject-us-request-bases-iran
It will be fun if SKS finds that, given that the Shadow Def Sec is jumping up and down demanding the Govt do the opposite.
From The Times. “Under the terms of long-standing agreements with Washington, these bases {Times includes Diego Garcia} can only be used for military operations that have been agreed in advance with the government.
I suspect The Times journalism is wrong, and no such agreement applies to Diego Garcia. It’s not an RAF base, it’s not even a joint base, it’s a US base. It seems very odd to me, based on the whole history of UK involvement with the US in Chagos, where UK have been so subservient, the US would allow such a clause on use of their own base.
As for 2012 and all that, the UK government would try to bundle DG in with the others to aid their pushback - but they were likely wrong. Technically UK island, but not UK base.
Did he not get the £12m from his mum? Not sure how you make much of a story out of that.
In terms of containing the scandal, however, the spend seems to have been suboptimal.
We don't actually know how much was paid. The £12 million figure was speculation by the Daily Telegraph. Other sources suggested the figure was much lower - possibly around £3 million.
There are various reports as to where the money came from. Some suggested that his mother funded part of it, other sources say Charles gave him the money as a loan to be repaid when Andrew sold his Swiss chalet, with it being deducted from his inheritance from the Queen if it was not paid back.
The wide variety of figures quoted for the settlement and the differing reports on how it was paid suggest to me that the journalists involved had no information and were guessing. I think the only thing we know for sure is that no public money was used to pay Andrew's legal fees or the settlement as the Treasury confirmed that in response to an FOI request.
You not only read lots of X, you actually follow the lefty weirdo Iain Darcy?!
Come across him before. I've tried, so far without success, to find out who Iain Darcy actually is. He calls himself a doctor and claims to be a lawyer. There is no Iain Darcy admitted to the Roll of Solicitors, nor called to the Bar, in England and Wales (there are a couple of Ian Darcys on the Roll but none with an extra 'i')). One of those weird X/Twitter personas.
The public have lost faith in all our politicians and the electorate are as divided as ever
That is because they have all failed to live upto their hype and promises
Indeed the country may well be ungovernable, and we can all be as partisan as we want but 'nobody' is cutting the mustard
AMW investigations, bearing in mind he has been arrested for misconduct in public office and not the Epstein allegations, may well develop into why the late queen and charles funded the 12 million payment
Brown is furious with AMW, but also Mandelson and this looks like it is going back to the Blair years
We also have no idea what may be revealed of Mandelson's time as Ambassador
I expect there are many more public figures and politicians daily watching on in growing alarm
It’s very very risky from Starmer. Hard to believe he said no.
It is a very big moment in UK US special relationship I think. Does anyone have any example of such a request turned down before? I think for Vietnam US never asked Labour government to use an RAF base at any point?
If Kemi says she would have given a different answer, straight away a huge and explosive differential between Conservative and Labour. Because, if any US plane goes down, with U’S service lives lost, anywhere in the battle space, Trump will blame the British Labour government for their deaths.
Yes - I have such an example.
The Conservative Government in 2012 rebuffed any attempt to use Diego-Garcia for a pre-emptive attack on Iran in advance, because they had official legal advice that could be against international law.
The Guardian has been told that US diplomats have also lobbied for the use of British bases in Cyprus, and for permission to fly from US bases on Ascension Island in the Atlantic and Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean, both of which are British territories. .. The UK would be in breach of international law if it facilitated what amounted to a pre-emptive strike on Iran," said a senior Whitehall source. "It is explicit. The government has been using this to push back against the Americans." .. "I think the US has been surprised that ministers have been reluctant to provide assurances about this kind of upfront assistance," said one source. "They'd expect resistance from senior Liberal Democrats, but it's Tories as well. That has come as a bit of a surprise." https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/oct/25/uk-reject-us-request-bases-iran
It will be fun if SKS finds that, given that the Shadow Def Sec is jumping up and down demanding the Govt do the opposite.
From The Times. “Under the terms of long-standing agreements with Washington, these bases {Times includes Diego Garcia} can only be used for military operations that have been agreed in advance with the government.
I suspect The Times journalism is wrong, and no such agreement applies to Diego Garcia. It’s not an RAF base, it’s not even a joint base, it’s a US base. It seems very odd to me, based on the whole history of UK involvement with the US in Chagos, where UK have been so subservient, the US would allow such a clause on use of their own base.
As for 2012 and all that, the UK government would try to bundle DG in with the others to aid their pushback - but they were likely wrong. Technically UK island, but not UK base.
Either way Starmer and Davey stand up to Trump
Badenoch and Farage lie down sunserviently
In the court of public opinion I'd say Keir and Ed have it 70 to 30.
It’s very very risky from Starmer. Hard to believe he said no.
It is a very big moment in UK US special relationship I think. Does anyone have any example of such a request turned down before? I think for Vietnam US never asked Labour government to use an RAF base at any point?
If Kemi says she would have given a different answer, straight away a huge and explosive differential between Conservative and Labour. Because, if any US plane goes down, with U’S service lives lost, anywhere in the battle space, Trump will blame the British Labour government for their deaths.
Yes - I have such an example.
The Conservative Government in 2012 rebuffed any attempt to use Diego-Garcia for a pre-emptive attack on Iran, because they had official legal advice that could be against international law.
The Guardian has been told that US diplomats have also lobbied for the use of British bases in Cyprus, and for permission to fly from US bases on Ascension Island in the Atlantic and Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean, both of which are British territories. .. The UK would be in breach of international law if it facilitated what amounted to a pre-emptive strike on Iran," said a senior Whitehall source. "It is explicit. The government has been using this to push back against the Americans." .. "I think the US has been surprised that ministers have been reluctant to provide assurances about this kind of upfront assistance," said one source. "They'd expect resistance from senior Liberal Democrats, but it's Tories as well. That has come as a bit of a surprise." https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/oct/25/uk-reject-us-request-bases-iran
It will be fun if SKS finds that, given that the Shadow Def Sec is jumping up and down demanding the Govt do the opposite.
Surely SKS's view is that under international law, it's for Mauritius to decide, not us?
Taking it purely at face value; no.
Firstly because the handover to Mauritius has not happened yet so it is still a British decision.
And secondly because as I understand it the agreement with Mauritius when it does eventually pass will prevent them from interferring with US/UK operational usage of DG.
Absolutely right Richard. The Conservatives agreed exactly this in the first rounds of negotiating the deal -
“Key developments in 2023 included: * * Constructive Dialogue Framework: Both nations held several rounds of intensive talks (notably in January and February 2023) to build "mutual understanding" on complex sovereignty and security issues.
* Strategic Alignment: Both governments focused on ensuring the continued operation of the joint UK/US military base on Diego Garcia while addressing the issue of sovereignty. * * Base Security Commitment: Both parties reiterated their commitment to ensuring the continued, effective operation of the joint UK-US military base on Diego Garcia.”
Mauritius cannot block US bombing missions, which makes me surprised the UK apparently can.
It’s very very risky from Starmer. Hard to believe he said no.
It is a very big moment in UK US special relationship I think. Does anyone have any example of such a request turned down before? I think for Vietnam US never asked Labour government to use an RAF base at any point?
If Kemi says she would have given a different answer, straight away a huge and explosive differential between Conservative and Labour. Because, if any US plane goes down, with U’S service lives lost, anywhere in the battle space, Trump will blame the British Labour government for their deaths.
Yes - I have such an example.
The Conservative Government in 2012 rebuffed any attempt to use Diego-Garcia for a pre-emptive attack on Iran in advance, because they had official legal advice that could be against international law.
The Guardian has been told that US diplomats have also lobbied for the use of British bases in Cyprus, and for permission to fly from US bases on Ascension Island in the Atlantic and Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean, both of which are British territories. .. The UK would be in breach of international law if it facilitated what amounted to a pre-emptive strike on Iran," said a senior Whitehall source. "It is explicit. The government has been using this to push back against the Americans." .. "I think the US has been surprised that ministers have been reluctant to provide assurances about this kind of upfront assistance," said one source. "They'd expect resistance from senior Liberal Democrats, but it's Tories as well. That has come as a bit of a surprise." https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/oct/25/uk-reject-us-request-bases-iran
It will be fun if SKS finds that, given that the Shadow Def Sec is jumping up and down demanding the Govt do the opposite.
