And there is a wave of executions following sham trials now going on.
Trump has once already encouraged continuing protests with the promise of intervention, and not followed through.
Will this time be different ?
Military guy in Telegraph wrote yesterday that the 2nd aircraft carrier doesn't arrive in Eastern Med until Tuesday.
After that - anything could kick off.
Anything except a land invasion, which is the only thing that would work, at least in the short term.
Just throwing a few bombs and missiles into Iran would be very unlikely to get regime change - it would probably just get the Ayatollahs to crack down even harder. Regime change in a country of 25 million in 2003 took a year's preparation and half a million ground troops. This time there are only two carrier battle groups - more than enough firepower for some punitive airstrikes, but nothing like enough to invade a country, let alone occupy it.
So I see this more as a distraction from the Epstein files than an attempt to do anything meaningful there. Of course it's possible that the Iranian regime is so weak that the opposition will be encouraged sufficiently to overthrow it. I doubt that's the case, based on what we've seen over the last couple of months, but of course I've no more information than anyone else on this.
The last land invasion of Iran, by the Iraqis ended in a stalemate. Neither side made much difference to the other; neither regime changed, just a lot or ordinary people died.
True but I don't think the Iraqi army of 1980 is analagous to the American army of 2026 - if America invaded in serious force it would undoubtedly overthrow the Iranian regime very quickly.
But then of course it would face the insoluble problems of governing a huge and hostile country of 90 million people teeming with religious fanatics and other madmen. A rule of thumb I've heard is you need one soldier for every 20 inhabitants to occupy a country. So the Americans would need 4.5 million troops, or around ten times their current active duty army, just to occupy Iran.
I know Trump never thinks things through, but even the Epstein files can't really be that bad for him, can they?
Indeed; don't disagree with much df that. The only thing I'd add is that nothing unites a country more than being attacked. Many Iranians may not be keen supporters of the ayatollahs but I suggest that given the choice between them and a Christian (or allegedly Christian) invasion force it would be the ayatollahs every time. In many cases anyway. It would be Afghanistan all over again, without British and European assistance.
And there is a wave of executions following sham trials now going on.
Trump has once already encouraged continuing protests with the promise of intervention, and not followed through.
Will this time be different ?
Military guy in Telegraph wrote yesterday that the 2nd aircraft carrier doesn't arrive in Eastern Med until Tuesday.
After that - anything could kick off.
Anything except a land invasion, which is the only thing that would work, at least in the short term.
Just throwing a few bombs and missiles into Iran would be very unlikely to get regime change - it would probably just get the Ayatollahs to crack down even harder. Regime change in a country of 25 million in 2003 took a year's preparation and half a million ground troops. This time there are only two carrier battle groups - more than enough firepower for some punitive airstrikes, but nothing like enough to invade a country, let alone occupy it.
So I see this more as a distraction from the Epstein files than an attempt to do anything meaningful there. Of course it's possible that the Iranian regime is so weak that the opposition will be encouraged sufficiently to overthrow it. I doubt that's the case, based on what we've seen over the last couple of months, but of course I've no more information than anyone else on this.
The last land invasion of Iran, by the Iraqis ended in a stalemate. Neither side made much difference to the other; neither regime changed, just a lot or ordinary people died.
True but I don't think the Iraqi army of 1980 is analagous to the American army of 2026 - if America invaded in serious force it would undoubtedly overthrow the Iranian regime very quickly.
Invade how? It's 700km from the Gulf to Tehran with several inconvenient mountain ranges in the way.
Indeed. Its an even more difficult Afghanistan Provoking an overthrow and putting in the puppet shah is the plan, surely
The other factor which is insufficiently discussed is Trump's mental deterioration. It's increasingly unlikely that he's able to make even vaguely rational decisions (and pace william, "Trump's instincts" are almost entirely malign).
I would dispute that. Look at the way he spoke with great humanity about the victims of the Iraq war back in 2007:
Racism in his management of apartment buildings in New York was very apparent, IIRC, right from the start of his taking over the family business.
He was paying off Jesse Jackson via PUSH, to try and ameliorate the damage court cases were doing, IIRC.
Fred and Donald Trump were sued in 1973 by the DOJ for discrimination against black people in housing rental. They agreed a Consent Decree in 1975, then were sued again in 1978 for breaking it.
Whilst I don't see Bridget Phillipson as a Leadership Candidate, and I believe she was wrong to let herself be used as a pawn by McSweeney in the Deputy Leadership contest, as an Education Secretary she is increasingly impressive.
The SEND issue is a minefield of malpractice, bad proceeds delay, angst and frustration and a huge cost to the Exchequer.
It would appear that her detailed proposals to be announced tomorrow will be a considered attempt to move the matter forwards, better for the majority of parents and children and for schools.
No doubt some will be loud opponents as is always the case, but hopefully all but the mad left of Labour, and the sensible majority of others will support it.
A big test for Tories and Reform who appear to have no coherent plans and for the Tories whose whole education policy seemed to be run by the crazed nutcase Babslsingh an area where they have zero credibility.
I’m wary of speaking too much on send but I worry that we have an epidemic of children that somehow need extra Bath Uni a quarter of the new intake had a statement of some issue or another. Often it’s anxiety, or related. Many claim extra time in exams. How much is genuine and how much is gaming the system? Do we no longer accept that some kids will be better academically than others?
Good points and my core belief is this is quite probably spurious and due to medicalisation of natural differences along with incentives for diagnosis, but what does give me pause for thought is we are seeing other changes unrelated to education, for instance rocketing bowel cancer rates in under-50s, or disruptive passengers on airliners, to take just two examples.
The other factor which is insufficiently discussed is Trump's mental deterioration. It's increasingly unlikely that he's able to make even vaguely rational decisions (and pace william, "Trump's instincts" are almost entirely malign).
I would dispute that. Look at the way he spoke with great humanity about the victims of the Iraq war back in 2007:
The other factor which is insufficiently discussed is Trump's mental deterioration. It's increasingly unlikely that he's able to make even vaguely rational decisions (and pace william, "Trump's instincts" are almost entirely malign).
I would dispute that. Look at the way he spoke with great humanity about the victims of the Iraq war back in 2007:
Racism in his management of apartment buildings in New York was very apparent, IIRC, right from the start of his taking over the family business.
He was paying off Jesse Jackson via PUSH, to try and ameliorate the damage court cases were doing, IIRC.