From The Times. “Under the terms of long-standing agreements with Washington, these bases {Times includes Diego Garcia} can only be used for military operations that have been agreed in advance with the government.
I suspect The Times journalism is wrong, and no such agreement applies to Diego Garcia. It’s not an RAF base, it’s not even a joint base, it’s a US base. It seems very odd to me, based on the whole history of UK involvement with the US in Chagos, where UK have been so subservient, the US would allow such a clause on use of their own base.
As for 2012 and all that, the UK government would try to bundle DG in with the others to aid their pushback - but they were likely wrong. Technically UK island, but not UK base.
Either way Starmer and Davey stand up to Trump
Badenoch and Farage lie down sunserviently
In the court of public opinion I'd say Keir and Ed have it 70 to 30.
Jesus! After adjusting for bias that's a walkover for Kemi and Nige
It’s very very risky from Starmer. Hard to believe he said no.
It is a very big moment in UK US special relationship I think. Does anyone have any example of such a request turned down before? I think for Vietnam US never asked Labour government to use an RAF base at any point?
If Kemi says she would have given a different answer, straight away a huge and explosive differential between Conservative and Labour. Because, if any US plane goes down, with U’S service lives lost, anywhere in the battle space, Trump will blame the British Labour government for their deaths.
Yes - I have such an example.
The Conservative Government in 2012 rebuffed any attempt to use Diego-Garcia for a pre-emptive attack on Iran in advance, because they had official legal advice that could be against international law.
The Guardian has been told that US diplomats have also lobbied for the use of British bases in Cyprus, and for permission to fly from US bases on Ascension Island in the Atlantic and Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean, both of which are British territories. .. The UK would be in breach of international law if it facilitated what amounted to a pre-emptive strike on Iran," said a senior Whitehall source. "It is explicit. The government has been using this to push back against the Americans." .. "I think the US has been surprised that ministers have been reluctant to provide assurances about this kind of upfront assistance," said one source. "They'd expect resistance from senior Liberal Democrats, but it's Tories as well. That has come as a bit of a surprise." https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/oct/25/uk-reject-us-request-bases-iran
It will be fun if SKS finds that, given that the Shadow Def Sec is jumping up and down demanding the Govt do the opposite.
From The Times. “Under the terms of long-standing agreements with Washington, these bases {Times includes Diego Garcia} can only be used for military operations that have been agreed in advance with the government.
I suspect The Times journalism is wrong, and no such agreement applies to Diego Garcia. It’s not an RAF base, it’s not even a joint base, it’s a US base. It seems very odd to me, based on the whole history of UK involvement with the US in Chagos, where UK have been so subservient, the US would allow such a clause on use of their own base.
As for 2012 and all that, the UK government would try to bundle DG in with the others to aid their pushback - but they were likely wrong. Technically UK island, but not UK base.
Pakistan cricketers are not being considered by Indian-owned sides for next month's Hundred auction, sources have told BBC Sport.
Players from Pakistan have not featured in the Indian Premier League (IPL) since 2009 because of diplomatic tensions between the two countries.
Four of The Hundred's eight franchises - Manchester Super Giants, MI London, Southern Brave and Sunrisers Leeds - are now at least part-owned by companies that control IPL teams.
In messages seen by the BBC, a senior official from the England and Wales Cricket Board (ECB) indicated to an agent that interest in his Pakistan players would be limited to sides not linked to the IPL.
Another agent described the situation as "an unwritten rule" across T20 leagues with Indian investment.
ECB chief executive Richard Gould said last year he expected "players from all nations to be selected for all teams" in The Hundred and warned "clear anti-discrimination policies" were in place.
None of the four teams or ownership groups in question responded to requests for comment.
It’s very very risky from Starmer. Hard to believe he said no.
It is a very big moment in UK US special relationship I think. Does anyone have any example of such a request turned down before? I think for Vietnam US never asked Labour government to use an RAF base at any point?
If Kemi says she would have given a different answer, straight away a huge and explosive differential between Conservative and Labour. Because, if any US plane goes down, with U’S service lives lost, anywhere in the battle space, Trump will blame the British Labour government for their deaths.
Yes - I have such an example.
The Conservative Government in 2012 rebuffed any attempt to use Diego-Garcia for a pre-emptive attack on Iran in advance, because they had official legal advice that could be against international law.
The Guardian has been told that US diplomats have also lobbied for the use of British bases in Cyprus, and for permission to fly from US bases on Ascension Island in the Atlantic and Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean, both of which are British territories. .. The UK would be in breach of international law if it facilitated what amounted to a pre-emptive strike on Iran," said a senior Whitehall source. "It is explicit. The government has been using this to push back against the Americans." .. "I think the US has been surprised that ministers have been reluctant to provide assurances about this kind of upfront assistance," said one source. "They'd expect resistance from senior Liberal Democrats, but it's Tories as well. That has come as a bit of a surprise." https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/oct/25/uk-reject-us-request-bases-iran
It will be fun if SKS finds that, given that the Shadow Def Sec is jumping up and down demanding the Govt do the opposite.
From The Times. “Under the terms of long-standing agreements with Washington, these bases {Times includes Diego Garcia} can only be used for military operations that have been agreed in advance with the government.
I suspect The Times journalism is wrong, and no such agreement applies to Diego Garcia. It’s not an RAF base, it’s not even a joint base, it’s a US base. It seems very odd to me, based on the whole history of UK involvement with the US in Chagos, where UK have been so subservient, the US would allow such a clause on use of their own base.
As for 2012 and all that, the UK government would try to bundle DG in with the others to aid their pushback - but they were likely wrong. Technically UK island, but not UK base.
Either way Starmer and Davey stand up to Trump
Badenoch and Farage lie down sunserviently
In the court of public opinion I'd say Keir and Ed have it 70 to 30.
Jesus! After adjusting for bias that's a walkover for Kemi and Nige
I am not at all sure siding with Iran is the good look some think it is
Gordon Brown's journalism on Andrew continues, he now says he has sent a five page document to a number of police forces about flight rosters at Stansted and other airports. Another extraordinary element of this crisis is the former PM's service here.
Absolutely. Deeply flawed as he is I've always thought Brown was a fundamentally decent human being - for a politician anyway.
Not sure I agree. I worked in government at the time of his collapsing government and heard too many stories about how abusive he was to his staff. One or two might be sour grapes, but when you hear the dozenth in a year or so you start to see a pattern.
I'm no fan of either, but I never heard similar stories about Blair or Cameron.
It’s very very risky from Starmer. Hard to believe he said no.
It is a very big moment in UK US special relationship I think. Does anyone have any example of such a request turned down before? I think for Vietnam US never asked Labour government to use an RAF base at any point?
If Kemi says she would have given a different answer, straight away a huge and explosive differential between Conservative and Labour. Because, if any US plane goes down, with U’S service lives lost, anywhere in the battle space, Trump will blame the British Labour government for their deaths.
Yes - I have such an example.
The Conservative Government in 2012 rebuffed any attempt to use Diego-Garcia for a pre-emptive attack on Iran in advance, because they had official legal advice that could be against international law.
The Guardian has been told that US diplomats have also lobbied for the use of British bases in Cyprus, and for permission to fly from US bases on Ascension Island in the Atlantic and Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean, both of which are British territories. .. The UK would be in breach of international law if it facilitated what amounted to a pre-emptive strike on Iran," said a senior Whitehall source. "It is explicit. The government has been using this to push back against the Americans." .. "I think the US has been surprised that ministers have been reluctant to provide assurances about this kind of upfront assistance," said one source. "They'd expect resistance from senior Liberal Democrats, but it's Tories as well. That has come as a bit of a surprise." https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/oct/25/uk-reject-us-request-bases-iran
It will be fun if SKS finds that, given that the Shadow Def Sec is jumping up and down demanding the Govt do the opposite.
From The Times. “Under the terms of long-standing agreements with Washington, these bases {Times includes Diego Garcia} can only be used for military operations that have been agreed in advance with the government.
I suspect The Times journalism is wrong, and no such agreement applies to Diego Garcia. It’s not an RAF base, it’s not even a joint base, it’s a US base. It seems very odd to me, based on the whole history of UK involvement with the US in Chagos, where UK have been so subservient, the US would allow such a clause on use of their own base.
As for 2012 and all that, the UK government would try to bundle DG in with the others to aid their pushback - but they were likely wrong. Technically UK island, but not UK base.
Either way Starmer and Davey stand up to Trump
Badenoch and Farage lie down sunserviently
In the court of public opinion I'd say Keir and Ed have it 70 to 30.
It’s not as glib as that though. In the bigger picture, planes that don’t come back and service lives lost, Starmer will be relentlessly blamed for these deaths from politicians on both sides of the Atlantic. Labour will be blamed long after Starmer and his government are gone. I don’t think Starmer and advisors around him are smart enough to realise this.
Think of every single UK front page, the coffins of our allies with flag draped over them a picture of laughing Ayatollah inset. “You happy which side you picked, Mr Starmer?” As headline.
Gordon Brown's journalism on Andrew continues, he now says he has sent a five page document to a number of police forces about flight rosters at Stansted and other airports. Another extraordinary element of this crisis is the former PM's service here.
Absolutely. Deeply flawed as he is I've always thought Brown was a fundamentally decent human being - for a politician anyway.
Not sure I agree. I worked in government at the time of his collapsing government and heard too many stories about how abusive he was to his staff. One or two might be sour grapes, but when you hear the dozenth in a year or so you start to see a pattern.
I'm no fan of either, but I never heard similar stories about Blair or Cameron.
Gordon Brown's journalism on Andrew continues, he now says he has sent a five page document to a number of police forces about flight rosters at Stansted and other airports. Another extraordinary element of this crisis is the former PM's service here.
You not only read lots of X, you actually follow the lefty weirdo Iain Darcy?!
Come across him before. I've tried, so far without success, to find out who Iain Darcy actually is. He calls himself a doctor and claims to be a lawyer. There is no Iain Darcy admitted to the Roll of Solicitors, nor called to the Bar, in England and Wales (there are a couple of Ian Darcys on the Roll but none with an extra 'i')). One of those weird X/Twitter personas.
Offered without comment.
There is an Ian Patrick Darcy, which could be a slight diversion for social media:
I’m not going to rise to replying to the uninformed, unChristian warmonger bile you are continually posting.
I am an atheist. Could not care less about being unChristian.
Wanting the liberation of Iranians from their brutal dictatorship is not bile.
I would like to see the Iranian people free from such barbaric masochistic women hating bastards. But that’s not the purpose of the latest round of bombing, is it?
It’s very very risky from Starmer. Hard to believe he said no.
It is a very big moment in UK US special relationship I think. Does anyone have any example of such a request turned down before? I think for Vietnam US never asked Labour government to use an RAF base at any point?
If Kemi says she would have given a different answer, straight away a huge and explosive differential between Conservative and Labour. Because, if any US plane goes down, with U’S service lives lost, anywhere in the battle space, Trump will blame the British Labour government for their deaths.
Yes - I have such an example.
The Conservative Government in 2012 rebuffed any attempt to use Diego-Garcia for a pre-emptive attack on Iran in advance, because they had official legal advice that could be against international law.
The Guardian has been told that US diplomats have also lobbied for the use of British bases in Cyprus, and for permission to fly from US bases on Ascension Island in the Atlantic and Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean, both of which are British territories. .. The UK would be in breach of international law if it facilitated what amounted to a pre-emptive strike on Iran," said a senior Whitehall source. "It is explicit. The government has been using this to push back against the Americans." .. "I think the US has been surprised that ministers have been reluctant to provide assurances about this kind of upfront assistance," said one source. "They'd expect resistance from senior Liberal Democrats, but it's Tories as well. That has come as a bit of a surprise." https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/oct/25/uk-reject-us-request-bases-iran
It will be fun if SKS finds that, given that the Shadow Def Sec is jumping up and down demanding the Govt do the opposite.
From The Times. “Under the terms of long-standing agreements with Washington, these bases {Times includes Diego Garcia} can only be used for military operations that have been agreed in advance with the government.
I suspect The Times journalism is wrong, and no such agreement applies to Diego Garcia. It’s not an RAF base, it’s not even a joint base, it’s a US base. It seems very odd to me, based on the whole history of UK involvement with the US in Chagos, where UK have been so subservient, the US would allow such a clause on use of their own base.
As for 2012 and all that, the UK government would try to bundle DG in with the others to aid their pushback - but they were likely wrong. Technically UK island, but not UK base.
Either way Starmer and Davey stand up to Trump
Badenoch and Farage lie down sunserviently
In the court of public opinion I'd say Keir and Ed have it 70 to 30.
It’s not as glib as that though. In the bigger picture, planes that don’t come back and service lives lost, Starmer will be relentlessly blamed for these deaths from politicians on both sides of the Atlantic. Labour will be blamed long after Starmer and his government are gone. I don’t think Starmer and advisors around him are smart enough to realise this.
Think of every single UK front page, the coffins of our allies with flag draped over them a picture of laughing Ayatollah inset. “You happy which side you picked, Mr Starmer?” As headline.
The US has loads of other bases it can use . It’s not essential to use UK ones . Trump can go fxck himself especially after his comments about NATO troops .
You not only read lots of X, you actually follow the lefty weirdo Iain Darcy?!
You do realise that you can see stuff on twitter from people you don’t follow? No idea who ‘lefty weirdo Iain Darcy’ is and don’t follow him but may consider it now.
It's a dangerous moment for the institution. It's hard to believe none knew what he was like, even if the actual cause of arrest is something they probably did not know, and I think views are pretty set on the reason Andrew was desperate to pay a settlement and none of them could have been in much doubt at the time.
I’m not going to rise to replying to the uninformed, unChristian warmonger bile you are continually posting.
I am an atheist. Could not care less about being unChristian.
Wanting the liberation of Iranians from their brutal dictatorship is not bile.
I would like to see the Iranian people free from such barbaric masochistic women hating bastards. But that’s not the purpose of the latest round of bombing, is it?
It’s very very risky from Starmer. Hard to believe he said no.
It is a very big moment in UK US special relationship I think. Does anyone have any example of such a request turned down before? I think for Vietnam US never asked Labour government to use an RAF base at any point?
If Kemi says she would have given a different answer, straight away a huge and explosive differential between Conservative and Labour. Because, if any US plane goes down, with U’S service lives lost, anywhere in the battle space, Trump will blame the British Labour government for their deaths.
Yes - I have such an example.
The Conservative Government in 2012 rebuffed any attempt to use Diego-Garcia for a pre-emptive attack on Iran in advance, because they had official legal advice that could be against international law.
The Guardian has been told that US diplomats have also lobbied for the use of British bases in Cyprus, and for permission to fly from US bases on Ascension Island in the Atlantic and Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean, both of which are British territories. .. The UK would be in breach of international law if it facilitated what amounted to a pre-emptive strike on Iran," said a senior Whitehall source. "It is explicit. The government has been using this to push back against the Americans." .. "I think the US has been surprised that ministers have been reluctant to provide assurances about this kind of upfront assistance," said one source. "They'd expect resistance from senior Liberal Democrats, but it's Tories as well. That has come as a bit of a surprise." https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/oct/25/uk-reject-us-request-bases-iran
It will be fun if SKS finds that, given that the Shadow Def Sec is jumping up and down demanding the Govt do the opposite.