Fred and Donald Trump were sued in 1973 by the DOJ for discrimination against black people in housing rental. They agreed a Consent Decree in 1975, then were sued again in 1978 for breaking it.
The other factor which is insufficiently discussed is Trump's mental deterioration. It's increasingly unlikely that he's able to make even vaguely rational decisions (and pace william, "Trump's instincts" are almost entirely malign).
I would dispute that. Look at the way he spoke with great humanity about the victims of the Iraq war back in 2007:
Whilst I don't see Bridget Phillipson as a Leadership Candidate, and I believe she was wrong to let herself be used as a pawn by McSweeney in the Deputy Leadership contest, as an Education Secretary she is increasingly impressive.
The SEND issue is a minefield of malpractice, bad proceeds delay, angst and frustration and a huge cost to the Exchequer.
It would appear that her detailed proposals to be announced tomorrow will be a considered attempt to move the matter forwards, better for the majority of parents and children and for schools.
No doubt some will be loud opponents as is always the case, but hopefully all but the mad left of Labour, and the sensible majority of others will support it.
A big test for Tories and Reform who appear to have no coherent plans and for the Tories whose whole education policy seemed to be run by the crazed nutcase Babslsingh an area where they have zero credibility.
Why is it always the wet side of the Tory Party that does this sort of thing. They claim not to be parasitical infiltrators, that they are in fact the keepers of the true Tory flame, and when one of their own is the leader they loudly insist on party loyalty and for the 'headbangers' to shut up.
Yet when their lot are out of the leadership, any notion of loyalty goes out of the window and they are at the leader like piranhas, or they just full out bugger off and start a new Party like Anna Soubry.
Now we have one of our own, who is evidently such a loyal Tory that she creates a new alias so she can campaign for the Labour Party, defend the Chagos mess and go into fifth gear her attacks on Kemi. Bunch of complete nutters.
The other factor which is insufficiently discussed is Trump's mental deterioration. It's increasingly unlikely that he's able to make even vaguely rational decisions (and pace william, "Trump's instincts" are almost entirely malign).
I would dispute that. Look at the way he spoke with great humanity about the victims of the Iraq war back in 2007:
I'm thinking Labour beat Greens in Gorton and Denton. Greens sweep the Levenshulme area and pick up some of the muslim votes, but less than predicted. I would argue they need to be polling much further ahead than Labour at this stage to actually beat them.
My head says Labour will also narrowly edge Reform, but I do think its still winnable for Reform - the conditions will never be more perfect, with neither progressive side able to finish the other off and absorb their vote. Reform could pick up a lot of that 'Don't know' vote and score a massive upset. I think at this stage their message should be (and probably is) 'this is a free hit' - lend me your vote and if you don't like what happens, go back to Labour next time.'
I'm thinking Labour beat Greens in Gorton and Denton. Greens sweep the Levenshulme area and pick up some of the muslim votes, but less than predicted. I would argue they need to be polling much further ahead than Labour at this stage to actually beat them.
My head says Labour will also narrowly edge Reform, but I do think its still winnable for Reform - the conditions will never be more perfect, with neither progressive side able to finish the other off and absorb their vote. Reform could pick up a lot of that 'Don't know' vote and score a massive upset. I think at this stage their message should be (and probably is) 'this is a free hit' - lend me your vote and if you don't like what happens, go back to Labour next time.'
Sounds a like a good call and if I were having a bet (I'm not) that's the way I would play it.
Whatever happens I wouldn't read too much into the results as far as the GE is concerned. Bettingwise, that remains impenetrable.
Whilst I don't see Bridget Phillipson as a Leadership Candidate, and I believe she was wrong to let herself be used as a pawn by McSweeney in the Deputy Leadership contest, as an Education Secretary she is increasingly impressive.
The SEND issue is a minefield of malpractice, bad proceeds delay, angst and frustration and a huge cost to the Exchequer.
It would appear that her detailed proposals to be announced tomorrow will be a considered attempt to move the matter forwards, better for the majority of parents and children and for schools.
No doubt some will be loud opponents as is always the case, but hopefully all but the mad left of Labour, and the sensible majority of others will support it.
A big test for Tories and Reform who appear to have no coherent plans and for the Tories whose whole education policy seemed to be run by the crazed nutcase Babslsingh an area where they have zero credibility.
Why is it always the wet side of the Tory Party that does this sort of thing. They claim not to be parasitical infiltrators, that they are in fact the keepers of the true Tory flame, and when one of their own is the leader they loudly insist on party loyalty and for the 'headbangers' to shut up.
Yet when their lot are out of the leadership, any notion of loyalty goes out of the window and they are at the leader like piranhas, or they just full out bugger off and start a new Party like Anna Soubry.
Now we have one of our own, who is evidently such a loyal Tory that she creates a new alias so she can campaign for the Labour Party, defend the Chagos mess and go into fifth gear her attacks on Kemi. Bunch of complete nutters.
They were never a loyal Tory. Always been a trollish character, through the many incarnations.
I don't think this match is over yet. The pitch isn't so easy.
22-4 (4.5)
A hundred lines of "Never judge a pitch until both teams have batted on it" on my desk tomorrow morning from all the doomsters saying England were X runs short please
I don't think this match is over yet. The pitch isn't so easy.
22-4 (4.5)
A hundred lines of "Never judge a pitch until both teams have batted on it" on my desk tomorrow morning from all the doomsters saying England were X runs short please
In the Telegraph, Reform seem to think they will win in May Havering, Bexley, Bromley, Barking, Hillingdon and Croydon with the LDs holding theirs, Westminster NoC, Tories Harrow and K and C and everything else Labour (ffs, thats just ridiculous)
Im not sure what data they are looking at.
I'll be very surprised if Reform have overall majorities in more than Havering and Bexley
Largest party or significant gains, sure
It's all expectations management or wishcasting or whatever.
I'd be astonished if Reform won Barking - yes, they could well win seats there and in a number of other Boroughs and they could deny the Conservatives outright control in Croydon and Barnet but I don't see that kind of turquoise wave on current evidence.
Agreed. I mean Bromley is possible i suppose but even the by election win in favourable conditions of polling in Bromley Common doesnt scream 'majority'. And Labour holding on everywhere is just daft on every single metric available. Oh well, more fun taking the piss out of them later
I think Bromley’s too posh for Reform.
I think they’ll do very well in Dagenham, but won’t win the borough.
Hillingdon, Croydon, even Sutton are possibles, but in the first two, I think a Con/ Reform coalition is more likely.