From The Times. “Under the terms of long-standing agreements with Washington, these bases {Times includes Diego Garcia} can only be used for military operations that have been agreed in advance with the government.
I suspect The Times journalism is wrong, and no such agreement applies to Diego Garcia. It’s not an RAF base, it’s not even a joint base, it’s a US base. It seems very odd to me, based on the whole history of UK involvement with the US in Chagos, where UK have been so subservient, the US would allow such a clause on use of their own base.
As for 2012 and all that, the UK government would try to bundle DG in with the others to aid their pushback - but they were likely wrong. Technically UK island, but not UK base.
Either way Starmer and Davey stand up to Trump
Badenoch and Farage lie down sunserviently
In the court of public opinion I'd say Keir and Ed have it 70 to 30.
It’s not as glib as that though. In the bigger picture, planes that don’t come back and service lives lost, Starmer will be relentlessly blamed for these deaths from politicians on both sides of the Atlantic. Labour will be blamed long after Starmer and his government are gone. I don’t think Starmer and advisors around him are smart enough to realise this.
Think of every single UK front page, the coffins of our allies with flag draped over them a picture of laughing Ayatollah inset. “You happy which side you picked, Mr Starmer?” As headline.
I don't agree. If you are opposed to a strike on Iran (as I am) then any blame for service lives lost will de directed at the people who sent them there. Which won't include Starmer. This sudden sign of Starmer having discovered principles is to be welcomed.
Gordon Brown's journalism on Andrew continues, he now says he has sent a five page document to a number of police forces about flight rosters at Stansted and other airports. Another extraordinary element of this crisis is the former PM's service here.
You not only read lots of X, you actually follow the lefty weirdo Iain Darcy?!
Come across him before. I've tried, so far without success, to find out who Iain Darcy actually is. He calls himself a doctor and claims to be a lawyer. There is no Iain Darcy admitted to the Roll of Solicitors, nor called to the Bar, in England and Wales (there are a couple of Ian Darcys on the Roll but none with an extra 'i')). One of those weird X/Twitter personas.
Offered without comment.
There is an Ian Patrick Darcy, which could be a slight diversion for social media:
This one is a Conservative Councillor in Plymouth.
Not only the lack of an extra 'i' but also the fact he's a Conservative rules him out if you read the very left X/Twitter persona. Given what he writes I'd want to hide my identity somewhat better if I were, in truth, a Tory.
Thinking on the Restore issue, his timing is a bit off. Hes got to get registered with the EC to stand anyone then hes got, what, a month and a half to vet and approve candidates before campaign kick off? If he gets a 'start up' bounce theres every chance the absence of any Restore impact at the locals does for him like it did Change UK At very least he needs to flood Yarmouth, and possibly much of Norfolk, with candidates
I’m not going to rise to replying to the uninformed, unChristian warmonger bile you are continually posting.
I am an atheist. Could not care less about being unChristian.
Wanting the liberation of Iranians from their brutal dictatorship is not bile.
I would like to see the Iranian people free from such barbaric masochistic women hating bastards. But that’s not the purpose of the latest round of bombing, is it?
And whilst it is hard to calculate and it would be nice to think only a tiny majority there are barbaric masocistic women hating bastards - and unfortunately the ones with the power - there are probably a lot more present than is comfortable to think about.
It’s very very risky from Starmer. Hard to believe he said no.
It is a very big moment in UK US special relationship I think. Does anyone have any example of such a request turned down before? I think for Vietnam US never asked Labour government to use an RAF base at any point?
If Kemi says she would have given a different answer, straight away a huge and explosive differential between Conservative and Labour. Because, if any US plane goes down, with U’S service lives lost, anywhere in the battle space, Trump will blame the British Labour government for their deaths.
Yes - I have such an example.
The Conservative Government in 2012 rebuffed any attempt to use Diego-Garcia for a pre-emptive attack on Iran in advance, because they had official legal advice that could be against international law.
The Guardian has been told that US diplomats have also lobbied for the use of British bases in Cyprus, and for permission to fly from US bases on Ascension Island in the Atlantic and Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean, both of which are British territories. .. The UK would be in breach of international law if it facilitated what amounted to a pre-emptive strike on Iran," said a senior Whitehall source. "It is explicit. The government has been using this to push back against the Americans." .. "I think the US has been surprised that ministers have been reluctant to provide assurances about this kind of upfront assistance," said one source. "They'd expect resistance from senior Liberal Democrats, but it's Tories as well. That has come as a bit of a surprise." https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/oct/25/uk-reject-us-request-bases-iran
It will be fun if SKS finds that, given that the Shadow Def Sec is jumping up and down demanding the Govt do the opposite.
From The Times. “Under the terms of long-standing agreements with Washington, these bases {Times includes Diego Garcia} can only be used for military operations that have been agreed in advance with the government.
I suspect The Times journalism is wrong, and no such agreement applies to Diego Garcia. It’s not an RAF base, it’s not even a joint base, it’s a US base. It seems very odd to me, based on the whole history of UK involvement with the US in Chagos, where UK have been so subservient, the US would allow such a clause on use of their own base.
As for 2012 and all that, the UK government would try to bundle DG in with the others to aid their pushback - but they were likely wrong. Technically UK island, but not UK base.
Either way Starmer and Davey stand up to Trump
Badenoch and Farage lie down sunserviently
In the court of public opinion I'd say Keir and Ed have it 70 to 30.
It’s not as glib as that though. In the bigger picture, planes that don’t come back and service lives lost, Starmer will be relentlessly blamed for these deaths from politicians on both sides of the Atlantic. Labour will be blamed long after Starmer and his government are gone. I don’t think Starmer and advisors around him are smart enough to realise this.
Think of every single UK front page, the coffins of our allies with flag draped over them a picture of laughing Ayatollah inset. “You happy which side you picked, Mr Starmer?” As headline.
The US has loads of other bases it can use . It’s not essential to use UK ones . Trump can go fxck himself especially after his comments about NATO troops .
May I ask gently do you have knowledge of the US logistics and capabilities for action against Iran ?
I’m not going to rise to replying to the uninformed, unChristian warmonger bile you are continually posting.
I am an atheist. Could not care less about being unChristian.
Wanting the liberation of Iranians from their brutal dictatorship is not bile.
I would like to see the Iranian people free from such barbaric masochistic women hating bastards. But that’s not the purpose of the latest round of bombing, is it?
And whilst it is hard to calculate and it would be nice to think only a tiny majority there are barbaric masocistic women hating bastards - and unfortunately the ones with the power - there are probably a lot more present than is comfortable to think about.
The presence of Netanyahu in the equation means any UK action or support has to be pulled.
It’s very very risky from Starmer. Hard to believe he said no.
It is a very big moment in UK US special relationship I think. Does anyone have any example of such a request turned down before? I think for Vietnam US never asked Labour government to use an RAF base at any point?
If Kemi says she would have given a different answer, straight away a huge and explosive differential between Conservative and Labour. Because, if any US plane goes down, with U’S service lives lost, anywhere in the battle space, Trump will blame the British Labour government for their deaths.
Yes - I have such an example.
The Conservative Government in 2012 rebuffed any attempt to use Diego-Garcia for a pre-emptive attack on Iran in advance, because they had official legal advice that could be against international law.
The Guardian has been told that US diplomats have also lobbied for the use of British bases in Cyprus, and for permission to fly from US bases on Ascension Island in the Atlantic and Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean, both of which are British territories. .. The UK would be in breach of international law if it facilitated what amounted to a pre-emptive strike on Iran," said a senior Whitehall source. "It is explicit. The government has been using this to push back against the Americans." .. "I think the US has been surprised that ministers have been reluctant to provide assurances about this kind of upfront assistance," said one source. "They'd expect resistance from senior Liberal Democrats, but it's Tories as well. That has come as a bit of a surprise." https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/oct/25/uk-reject-us-request-bases-iran
It will be fun if SKS finds that, given that the Shadow Def Sec is jumping up and down demanding the Govt do the opposite.
From The Times. “Under the terms of long-standing agreements with Washington, these bases {Times includes Diego Garcia} can only be used for military operations that have been agreed in advance with the government.
I suspect The Times journalism is wrong, and no such agreement applies to Diego Garcia. It’s not an RAF base, it’s not even a joint base, it’s a US base. It seems very odd to me, based on the whole history of UK involvement with the US in Chagos, where UK have been so subservient, the US would allow such a clause on use of their own base.
As for 2012 and all that, the UK government would try to bundle DG in with the others to aid their pushback - but they were likely wrong. Technically UK island, but not UK base.
Seems very in keeping with the whole arrangement if it was technically a UK base even if in every way that matters it was not. Maintaining such legal ties long beyond practical reality is pretty common in our way of working.
Gordon Brown's journalism on Andrew continues, he now says he has sent a five page document to a number of police forces about flight rosters at Stansted and other airports. Another extraordinary element of this crisis is the former PM's service here.
Absolutely. Deeply flawed as he is I've always thought Brown was a fundamentally decent human being - for a politician anyway.
Not sure I agree. I worked in government at the time of his collapsing government and heard too many stories about how abusive he was to his staff. One or two might be sour grapes, but when you hear the dozenth in a year or so you start to see a pattern.
I'm no fan of either, but I never heard similar stories about Blair or Cameron.
That's true. I'd heard similar. I retract.
Apparently he once threw a stapler at Alistair Darling, followed by a holepunch.
It’s very very risky from Starmer. Hard to believe he said no.
It is a very big moment in UK US special relationship I think. Does anyone have any example of such a request turned down before? I think for Vietnam US never asked Labour government to use an RAF base at any point?
If Kemi says she would have given a different answer, straight away a huge and explosive differential between Conservative and Labour. Because, if any US plane goes down, with U’S service lives lost, anywhere in the battle space, Trump will blame the British Labour government for their deaths.
Yes - I have such an example.
The Conservative Government in 2012 rebuffed any attempt to use Diego-Garcia for a pre-emptive attack on Iran in advance, because they had official legal advice that could be against international law.
The Guardian has been told that US diplomats have also lobbied for the use of British bases in Cyprus, and for permission to fly from US bases on Ascension Island in the Atlantic and Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean, both of which are British territories. .. The UK would be in breach of international law if it facilitated what amounted to a pre-emptive strike on Iran," said a senior Whitehall source. "It is explicit. The government has been using this to push back against the Americans." .. "I think the US has been surprised that ministers have been reluctant to provide assurances about this kind of upfront assistance," said one source. "They'd expect resistance from senior Liberal Democrats, but it's Tories as well. That has come as a bit of a surprise." https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/oct/25/uk-reject-us-request-bases-iran
It will be fun if SKS finds that, given that the Shadow Def Sec is jumping up and down demanding the Govt do the opposite.
From The Times. “Under the terms of long-standing agreements with Washington, these bases {Times includes Diego Garcia} can only be used for military operations that have been agreed in advance with the government.
I suspect The Times journalism is wrong, and no such agreement applies to Diego Garcia. It’s not an RAF base, it’s not even a joint base, it’s a US base. It seems very odd to me, based on the whole history of UK involvement with the US in Chagos, where UK have been so subservient, the US would allow such a clause on use of their own base.
As for 2012 and all that, the UK government would try to bundle DG in with the others to aid their pushback - but they were likely wrong. Technically UK island, but not UK base.
Either way Starmer and Davey stand up to Trump
Badenoch and Farage lie down sunserviently
In the court of public opinion I'd say Keir and Ed have it 70 to 30.
It’s not as glib as that though. In the bigger picture, planes that don’t come back and service lives lost, Starmer will be relentlessly blamed for these deaths from politicians on both sides of the Atlantic. Labour will be blamed long after Starmer and his government are gone. I don’t think Starmer and advisors around him are smart enough to realise this.
Think of every single UK front page, the coffins of our allies with flag draped over them a picture of laughing Ayatollah inset. “You happy which side you picked, Mr Starmer?” As headline.
The US has loads of other bases it can use . It’s not essential to use UK ones . Trump can go fxck himself especially after his comments about NATO troops .
May I ask gently do you have knowledge of the US logistics and capabilities for action against Iran ?
Allegedly they have the greatest military capability in the world .
So every misadventure the US wants to get into should now be backed by the UK incase it goes badly and they lose troops!
Bombing Iran won’t lead to regime change and we wouldn’t be here if Trump hadn’t torn up the original agreement.
Regime change is absolutely what should be the objective and we should be pushing hard for it, not because of Trump, but because it is the right thing to do.
I’m not going to rise to replying to the uninformed, unChristian warmonger bile you are continually posting.
I am an atheist. Could not care less about being unChristian.
Wanting the liberation of Iranians from their brutal dictatorship is not bile.
I would like to see the Iranian people free from such barbaric masochistic women hating bastards. But that’s not the purpose of the latest round of bombing, is it?
And whilst it is hard to calculate and it would be nice to think only a tiny majority there are barbaric masocistic women hating bastards - and unfortunately the ones with the power - there are probably a lot more present than is comfortable to think about.
If I may say so, the string of words 'barbaric masochistic women hating bastards' could do with some extra punctuation for clarity of meaning. E.g. I suspect you mean misogynistic not masochistic.
It’s very very risky from Starmer. Hard to believe he said no.
It is a very big moment in UK US special relationship I think. Does anyone have any example of such a request turned down before? I think for Vietnam US never asked Labour government to use an RAF base at any point?
If Kemi says she would have given a different answer, straight away a huge and explosive differential between Conservative and Labour. Because, if any US plane goes down, with U’S service lives lost, anywhere in the battle space, Trump will blame the British Labour government for their deaths.
Yes - I have such an example.
The Conservative Government in 2012 rebuffed any attempt to use Diego-Garcia for a pre-emptive attack on Iran in advance, because they had official legal advice that could be against international law.
The Guardian has been told that US diplomats have also lobbied for the use of British bases in Cyprus, and for permission to fly from US bases on Ascension Island in the Atlantic and Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean, both of which are British territories. .. The UK would be in breach of international law if it facilitated what amounted to a pre-emptive strike on Iran," said a senior Whitehall source. "It is explicit. The government has been using this to push back against the Americans." .. "I think the US has been surprised that ministers have been reluctant to provide assurances about this kind of upfront assistance," said one source. "They'd expect resistance from senior Liberal Democrats, but it's Tories as well. That has come as a bit of a surprise." https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/oct/25/uk-reject-us-request-bases-iran
It will be fun if SKS finds that, given that the Shadow Def Sec is jumping up and down demanding the Govt do the opposite.
From The Times. “Under the terms of long-standing agreements with Washington, these bases {Times includes Diego Garcia} can only be used for military operations that have been agreed in advance with the government.
I suspect The Times journalism is wrong, and no such agreement applies to Diego Garcia. It’s not an RAF base, it’s not even a joint base, it’s a US base. It seems very odd to me, based on the whole history of UK involvement with the US in Chagos, where UK have been so subservient, the US would allow such a clause on use of their own base.
As for 2012 and all that, the UK government would try to bundle DG in with the others to aid their pushback - but they were likely wrong. Technically UK island, but not UK base.
Either way Starmer and Davey stand up to Trump
Badenoch and Farage lie down sunserviently
In the court of public opinion I'd say Keir and Ed have it 70 to 30.
It’s not as glib as that though. In the bigger picture, planes that don’t come back and service lives lost, Starmer will be relentlessly blamed for these deaths from politicians on both sides of the Atlantic. Labour will be blamed long after Starmer and his government are gone. I don’t think Starmer and advisors around him are smart enough to realise this.
Think of every single UK front page, the coffins of our allies with flag draped over them a picture of laughing Ayatollah inset. “You happy which side you picked, Mr Starmer?” As headline.
The US has loads of other bases it can use . It’s not essential to use UK ones . Trump can go fxck himself especially after his comments about NATO troops .