Westminster can’t be NOC. It’s either Con or Lab, and I think Con is most likely.
Labour, IMHO, will lose Barnet, Camden, Merton, and quite possibly, Enfield, Wandsworth, Haringey, and Islington.
I definitely think Reform is acquiring a class dimension.
The trouble is the Right can't win if the posher voters go Conservative and the saltier ones go Reform under FPTP.
IMHO, it’s that sort of sorting that helps to maximise gains under FPTP. Reform challenge Labour in the Red Wall, the Conservatives in wealthier places.
Even the redwall will have wealthier streets though and wealthy places some council estates.
Boris won in 2019 getting 43% of the vote a big majority over a Labour Party still on 32% but if the Tories and Reform both got 25% then Labour could be re elected on just 26% with FPTP even though the right vote combined was even bigger than in 2019
Restore have announcrd Orla Minihane founder of the Pink Ladies as their Women and Girls safety spokesperson
Hmmm. I still have her down as one possible Restore Britain defector, following the company she kept.
But that should lock her in - candidate for2029, perhaps?
For Restore? Almost certainly as shes taken on a spokesperson role. Reform are startimg to look like yesterdays radicals with Captain Pugwash doing a Greta for photo ops. Third in G and D and the bottom can start falling out
Thanks. I misread it as "Reform" in the first post so was not quite clear.
At the Epping demos she was closely associated with Callum Barker (Homeland Party) and Mark Collett (Patriotic Alternative, BNP national figure). And was not interested when it was pointed out who they are.
Sarah White may go as well. She was in a similar role at Epping.
Restore have announcrd Orla Minihane founder of the Pink Ladies as their Women and Girls safety spokesperson
Hmmm. I still have her down as one possible Restore Britain defector, following the company she kept.
But that should lock her in - candidate for2029, perhaps?
For Restore? Almost certainly as shes taken on a spokesperson role. Reform are startimg to look like yesterdays radicals with Captain Pugwash doing a Greta for photo ops. Third in G and D and the bottom can start falling out
Thanks. I misread it as "Reform" in the first post so was not quite clear.
At the Epping demos she was closely associated with Callum Barker (Homeland Party) and Mark Collett (Patriotic Alternative, BNP national figure). And was not interested when it was pointed out who they are.
Sarah White may go as well. She was in a similar role at Epping.
Restore have announcrd Orla Minihane founder of the Pink Ladies as their Women and Girls safety spokesperson
Hmmm. I still have her down as one possible Restore Britain defector, following the company she kept.
But that should lock her in - candidate for2029, perhaps?
For Restore? Almost certainly as shes taken on a spokesperson role. Reform are startimg to look like yesterdays radicals with Captain Pugwash doing a Greta for photo ops. Third in G and D and the bottom can start falling out
Thanks. I misread it as "Reform" in the first post so was not quite clear.
At the Epping demos she was closely associated with Callum Barker (Homeland Party) and Mark Collett (Patriotic Alternative, BNP national figure). And was not interested when it was pointed out who they are.
Sarah White may go as well. She was in a similar role at Epping.
Orla's content:
Restore/Lowe are fully on the 'dont care what you call us' train which probably earns them a hardcore low single figures (2 to 5)% but limits their potential Its rerunning the late noughties BNP type push
And there is a wave of executions following sham trials now going on.
Trump has once already encouraged continuing protests with the promise of intervention, and not followed through.
Will this time be different ?
Military guy in Telegraph wrote yesterday that the 2nd aircraft carrier doesn't arrive in Eastern Med until Tuesday.
After that - anything could kick off.
Anything except a land invasion, which is the only thing that would work, at least in the short term.
Just throwing a few bombs and missiles into Iran would be very unlikely to get regime change - it would probably just get the Ayatollahs to crack down even harder. Regime change in a country of 25 million in 2003 took a year's preparation and half a million ground troops. This time there are only two carrier battle groups - more than enough firepower for some punitive airstrikes, but nothing like enough to invade a country, let alone occupy it.
So I see this more as a distraction from the Epstein files than an attempt to do anything meaningful there. Of course it's possible that the Iranian regime is so weak that the opposition will be encouraged sufficiently to overthrow it. I doubt that's the case, based on what we've seen over the last couple of months, but of course I've no more information than anyone else on this.
The last land invasion of Iran, by the Iraqis ended in a stalemate. Neither side made much difference to the other; neither regime changed, just a lot or ordinary people died.
True but I don't think the Iraqi army of 1980 is analagous to the American army of 2026 - if America invaded in serious force it would undoubtedly overthrow the Iranian regime very quickly.
Invade how? It's 700km from the Gulf to Tehran with several inconvenient mountain ranges in the way.
Are you forgetting we and the Russkies took Tehran in 1941?
According to a thread I just read on G&D, Yougov also polled there for voting intention. I wonder whether that will see the light of day.
Linky plz?
It was on reddit. I don't have reddit or really know how it works, but my browser opened a thread on it because I was looking at Gorton and Denton stuff. I am afraid I don't still have the link.
The conversation was around polls and someone from the constituency claimed they had been polled by Yougov. I assumed that was a constituency poll as it was a big coincidence if not.
The other factor which is insufficiently discussed is Trump's mental deterioration. It's increasingly unlikely that he's able to make even vaguely rational decisions (and pace william, "Trump's instincts" are almost entirely malign).
I would dispute that. Look at the way he spoke with great humanity about the victims of the Iraq war back in 2007:
Racism in his management of apartment buildings in New York was very apparent, IIRC, right from the start of his taking over the family business.
He was paying off Jesse Jackson via PUSH, to try and ameliorate the damage court cases were doing, IIRC.
Fred and Donald Trump were sued in 1973 by the DOJ for discrimination against black people in housing rental. They agreed a Consent Decree in 1975, then were sued again in 1978 for breaking it.
He's always been a racist, and a narcissist. I think it was probably his involvement in wrestling, and realisation that he could move a crowd, that turned him into a megalomaniac.
Restore have announcrd Orla Minihane founder of the Pink Ladies as their Women and Girls safety spokesperson
Hmmm. I still have her down as one possible Restore Britain defector, following the company she kept.
But that should lock her in - candidate for2029, perhaps?
For Restore? Almost certainly as shes taken on a spokesperson role. Reform are startimg to look like yesterdays radicals with Captain Pugwash doing a Greta for photo ops. Third in G and D and the bottom can start falling out
Thanks. I misread it as "Reform" in the first post so was not quite clear.
At the Epping demos she was closely associated with Callum Barker (Homeland Party) and Mark Collett (Patriotic Alternative, BNP national figure). And was not interested when it was pointed out who they are.
Sarah White may go as well. She was in a similar role at Epping.
Orla's content:
MULTICULTURALISM.
You don't know multiculturism, she goes to a different school.
The other factor which is insufficiently discussed is Trump's mental deterioration. It's increasingly unlikely that he's able to make even vaguely rational decisions (and pace william, "Trump's instincts" are almost entirely malign).
I would dispute that. Look at the way he spoke with great humanity about the victims of the Iraq war back in 2007:
Racism in his management of apartment buildings in New York was very apparent, IIRC, right from the start of his taking over the family business.
He was paying off Jesse Jackson via PUSH, to try and ameliorate the damage court cases were doing, IIRC.
Fred and Donald Trump were sued in 1973 by the DOJ for discrimination against black people in housing rental. They agreed a Consent Decree in 1975, then were sued again in 1978 for breaking it.
He's always been a racist, and a narcissist. I think it was probably his involvement in wrestling, and realisation that he could move a crowd, that turned him into a megalomaniac.
The other factor which is insufficiently discussed is Trump's mental deterioration. It's increasingly unlikely that he's able to make even vaguely rational decisions (and pace william, "Trump's instincts" are almost entirely malign).
I would dispute that. Look at the way he spoke with great humanity about the victims of the Iraq war back in 2007:
Racism in his management of apartment buildings in New York was very apparent, IIRC, right from the start of his taking over the family business.
He was paying off Jesse Jackson via PUSH, to try and ameliorate the damage court cases were doing, IIRC.
Fred and Donald Trump were sued in 1973 by the DOJ for discrimination against black people in housing rental. They agreed a Consent Decree in 1975, then were sued again in 1978 for breaking it.
He's always been a racist, and a narcissist. I think it was probably his involvement in wrestling, and realisation that he could move a crowd, that turned him into a megalomaniac.
Restore have announcrd Orla Minihane founder of the Pink Ladies as their Women and Girls safety spokesperson
Hmmm. I still have her down as one possible Restore Britain defector, following the company she kept.
But that should lock her in - candidate for2029, perhaps?
For Restore? Almost certainly as shes taken on a spokesperson role. Reform are startimg to look like yesterdays radicals with Captain Pugwash doing a Greta for photo ops. Third in G and D and the bottom can start falling out
Thanks. I misread it as "Reform" in the first post so was not quite clear.
At the Epping demos she was closely associated with Callum Barker (Homeland Party) and Mark Collett (Patriotic Alternative, BNP national figure). And was not interested when it was pointed out who they are.
Sarah White may go as well. She was in a similar role at Epping.
Orla's content:
Restore/Lowe are fully on the 'dont care what you call us' train which probably earns them a hardcore low single figures (2 to 5)% but limits their potential Its rerunning the late noughties BNP type push
Some of the suits are mini-me Nick Griffin, which is amusing.
The Royal Family being in a bit of jeopardy is going to make Reform's Government's job a bit easier. They are going to be too glad that someone is in power who actually likes them and wants to keep them to make much trouble (as I feared Charles would).
Restore have announcrd Orla Minihane founder of the Pink Ladies as their Women and Girls safety spokesperson
Hmmm. I still have her down as one possible Restore Britain defector, following the company she kept.
But that should lock her in - candidate for2029, perhaps?
For Restore? Almost certainly as shes taken on a spokesperson role. Reform are startimg to look like yesterdays radicals with Captain Pugwash doing a Greta for photo ops. Third in G and D and the bottom can start falling out
Thanks. I misread it as "Reform" in the first post so was not quite clear.
At the Epping demos she was closely associated with Callum Barker (Homeland Party) and Mark Collett (Patriotic Alternative, BNP national figure). And was not interested when it was pointed out who they are.
Sarah White may go as well. She was in a similar role at Epping.
Orla's content:
MULTICULTURALISM.
Joyce Cooper: Fascist!
Nicholas Angel: I beg your pardon?
Joyce Cooper: [doing a crossword puzzle] System of government categorized by extreme dictatorship. Seven across.
Nicholas Angel: Oh, I see. It's "fascism."
Joyce Cooper: "Fascism"! Wonderful. Now, we've put you in the Castle Suite. Bernard will escort you over there
I don't think this match is over yet. The pitch isn't so easy.
22-4 (4.5)
A hundred lines of "Never judge a pitch until both teams have batted on it" on my desk tomorrow morning from all the doomsters saying England were X runs short please
A fair point but this game is not over yet. The RRR is nothing exceptional.
And there is a wave of executions following sham trials now going on.
Trump has once already encouraged continuing protests with the promise of intervention, and not followed through.
Will this time be different ?
Military guy in Telegraph wrote yesterday that the 2nd aircraft carrier doesn't arrive in Eastern Med until Tuesday.
After that - anything could kick off.
Anything except a land invasion, which is the only thing that would work, at least in the short term.
Just throwing a few bombs and missiles into Iran would be very unlikely to get regime change - it would probably just get the Ayatollahs to crack down even harder. Regime change in a country of 25 million in 2003 took a year's preparation and half a million ground troops. This time there are only two carrier battle groups - more than enough firepower for some punitive airstrikes, but nothing like enough to invade a country, let alone occupy it.
So I see this more as a distraction from the Epstein files than an attempt to do anything meaningful there. Of course it's possible that the Iranian regime is so weak that the opposition will be encouraged sufficiently to overthrow it. I doubt that's the case, based on what we've seen over the last couple of months, but of course I've no more information than anyone else on this.
The last land invasion of Iran, by the Iraqis ended in a stalemate. Neither side made much difference to the other; neither regime changed, just a lot or ordinary people died.
True but I don't think the Iraqi army of 1980 is analagous to the American army of 2026 - if America invaded in serious force it would undoubtedly overthrow the Iranian regime very quickly.
Invade how? It's 700km from the Gulf to Tehran with several inconvenient mountain ranges in the way.
Are you forgetting we and the Russkies took Tehran in 1941?
I don’t think the Russians will help us this time.
I don't think this match is over yet. The pitch isn't so easy.
22-4 (4.5)
A hundred lines of "Never judge a pitch until both teams have batted on it" on my desk tomorrow morning from all the doomsters saying England were X runs short please
A fair point but this game is not over yet. The RRR is nothing exceptional.