May I ask gently do you have knowledge of the US logistics and capabilities for action against Iran ?
We've been treated as a glorified Air craft Carrier for long enough
When we've supported then the ass hole has then claimed we did nothing to help.
Let him and Netanyahu roll in their own shit.
We cannot continue to get involved in everyone else's battles.
It’s very very risky from Starmer. Hard to believe he said no.
It is a very big moment in UK US special relationship I think. Does anyone have any example of such a request turned down before? I think for Vietnam US never asked Labour government to use an RAF base at any point?
If Kemi says she would have given a different answer, straight away a huge and explosive differential between Conservative and Labour. Because, if any US plane goes down, with U’S service lives lost, anywhere in the battle space, Trump will blame the British Labour government for their deaths.
Yes - I have such an example.
The Conservative Government in 2012 rebuffed any attempt to use Diego-Garcia for a pre-emptive attack on Iran in advance, because they had official legal advice that could be against international law.
The Guardian has been told that US diplomats have also lobbied for the use of British bases in Cyprus, and for permission to fly from US bases on Ascension Island in the Atlantic and Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean, both of which are British territories. .. The UK would be in breach of international law if it facilitated what amounted to a pre-emptive strike on Iran," said a senior Whitehall source. "It is explicit. The government has been using this to push back against the Americans." .. "I think the US has been surprised that ministers have been reluctant to provide assurances about this kind of upfront assistance," said one source. "They'd expect resistance from senior Liberal Democrats, but it's Tories as well. That has come as a bit of a surprise." https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/oct/25/uk-reject-us-request-bases-iran
It will be fun if SKS finds that, given that the Shadow Def Sec is jumping up and down demanding the Govt do the opposite.
From The Times. “Under the terms of long-standing agreements with Washington, these bases {Times includes Diego Garcia} can only be used for military operations that have been agreed in advance with the government.
I suspect The Times journalism is wrong, and no such agreement applies to Diego Garcia. It’s not an RAF base, it’s not even a joint base, it’s a US base. It seems very odd to me, based on the whole history of UK involvement with the US in Chagos, where UK have been so subservient, the US would allow such a clause on use of their own base.
As for 2012 and all that, the UK government would try to bundle DG in with the others to aid their pushback - but they were likely wrong. Technically UK island, but not UK base.
Either way Starmer and Davey stand up to Trump
Badenoch and Farage lie down sunserviently
In the court of public opinion I'd say Keir and Ed have it 70 to 30.
It’s not as glib as that though. In the bigger picture, planes that don’t come back and service lives lost, Starmer will be relentlessly blamed for these deaths from politicians on both sides of the Atlantic. Labour will be blamed long after Starmer and his government are gone. I don’t think Starmer and advisors around him are smart enough to realise this.
Think of every single UK front page, the coffins of our allies with flag draped over them a picture of laughing Ayatollah inset. “You happy which side you picked, Mr Starmer?” As headline.
The US has loads of other bases it can use . It’s not essential to use UK ones . Trump can go fxck himself especially after his comments about NATO troops .
May I ask gently do you have knowledge of the US logistics and capabilities for action against Iran ?
Allegedly they have the greatest military capability in the world .
Regime change is absolutely what should be the objective and we should be pushing hard for it, not because of Trump, but because it is the right thing to do.
It will probably come after the May elections. I can't see him lasting much longer than that.
I’m not going to rise to replying to the uninformed, unChristian warmonger bile you are continually posting.
I am an atheist. Could not care less about being unChristian.
Wanting the liberation of Iranians from their brutal dictatorship is not bile.
I would like to see the Iranian people free from such barbaric masochistic women hating bastards. But that’s not the purpose of the latest round of bombing, is it?
And whilst it is hard to calculate and it would be nice to think only a tiny majority there are barbaric masocistic women hating bastards - and unfortunately the ones with the power - there are probably a lot more present than is comfortable to think about.
If I may say so, the string of words 'barbaric masochistic women hating bastards' could do with some extra punctuation for clarity of meaning. E.g. I suspect you mean misogynistic not masochistic.
Both words work.
They take pleasure in being cruel, to women and to others, so both are valid.
I’m not going to rise to replying to the uninformed, unChristian warmonger bile you are continually posting.
I am an atheist. Could not care less about being unChristian.
Wanting the liberation of Iranians from their brutal dictatorship is not bile.
I would like to see the Iranian people free from such barbaric masochistic women hating bastards. But that’s not the purpose of the latest round of bombing, is it?
And whilst it is hard to calculate and it would be nice to think only a tiny majority there are barbaric masocistic women hating bastards - and unfortunately the ones with the power - there are probably a lot more present than is comfortable to think about.
If I may say so, the string of words 'barbaric masochistic women hating bastards' could do with some extra punctuation for clarity of meaning. E.g. I suspect you mean misogynistic not masochistic.
Well, I was copying MoonRabbit's terminology, and thought the same thing, but then there would be no need to add the 'women hating', so decided to leave it as is.
It’s very very risky from Starmer. Hard to believe he said no.
It is a very big moment in UK US special relationship I think. Does anyone have any example of such a request turned down before? I think for Vietnam US never asked Labour government to use an RAF base at any point?
If Kemi says she would have given a different answer, straight away a huge and explosive differential between Conservative and Labour. Because, if any US plane goes down, with U’S service lives lost, anywhere in the battle space, Trump will blame the British Labour government for their deaths.
Yes - I have such an example.
The Conservative Government in 2012 rebuffed any attempt to use Diego-Garcia for a pre-emptive attack on Iran in advance, because they had official legal advice that could be against international law.
The Guardian has been told that US diplomats have also lobbied for the use of British bases in Cyprus, and for permission to fly from US bases on Ascension Island in the Atlantic and Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean, both of which are British territories. .. The UK would be in breach of international law if it facilitated what amounted to a pre-emptive strike on Iran," said a senior Whitehall source. "It is explicit. The government has been using this to push back against the Americans." .. "I think the US has been surprised that ministers have been reluctant to provide assurances about this kind of upfront assistance," said one source. "They'd expect resistance from senior Liberal Democrats, but it's Tories as well. That has come as a bit of a surprise." https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/oct/25/uk-reject-us-request-bases-iran
It will be fun if SKS finds that, given that the Shadow Def Sec is jumping up and down demanding the Govt do the opposite.
From The Times. “Under the terms of long-standing agreements with Washington, these bases {Times includes Diego Garcia} can only be used for military operations that have been agreed in advance with the government.
I suspect The Times journalism is wrong, and no such agreement applies to Diego Garcia. It’s not an RAF base, it’s not even a joint base, it’s a US base. It seems very odd to me, based on the whole history of UK involvement with the US in Chagos, where UK have been so subservient, the US would allow such a clause on use of their own base.
As for 2012 and all that, the UK government would try to bundle DG in with the others to aid their pushback - but they were likely wrong. Technically UK island, but not UK base.
Either way Starmer and Davey stand up to Trump
Badenoch and Farage lie down sunserviently
In the court of public opinion I'd say Keir and Ed have it 70 to 30.
It’s not as glib as that though. In the bigger picture, planes that don’t come back and service lives lost, Starmer will be relentlessly blamed for these deaths from politicians on both sides of the Atlantic. Labour will be blamed long after Starmer and his government are gone. I don’t think Starmer and advisors around him are smart enough to realise this.
Think of every single UK front page, the coffins of our allies with flag draped over them a picture of laughing Ayatollah inset. “You happy which side you picked, Mr Starmer?” As headline.
The US has loads of other bases it can use . It’s not essential to use UK ones . Trump can go fxck himself especially after his comments about NATO troops .
May I ask gently do you have knowledge of the US logistics and capabilities for action against Iran ?
We've been treated as a glorified Air craft Carrier for long enough
When we've supported then the ass hole has then claimed we did nothing to help.
Let him and Netanyahu roll in their own shit.
We cannot continue to get involved in everyone else's battles.
It’s very very risky from Starmer. Hard to believe he said no.