I don't think this match is over yet. The pitch isn't so easy.
22-4 (4.5)
A hundred lines of "Never judge a pitch until both teams have batted on it" on my desk tomorrow morning from all the doomsters saying England were X runs short please
A fair point but this game is not over yet. The RRR is nothing exceptional.
Don't try and wriggle out of it, David. Guilty as charged.
Restore have announcrd Orla Minihane founder of the Pink Ladies as their Women and Girls safety spokesperson
Hmmm. I still have her down as one possible Restore Britain defector, following the company she kept.
But that should lock her in - candidate for2029, perhaps?
For Restore? Almost certainly as shes taken on a spokesperson role. Reform are startimg to look like yesterdays radicals with Captain Pugwash doing a Greta for photo ops. Third in G and D and the bottom can start falling out
Thanks. I misread it as "Reform" in the first post so was not quite clear.
At the Epping demos she was closely associated with Callum Barker (Homeland Party) and Mark Collett (Patriotic Alternative, BNP national figure). And was not interested when it was pointed out who they are.
Sarah White may go as well. She was in a similar role at Epping.
Orla's content:
Restore/Lowe are fully on the 'dont care what you call us' train which probably earns them a hardcore low single figures (2 to 5)% but limits their potential Its rerunning the late noughties BNP type push
Some of the suits are mini-me Nick Griffin, which is amusing.
Is Gorton and Denton going the same way as Stoneygate ward in Leicester did this week?
Second would be ideal. Labour don't need the seat but as far as it's possible it would be good for Reform to be roundly beaten Also a victory for Green would encourage Starmer to start looking leftwards and stop apeing the fascists
A victory for the Greens would be a disaster for Labour and risks leaking further Labour votes to Polanski's party.
Indeed a narrow Reform win with Labour a close second and the Greens third would be better for SKS than a Green win as at least he could then say 'Vote Green, get Reform'
And there is a wave of executions following sham trials now going on.
Trump has once already encouraged continuing protests with the promise of intervention, and not followed through.
Will this time be different ?
Military guy in Telegraph wrote yesterday that the 2nd aircraft carrier doesn't arrive in Eastern Med until Tuesday.
After that - anything could kick off.
Anything except a land invasion, which is the only thing that would work, at least in the short term.
Just throwing a few bombs and missiles into Iran would be very unlikely to get regime change - it would probably just get the Ayatollahs to crack down even harder. Regime change in a country of 25 million in 2003 took a year's preparation and half a million ground troops. This time there are only two carrier battle groups - more than enough firepower for some punitive airstrikes, but nothing like enough to invade a country, let alone occupy it.
So I see this more as a distraction from the Epstein files than an attempt to do anything meaningful there. Of course it's possible that the Iranian regime is so weak that the opposition will be encouraged sufficiently to overthrow it. I doubt that's the case, based on what we've seen over the last couple of months, but of course I've no more information than anyone else on this.
The last land invasion of Iran, by the Iraqis ended in a stalemate. Neither side made much difference to the other; neither regime changed, just a lot or ordinary people died.
True but I don't think the Iraqi army of 1980 is analagous to the American army of 2026 - if America invaded in serious force it would undoubtedly overthrow the Iranian regime very quickly.
Invade how? It's 700km from the Gulf to Tehran with several inconvenient mountain ranges in the way.
Are you forgetting we and the Russkies took Tehran in 1941?
I don’t think the Russians will help us this time.
Is Gorton and Denton going the same way as Stoneygate ward in Leicester did this week?
Second would be ideal. Labour don't need the seat but as far as it's possible it would be good for Reform to be roundly beaten Also a victory for Green would encourage Starmer to start looking leftwards and stop apeing the fascists
A victory for the Greens would be a disaster for Labour and risks leaking further Labour votes to Polanski's party.
Indeed a narrow Reform win with Labour a close second and the Greens third would be better for SKS than a Green win as at least he could then say 'Vote Green, get Reform'
I respectfully disagree.
The Green vote is much flakier than the Reform vote in many Labour seats
It's easier to persuade people with a degree of intelligence to vote tactically, less so with your average Reform bone head
I don't think this match is over yet. The pitch isn't so easy.
22-4 (4.5)
A hundred lines of "Never judge a pitch until both teams have batted on it" on my desk tomorrow morning from all the doomsters saying England were X runs short please
A fair point but this game is not over yet. The RRR is nothing exceptional.
I don't think this match is over yet. The pitch isn't so easy.
22-4 (4.5)
A hundred lines of "Never judge a pitch until both teams have batted on it" on my desk tomorrow morning from all the doomsters saying England were X runs short please
A fair point but this game is not over yet. The RRR is nothing exceptional.
The Royal Family being in a bit of jeopardy is going to make Reform's Government's job a bit easier. They are going to be too glad that someone is in power who actually likes them and wants to keep them to make much trouble (as I feared Charles would).
Not sure that is entirely true.
The latest Yougov poll finds Tories have the highest favourable rating for the King at +75% but then LDs at +30% are higher than Reform voters at +28% in having a positive view of Charles. Indeed Labour voters at +28% are tied with Reform voters in their view of the King with only Green voters at -11% lower.
It's hard not to be amazed by student protesters returning to the streets in Iran given what has happened.
I don't think the UK public will back any Trump led military action. Though we also have to bear in mind Iraq, Libya etc.
It's always what replaced the incumbent in that neck of the woods.
There are better options.
There are infinitely worse.
One thing is for sure, any sign if interfering in regime change generally results in a worse outcome
Hard to get much worse than the Ayatollahs.
ISIS would be far worse.
The core service systems, as like Libya was under Gaddafi, aren't bad.
ISIS would destroy everything.
Isn't Iran in the midst of a water crisis, partly caused by natural problems (few rivers, generally low rainfall), partly caused by the regime's exciting mix of incompetence and corruption?
I don't think this match is over yet. The pitch isn't so easy.
22-4 (4.5)
A hundred lines of "Never judge a pitch until both teams have batted on it" on my desk tomorrow morning from all the doomsters saying England were X runs short please
A fair point but this game is not over yet. The RRR is nothing exceptional.
I don't think this match is over yet. The pitch isn't so easy.
22-4 (4.5)
A hundred lines of "Never judge a pitch until both teams have batted on it" on my desk tomorrow morning from all the doomsters saying England were X runs short please
A fair point but this game is not over yet. The RRR is nothing exceptional.
52-6. Stirrings of hope!
RRR now above 9 with 10 overs remaining and only 4 wickets remaining.
According to a thread I just read on G&D, Yougov also polled there for voting intention. I wonder whether that will see the light of day.
Linky plz?
It was on reddit. I don't have reddit or really know how it works, but my browser opened a thread on it because I was looking at Gorton and Denton stuff. I am afraid I don't still have the link.
The conversation was around polls and someone from the constituency claimed they had been polled by Yougov. I assumed that was a constituency poll as it was a big coincidence if not.
YouGov usually poll about 2400 people. There are 650 constituencies, although YouGov only poll Great Britain, so that’s 632 constituencies. Therefore, a typical YouGov poll will have 3.8 respondents from G&D.
I don't think this match is over yet. The pitch isn't so easy.
22-4 (4.5)
A hundred lines of "Never judge a pitch until both teams have batted on it" on my desk tomorrow morning from all the doomsters saying England were X runs short please
A fair point but this game is not over yet. The RRR is nothing exceptional.
I don't think this match is over yet. The pitch isn't so easy.
22-4 (4.5)
A hundred lines of "Never judge a pitch until both teams have batted on it" on my desk tomorrow morning from all the doomsters saying England were X runs short please
A fair point but this game is not over yet. The RRR is nothing exceptional.
52-6. Stirrings of hope!
RRR now above 9 with 10 overs remaining and only 4 wickets remaining.
Didn't expect this 10 overs ago.
I rarely agree with you but this has to be an exception.
Whilst I don't see Bridget Phillipson as a Leadership Candidate, and I believe she was wrong to let herself be used as a pawn by McSweeney in the Deputy Leadership contest, as an Education Secretary she is increasingly impressive.
The SEND issue is a minefield of malpractice, bad proceeds delay, angst and frustration and a huge cost to the Exchequer.
It would appear that her detailed proposals to be announced tomorrow will be a considered attempt to move the matter forwards, better for the majority of parents and children and for schools.
No doubt some will be loud opponents as is always the case, but hopefully all but the mad left of Labour, and the sensible majority of others will support it.
A big test for Tories and Reform who appear to have no coherent plans and for the Tories whose whole education policy seemed to be run by the crazed nutcase Babslsingh an area where they have zero credibility.
Why is it always the wet side of the Tory Party that does this sort of thing. They claim not to be parasitical infiltrators, that they are in fact the keepers of the true Tory flame, and when one of their own is the leader they loudly insist on party loyalty and for the 'headbangers' to shut up.
Yet when their lot are out of the leadership, any notion of loyalty goes out of the window and they are at the leader like piranhas, or they just full out bugger off and start a new Party like Anna Soubry.
Now we have one of our own, who is evidently such a loyal Tory that she creates a new alias so she can campaign for the Labour Party, defend the Chagos mess and go into fifth gear her attacks on Kemi. Bunch of complete nutters.
It's hard not to be amazed by student protesters returning to the streets in Iran given what has happened.
I don't think the UK public will back any Trump led military action. Though we also have to bear in mind Iraq, Libya etc.
It's always what replaced the incumbent in that neck of the woods.
There are better options.
There are infinitely worse.
One thing is for sure, any sign if interfering in regime change generally results in a worse outcome
Hard to get much worse than the Ayatollahs.
I think ISIS would probably be worse. The current regime is evil, but functions somewhat as a state. ISIS is just an abbatoir.
Ceasing to operate as a state would be an improvement. At least then people locally could fight for their freedom.
Chaos is better than authoritarianism.
Tehran is currently experiencing shortages of drinking water, so chaos could quite easily become worse than authoritarianism in very short order if government completely breaks down.
On topic, is there any US polling on support for a prez elected on no more foreign wars blustering his way into a foreign war?
Also, despite all the bellowing about the biggest build up of US forces since Iraq I haven't seen mention of land forces; are there any? Can't see forced regime change happening without some element of that.
48% of Americans opposed to military action in Iran, only 28% in favour.
It's hard not to be amazed by student protesters returning to the streets in Iran given what has happened.
I don't think the UK public will back any Trump led military action. Though we also have to bear in mind Iraq, Libya etc.
It's always what replaced the incumbent in that neck of the woods.
There are better options.
There are infinitely worse.
One thing is for sure, any sign if interfering in regime change generally results in a worse outcome
Hard to get much worse than the Ayatollahs.
ISIS would be far worse.
The core service systems, as like Libya was under Gaddafi, aren't bad.
ISIS would destroy everything.
ISIS effectively run Syria now and the West doesn’t care
They don’t. The Syrian President was previously in al Qaeda, but was long opposed to ISIS. His actions today are not those of ISIS or even of al Qaeda.
It's hard not to be amazed by student protesters returning to the streets in Iran given what has happened.
I don't think the UK public will back any Trump led military action. Though we also have to bear in mind Iraq, Libya etc.
It's always what replaced the incumbent in that neck of the woods.
There are better options.
There are infinitely worse.
One thing is for sure, any sign if interfering in regime change generally results in a worse outcome
Hard to get much worse than the Ayatollahs.
I think ISIS would probably be worse. The current regime is evil, but functions somewhat as a state. ISIS is just an abbatoir.
Ceasing to operate as a state would be an improvement. At least then people locally could fight for their freedom.
Chaos is better than authoritarianism.
I think that's a bit naive. The regime still has millions of ideological supporters, and many thousands in the armed militia.
A decapitation bombing campaign wouldn't even guarantee chaos. (And given the huge death toll in Iraq from their post invasion chaos, you're also being utterly blasé about what that might mean.)
If the administration has a plan beyond drop lots of bombs, it has been kept remarkably secret. And whatever it might be, it doesn't involve US ground troops.
It's hard not to be amazed by student protesters returning to the streets in Iran given what has happened.
I don't think the UK public will back any Trump led military action. Though we also have to bear in mind Iraq, Libya etc.
It's always what replaced the incumbent in that neck of the woods.
There are better options.
There are infinitely worse.
One thing is for sure, any sign if interfering in regime change generally results in a worse outcome
Hard to get much worse than the Ayatollahs.
I think ISIS would probably be worse. The current regime is evil, but functions somewhat as a state. ISIS is just an abbatoir.
Ceasing to operate as a state would be an improvement. At least then people locally could fight for their freedom.
Chaos is better than authoritarianism.