It is a very big moment in UK US special relationship I think. Does anyone have any example of such a request turned down before? I think for Vietnam US never asked Labour government to use an RAF base at any point?
If Kemi says she would have given a different answer, straight away a huge and explosive differential between Conservative and Labour. Because, if any US plane goes down, with U’S service lives lost, anywhere in the battle space, Trump will blame the British Labour government for their deaths.
Yes - I have such an example.
The Conservative Government in 2012 rebuffed any attempt to use Diego-Garcia for a pre-emptive attack on Iran in advance, because they had official legal advice that could be against international law.
The Guardian has been told that US diplomats have also lobbied for the use of British bases in Cyprus, and for permission to fly from US bases on Ascension Island in the Atlantic and Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean, both of which are British territories. .. The UK would be in breach of international law if it facilitated what amounted to a pre-emptive strike on Iran," said a senior Whitehall source. "It is explicit. The government has been using this to push back against the Americans." .. "I think the US has been surprised that ministers have been reluctant to provide assurances about this kind of upfront assistance," said one source. "They'd expect resistance from senior Liberal Democrats, but it's Tories as well. That has come as a bit of a surprise." https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/oct/25/uk-reject-us-request-bases-iran
It will be fun if SKS finds that, given that the Shadow Def Sec is jumping up and down demanding the Govt do the opposite.
From The Times. “Under the terms of long-standing agreements with Washington, these bases {Times includes Diego Garcia} can only be used for military operations that have been agreed in advance with the government.
I suspect The Times journalism is wrong, and no such agreement applies to Diego Garcia. It’s not an RAF base, it’s not even a joint base, it’s a US base. It seems very odd to me, based on the whole history of UK involvement with the US in Chagos, where UK have been so subservient, the US would allow such a clause on use of their own base.
As for 2012 and all that, the UK government would try to bundle DG in with the others to aid their pushback - but they were likely wrong. Technically UK island, but not UK base.
Either way Starmer and Davey stand up to Trump
Badenoch and Farage lie down sunserviently
In the court of public opinion I'd say Keir and Ed have it 70 to 30.
It’s not as glib as that though. In the bigger picture, planes that don’t come back and service lives lost, Starmer will be relentlessly blamed for these deaths from politicians on both sides of the Atlantic. Labour will be blamed long after Starmer and his government are gone. I don’t think Starmer and advisors around him are smart enough to realise this.
Think of every single UK front page, the coffins of our allies with flag draped over them a picture of laughing Ayatollah inset. “You happy which side you picked, Mr Starmer?” As headline.
The US has loads of other bases it can use . It’s not essential to use UK ones . Trump can go fxck himself especially after his comments about NATO troops .
May I ask gently do you have knowledge of the US logistics and capabilities for action against Iran ?
We've been treated as a glorified Air craft Carrier for long enough
When we've supported then the ass hole has then claimed we did nothing to help.
Let him and Netanyahu roll in their own shit.
We cannot continue to get involved in everyone else's battles.
I’m not going to rise to replying to the uninformed, unChristian warmonger bile you are continually posting.
I am an atheist. Could not care less about being unChristian.
Wanting the liberation of Iranians from their brutal dictatorship is not bile.
I would like to see the Iranian people free from such barbaric masochistic women hating bastards. But that’s not the purpose of the latest round of bombing, is it?
Well arm yourself with the facts. The Iranian population is one of the best educated in the region and there is no educational discrimination against women. I think you might be confusing Iran with some of the Arab countries such as Saudi Arabia and Iraq where prejudice against women is severe. There are more Iranian female graduates than male ones.
It’s very very risky from Starmer. Hard to believe he said no.
It is a very big moment in UK US special relationship I think. Does anyone have any example of such a request turned down before? I think for Vietnam US never asked Labour government to use an RAF base at any point?
If Kemi says she would have given a different answer, straight away a huge and explosive differential between Conservative and Labour. Because, if any US plane goes down, with U’S service lives lost, anywhere in the battle space, Trump will blame the British Labour government for their deaths.
Yes - I have such an example.
The Conservative Government in 2012 rebuffed any attempt to use Diego-Garcia for a pre-emptive attack on Iran in advance, because they had official legal advice that could be against international law.
The Guardian has been told that US diplomats have also lobbied for the use of British bases in Cyprus, and for permission to fly from US bases on Ascension Island in the Atlantic and Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean, both of which are British territories. .. The UK would be in breach of international law if it facilitated what amounted to a pre-emptive strike on Iran," said a senior Whitehall source. "It is explicit. The government has been using this to push back against the Americans." .. "I think the US has been surprised that ministers have been reluctant to provide assurances about this kind of upfront assistance," said one source. "They'd expect resistance from senior Liberal Democrats, but it's Tories as well. That has come as a bit of a surprise." https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/oct/25/uk-reject-us-request-bases-iran
It will be fun if SKS finds that, given that the Shadow Def Sec is jumping up and down demanding the Govt do the opposite.
From The Times. “Under the terms of long-standing agreements with Washington, these bases {Times includes Diego Garcia} can only be used for military operations that have been agreed in advance with the government.
I suspect The Times journalism is wrong, and no such agreement applies to Diego Garcia. It’s not an RAF base, it’s not even a joint base, it’s a US base. It seems very odd to me, based on the whole history of UK involvement with the US in Chagos, where UK have been so subservient, the US would allow such a clause on use of their own base.
As for 2012 and all that, the UK government would try to bundle DG in with the others to aid their pushback - but they were likely wrong. Technically UK island, but not UK base.
Either way Starmer and Davey stand up to Trump
Badenoch and Farage lie down sunserviently
In the court of public opinion I'd say Keir and Ed have it 70 to 30.
It’s not as glib as that though. In the bigger picture, planes that don’t come back and service lives lost, Starmer will be relentlessly blamed for these deaths from politicians on both sides of the Atlantic. Labour will be blamed long after Starmer and his government are gone. I don’t think Starmer and advisors around him are smart enough to realise this.
Think of every single UK front page, the coffins of our allies with flag draped over them a picture of laughing Ayatollah inset. “You happy which side you picked, Mr Starmer?” As headline.
The US has loads of other bases it can use . It’s not essential to use UK ones . Trump can go fxck himself especially after his comments about NATO troops .
May I ask gently do you have knowledge of the US logistics and capabilities for action against Iran ?
We've been treated as a glorified Air craft Carrier for long enough
When we've supported then the ass hole has then claimed we did nothing to help.
Let him and Netanyahu roll in their own shit.
We cannot continue to get involved in everyone else's battles.
We certainly can't support gun toting Zionists.
Do you support Iran and it's axis of terror ?
He supports Iran, Hezbollah and Hamas and anyone who'd wish death on "Zionists".
So every misadventure the US wants to get into should now be backed by the UK incase it goes badly and they lose troops!
Bombing Iran won’t lead to regime change and we wouldn’t be here if Trump hadn’t torn up the original agreement.
Regime change is absolutely what should be the objective and we should be pushing hard for it, not because of Trump, but because it is the right thing to do.
Just another neo-con adventure then..which will no doubt end up with the same results as Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya..💩
So every misadventure the US wants to get into should now be backed by the UK incase it goes badly and they lose troops!
Bombing Iran won’t lead to regime change and we wouldn’t be here if Trump hadn’t torn up the original agreement.
Regime change is absolutely what should be the objective and we should be pushing hard for it, not because of Trump, but because it is the right thing to do.
Just another neo-con adventure then..which will no doubt end up with the same results as Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya..💩
I'd take that.
Iraq and Libya at least are a huge improvement on Iran under the Mullahs.
Afghanistan isn't, but as Meat Loaf said, two out of three ain't bad.
So every misadventure the US wants to get into should now be backed by the UK incase it goes badly and they lose troops!
Bombing Iran won’t lead to regime change and we wouldn’t be here if Trump hadn’t torn up the original agreement.
Regime change is absolutely what should be the objective and we should be pushing hard for it, not because of Trump, but because it is the right thing to do.