Tehran is currently experiencing shortages of drinking water, so chaos could quite easily become worse than authoritarianism in very short order if government completely breaks down.
I don't understand your logic, they're experiencing shortages under the 'order' of the Ayatollahs.
Iran's government completely breaking down would be an improvement, even if conditions worsen at least then the government won't be massacring those who protest or seek to make things better.
It's hard not to be amazed by student protesters returning to the streets in Iran given what has happened.
I don't think the UK public will back any Trump led military action. Though we also have to bear in mind Iraq, Libya etc.
It's always what replaced the incumbent in that neck of the woods.
There are better options.
There are infinitely worse.
One thing is for sure, any sign if interfering in regime change generally results in a worse outcome
Hard to get much worse than the Ayatollahs.
I think ISIS would probably be worse. The current regime is evil, but functions somewhat as a state. ISIS is just an abbatoir.
Ceasing to operate as a state would be an improvement. At least then people locally could fight for their freedom.
Chaos is better than authoritarianism.
I think that's a bit naive. The regime still has millions of ideological supporters, and many thousands in the armed militia.
A decapitation bombing campaign wouldn't even guarantee chaos. (And given the huge death toll in Iraq from their post invasion chaos, you're also being utterly blasé about what that might mean.)
If the administration has a plan beyond drop lots of bombs, it has been kept remarkably secret. And whatever it might be, it doesn't involve US ground troops.
More than one thing can be true simultaneously.
1: Removing the Ayatollahs would be a good thing.
2: I have zero confidence that the US administration has a coherent plan, or even will act. Indeed I expect TACO.
Is Gorton and Denton going the same way as Stoneygate ward in Leicester did this week?
Second would be ideal. Labour don't need the seat but as far as it's possible it would be good for Reform to be roundly beaten Also a victory for Green would encourage Starmer to start looking leftwards and stop apeing the fascists
A victory for the Greens would be a disaster for Labour and risks leaking further Labour votes to Polanski's party.
Indeed a narrow Reform win with Labour a close second and the Greens third would be better for SKS than a Green win as at least he could then say 'Vote Green, get Reform'
I respectfully disagree.
The Green vote is much flakier than the Reform vote in many Labour seats
It's easier to persuade people with a degree of intelligence to vote tactically, less so with your average Reform bone head
If the Greens start winning Labour seats Labour have zero chance of getting Green voters to vote tactically Labour to beat Reform, Reform voters won't be voting Labour either way
It's hard not to be amazed by student protesters returning to the streets in Iran given what has happened.
I don't think the UK public will back any Trump led military action. Though we also have to bear in mind Iraq, Libya etc.
It's always what replaced the incumbent in that neck of the woods.
There are better options.
There are infinitely worse.
One thing is for sure, any sign if interfering in regime change generally results in a worse outcome
Hard to get much worse than the Ayatollahs.
I think ISIS would probably be worse. The current regime is evil, but functions somewhat as a state. ISIS is just an abbatoir.
Ceasing to operate as a state would be an improvement. At least then people locally could fight for their freedom.
Chaos is better than authoritarianism.
Tehran is currently experiencing shortages of drinking water, so chaos could quite easily become worse than authoritarianism in very short order if government completely breaks down.
I don't understand your logic, they're experiencing shortages under the 'order' of the Ayatollahs.
Iran's government completely breaking down would be an improvement, even if conditions worsen at least then the government won't be massacring those who protest or seek to make things better.
They are short of water whilst trying to manage the problem. If government breaks down and nobody is managing the water they will be in a humanitarian crisis almost immediately.
It's hard not to be amazed by student protesters returning to the streets in Iran given what has happened.
I don't think the UK public will back any Trump led military action. Though we also have to bear in mind Iraq, Libya etc.
It's always what replaced the incumbent in that neck of the woods.
There are better options.
There are infinitely worse.
One thing is for sure, any sign if interfering in regime change generally results in a worse outcome
Hard to get much worse than the Ayatollahs.
I think ISIS would probably be worse. The current regime is evil, but functions somewhat as a state. ISIS is just an abbatoir.
Ceasing to operate as a state would be an improvement. At least then people locally could fight for their freedom.
Chaos is better than authoritarianism.
I think that's a bit naive. The regime still has millions of ideological supporters, and many thousands in the armed militia.
A decapitation bombing campaign wouldn't even guarantee chaos. (And given the huge death toll in Iraq from their post invasion chaos, you're also being utterly blasé about what that might mean.)
If the administration has a plan beyond drop lots of bombs, it has been kept remarkably secret. And whatever it might be, it doesn't involve US ground troops.
The Iranian regime has been less authoritarian than some of their recent neighbours (Syria or Iraq under Baathists, Afghanistan under the Taliban, Turkmenistan today). They have more consciously sought a degree of popular support, although their support is greater in rural areas, among ethnic Persians and among Shia Muslims and less in urban areas, the less Persian west or east, and among Iran’s religious minorities.
It's hard not to be amazed by student protesters returning to the streets in Iran given what has happened.
I don't think the UK public will back any Trump led military action. Though we also have to bear in mind Iraq, Libya etc.
It's always what replaced the incumbent in that neck of the woods.
There are better options.
There are infinitely worse.
One thing is for sure, any sign if interfering in regime change generally results in a worse outcome
Hard to get much worse than the Ayatollahs.
I think ISIS would probably be worse. The current regime is evil, but functions somewhat as a state. ISIS is just an abbatoir.
Ceasing to operate as a state would be an improvement. At least then people locally could fight for their freedom.
Chaos is better than authoritarianism.
Tehran is currently experiencing shortages of drinking water, so chaos could quite easily become worse than authoritarianism in very short order if government completely breaks down.
I don't understand your logic, they're experiencing shortages under the 'order' of the Ayatollahs.
Iran's government completely breaking down would be an improvement, even if conditions worsen at least then the government won't be massacring those who protest or seek to make things better.
They are short of water whilst trying to manage the problem. If government breaks down and nobody is managing the water they will be in a humanitarian crisis almost immediately.
Better a humanitarian crisis than continued authoritarianism and brutal government crackdowns.
The Royal Family being in a bit of jeopardy is going to make Reform's Government's job a bit easier. They are going to be too glad that someone is in power who actually likes them and wants to keep them to make much trouble (as I feared Charles would).
Not sure that is entirely true.