Not saying it’s wrong but who defines ‘right’ or is this the Bart Dictat?
Comments
Not a surprise as I pointed out yesterday
Home Counties and Tory Gentry the blue rinse vote who would never vote for Farage will love Rupe
Osbourne is saying that fiscal responsibility and the OBR are good but Reform is still beyond the pail..
Tories say Starmer should let Trump dispatch US bombers to Iran from British bases
The Conservative party has also responded to the Times story. (See 4.40pm.) They say Keir Starmer should let the Americans launch a bombing attack against Iran from Diego Garcia in the Chagos Islands.
James Cartlidge, the shadow defence secretary, said:
Iran’s nuclear programme has been a grave threat to Britain and our allies. That is why Conservatives supported the US strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities last summer. Iran must never obtain a nuclear bomb.
While speculative, if the US judges that further action is needed to deal with that specific threat, and if again we believe such action is in our national interest and to protect vital UK security interests, then we should grant the use of our bases if and where required, including RAF bases in the UK, and Diego Garcia.
LD wasted vote
Con wasted vote
Green a Jewish leader but not a Zionist
Labour not for Starmer, may be for Burnham factor
Abstain?
More chance of Raducanu winning another Slam or anyone wearing Yankees headgear in London being able to name one of the players.
But even having said that, 18% is good for the Greens.
The Conservative Government in 2012 rebuffed any attempt to use Diego-Garcia for a pre-emptive attack on Iran in advance, because they had official legal advice that could be against international law.
The Guardian has been told that US diplomats have also lobbied for the use of British bases in Cyprus, and for permission to fly from US bases on Ascension Island in the Atlantic and Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean, both of which are British territories.
..
The UK would be in breach of international law if it facilitated what amounted to a pre-emptive strike on Iran," said a senior Whitehall source. "It is explicit. The government has been using this to push back against the Americans."
..
"I think the US has been surprised that ministers have been reluctant to provide assurances about this kind of upfront assistance," said one source. "They'd expect resistance from senior Liberal Democrats, but it's Tories as well. That has come as a bit of a surprise."
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/oct/25/uk-reject-us-request-bases-iran
It will be fun if SKS finds that, given that the Shadow Def Sec is jumping up and down demanding the Govt do the opposite.
So as well as the others score worth watching if Reform start breaching post LE 2025 lows with other pollsters
16 is just 2 points above both Con and Labs bottom and 10 is the LDs lowest ever with FoN
Carnage for all except Green
@davidyelland
Gordon Brown's journalism on Andrew continues, he now says he has sent a five page document to a number of police forces about flight rosters at Stansted and other airports. Another extraordinary element of this crisis is the former PM's service here.
https://x.com/davidyelland/status/2024466986508435711
It might as well have been 1912 for all its relevance to how the Conservatives think today.
Thats why Trump has had a hissy fit
Thats why Pritti and Badenoch look utterly stupid in attacking him
The law is not even passed, which is why there is still mileage in flapping.
Rupe will attract sizable Tory voters because he's everything Farage isn't.
I can forsee JRM joining Rupe, possibly McVey and Davies too.
Critical time for Nige and Kemi
Firstly because the handover to Mauritius has not happened yet so it is still a British decision.
And secondly because as I understand it the agreement with Mauritius when it does eventually pass will prevent them from interferring with US/UK operational usage of DG.
https://x.com/doctoriaindarcy/status/2024483251872485544?s=61&t=LYVEHh2mqFy1oUJAdCfe-Q
Not exactly laden with brain cells
Cameron is a colossus in comparison
We need a lineup on stage going in syllables 1-1-2-2, 2-2-1.
(The last 3 words could be Farage - in-the - Pub.)
More please
“Under the terms of long-standing agreements with Washington, these bases {Times includes Diego Garcia} can only be used for military operations that have been agreed in advance with the government.
I suspect The Times journalism is wrong, and no such agreement applies to Diego Garcia. It’s not an RAF base, it’s not even a joint base, it’s a US base. It seems very odd to me, based on the whole history of UK involvement with the US in Chagos, where UK have been so subservient, the US would allow such a clause on use of their own base.
As for 2012 and all that, the UK government would try to bundle DG in with the others to aid their pushback - but they were likely wrong. Technically UK island, but not UK base.
There are various reports as to where the money came from. Some suggested that his mother funded part of it, other sources say Charles gave him the money as a loan to be repaid when Andrew sold his Swiss chalet, with it being deducted from his inheritance from the Queen if it was not paid back.
The wide variety of figures quoted for the settlement and the differing reports on how it was paid suggest to me that the journalists involved had no information and were guessing. I think the only thing we know for sure is that no public money was used to pay Andrew's legal fees or the settlement as the Treasury confirmed that in response to an FOI request.
Wanting the liberation of Iranians from their brutal dictatorship is not bile.
The public have lost faith in all our politicians and the electorate are as divided as ever
That is because they have all failed to live upto their hype and promises
Indeed the country may well be ungovernable, and we can all be as partisan as we want but 'nobody' is cutting the mustard
AMW investigations, bearing in mind he has been arrested for misconduct in public office and not the Epstein allegations, may well develop into why the late queen and charles funded the 12 million payment
Brown is furious with AMW, but also Mandelson and this looks like it is going back to the Blair years
We also have no idea what may be revealed of Mandelson's time as Ambassador
I expect there are many more public figures and politicians daily watching on in growing alarm
Badenoch and Farage lie down sunserviently
In the court of public opinion I'd say Keir and Ed have it 70 to 30.
“Key developments in 2023 included:
*
* Constructive Dialogue Framework: Both nations held several rounds of intensive talks (notably in January and February 2023) to build "mutual understanding" on complex sovereignty and security issues.
* Strategic Alignment: Both governments focused on ensuring the continued operation of the joint UK/US military base on Diego Garcia while addressing the issue of sovereignty.
*
* Base Security Commitment: Both parties reiterated their commitment to ensuring the continued, effective operation of the joint UK-US military base on Diego Garcia.”
Mauritius cannot block US bombing missions, which makes me surprised the UK apparently can.
https://searchlightmagazine.com/2026/02/advance-uks-by-election-candidate-many-young-british-women-are-whores/
https://searchlightmagazine.com/2026/02/advance-uks-election-campaign-hit-by-backlash-over-candidates-sexist-posts/
36 degrees in Winter.
I'm no fan of either, but I never heard similar stories about Blair or Cameron.
Unless it was a pick up from the previous thread, which I haven't had a chance to read.
Think of every single UK front page, the coffins of our allies with flag draped over them a picture of laughing Ayatollah inset. “You happy which side you picked, Mr Starmer?” As headline.
There is an Ian Patrick Darcy, which could be a slight diversion for social media:
https://solicitors.lawsociety.org.uk/person/368007/ian-patrick-darcy
https://www.barstandardsboard.org.uk/barristers-register/DB3B1A13684817BB70CE2EC7154D9D9A.html
This one is a Conservative Councillor in Plymouth.
We should be pushing hard for regime change.
If he gets a 'start up' bounce theres every chance the absence of any Restore impact at the locals does for him like it did Change UK
At very least he needs to flood Yarmouth, and possibly much of Norfolk, with candidates
Bombing Iran won’t lead to regime change and we wouldn’t be here if Trump hadn’t torn up the original agreement.
No ifs no buts.
Margaret asked if Brown had hit him.
'No,' replied Alistair. 'I ducked.'
When we've supported then the ass hole has then claimed we did nothing to help.
Let him and Netanyahu roll in their own shit.
We cannot continue to get involved in everyone else's battles.
We certainly can't support gun toting Zionists.
They take pleasure in being cruel, to women and to others, so both are valid.
See https://www.youtube.com/post/UgkxsFwV6ZAuYOaRlEFsIqA4Akn6MeByrvqc
Iraq and Libya at least are a huge improvement on Iran under the Mullahs.
Afghanistan isn't, but as Meat Loaf said, two out of three ain't bad.