The latest Yougov poll finds Tories have the highest favourable rating for the King at +75% but then LDs at +30% are higher than Reform voters at +28% in having a positive view of Charles. Indeed Labour voters at +28% are tied with Reform voters in their view of the King with only Green voters at -11% lower.
I mean really the leadership of the Government. Nigel is staunchly loyal that way. And he may well be in coalition with the Tories. Starmer has already been throwing the Windsors under the bus (telling Andrew to go to America) to try to save his own worthless hide. The Greens, who could massively improve their representation next time, are definitely not big Monarchists.
To get their constitutional changes through, Reform may have to threaten to stuff the Lords. Labour has already been stuffing it in preparation for this battle. The King could cause an impasse by threatening to block this or hold it up. I now think he won't do this.
The Royal Family being in a bit of jeopardy is going to make Reform's Government's job a bit easier. They are going to be too glad that someone is in power who actually likes them and wants to keep them to make much trouble (as I feared Charles would).
Not sure that is entirely true.
The latest Yougov poll finds Tories have the highest favourable rating for the King at +75% but then LDs at +30% are higher than Reform voters at +28% in having a positive view of Charles. Indeed Labour voters at +28% are tied with Reform voters in their view of the King with only Green voters at -11% lower.
The Royal Family being in a bit of jeopardy is going to make Reform's Government's job a bit easier. They are going to be too glad that someone is in power who actually likes them and wants to keep them to make much trouble (as I feared Charles would).
Not sure that is entirely true.
The latest Yougov poll finds Tories have the highest favourable rating for the King at +75% but then LDs at +30% are higher than Reform voters at +28% in having a positive view of Charles. Indeed Labour voters at +28% are tied with Reform voters in their view of the King with only Green voters at -11% lower.
I mean really the leadership of the Government. Nigel is staunchly loyal that way. And he may well be in coalition with the Tories. Starmer has already been throwing the Windsors under the bus (telling Andrew to go to America) to try to save his own worthless hide. The Greens, who could massively improve their representation next time, are definitely not big Monarchists.
To get their constitutional changes through, Reform may have to threaten to stuff the Lords. Labour has already been stuffing it in preparation for this battle. The King could cause an impasse by threatening to block this or hold it up. I now think he won't do this.
Plenty of Reform voters think the King is too sympathetic to Islam.
Starmer is anti Andrew (but then so are all parties now) but not the King. If Reform won a majority then the King would ultimately yes accept what they wanted but that would be the same whichever party won
The Royal Family being in a bit of jeopardy is going to make Reform's Government's job a bit easier. They are going to be too glad that someone is in power who actually likes them and wants to keep them to make much trouble (as I feared Charles would).
Not sure that is entirely true.
The latest Yougov poll finds Tories have the highest favourable rating for the King at +75% but then LDs at +30% are higher than Reform voters at +28% in having a positive view of Charles. Indeed Labour voters at +28% are tied with Reform voters in their view of the King with only Green voters at -11% lower.
It's hard not to be amazed by student protesters returning to the streets in Iran given what has happened.
I don't think the UK public will back any Trump led military action. Though we also have to bear in mind Iraq, Libya etc.
It's always what replaced the incumbent in that neck of the woods.
There are better options.
There are infinitely worse.
One thing is for sure, any sign if interfering in regime change generally results in a worse outcome
Hard to get much worse than the Ayatollahs.
I think ISIS would probably be worse. The current regime is evil, but functions somewhat as a state. ISIS is just an abbatoir.
Ceasing to operate as a state would be an improvement. At least then people locally could fight for their freedom.
Chaos is better than authoritarianism.
I think that's a bit naive. The regime still has millions of ideological supporters, and many thousands in the armed militia.
A decapitation bombing campaign wouldn't even guarantee chaos. (And given the huge death toll in Iraq from their post invasion chaos, you're also being utterly blasé about what that might mean.)
If the administration has a plan beyond drop lots of bombs, it has been kept remarkably secret. And whatever it might be, it doesn't involve US ground troops.
The Iranian regime has been less authoritarian than some of their recent neighbours (Syria or Iraq under Baathists, Afghanistan under the Taliban, Turkmenistan today). They have more consciously sought a degree of popular support, although their support is greater in rural areas, among ethnic Persians and among Shia Muslims and less in urban areas, the less Persian west or east, and among Iran’s religious minorities.
Reportedly the militias killed forty thousand people in the space of a couple of days during the first protests. A quite extraordinary number. That gives some idea of their numbers, and brutality.
Thats why there's a lot of doubt about bombing overthrowing the regime. It's possible, but it's very far from certain.
The Royal Family being in a bit of jeopardy is going to make Reform's Government's job a bit easier. They are going to be too glad that someone is in power who actually likes them and wants to keep them to make much trouble (as I feared Charles would).
Not sure that is entirely true.
The latest Yougov poll finds Tories have the highest favourable rating for the King at +75% but then LDs at +30% are higher than Reform voters at +28% in having a positive view of Charles. Indeed Labour voters at +28% are tied with Reform voters in their view of the King with only Green voters at -11% lower.
I mean really the leadership of the Government. Nigel is staunchly loyal that way. And he may well be in coalition with the Tories. Starmer has already been throwing the Windsors under the bus (telling Andrew to go to America) to try to save his own worthless hide. The Greens, who could massively improve their representation next time, are definitely not big Monarchists.
To get their constitutional changes through, Reform may have to threaten to stuff the Lords. Labour has already been stuffing it in preparation for this battle. The King could cause an impasse by threatening to block this or hold it up. I now think he won't do this.
Plenty of Reform voters think the King is too sympathetic to Islam.
Starmer is anti Andrew (but then so are all parties now) but not the King. If Reform won a majority then the King would ultimately yes accept what they wanted but that would be the same whichever party won
Reform voters probably think Richard the Lionheart was too sympathetic to Islam.
It's hard not to be amazed by student protesters returning to the streets in Iran given what has happened.
I don't think the UK public will back any Trump led military action. Though we also have to bear in mind Iraq, Libya etc.
It's always what replaced the incumbent in that neck of the woods.
There are better options.
There are infinitely worse.
One thing is for sure, any sign if interfering in regime change generally results in a worse outcome
Hard to get much worse than the Ayatollahs.
I think ISIS would probably be worse. The current regime is evil, but functions somewhat as a state. ISIS is just an abbatoir.
Ceasing to operate as a state would be an improvement. At least then people locally could fight for their freedom.
Chaos is better than authoritarianism.
I think that's a bit naive. The regime still has millions of ideological supporters, and many thousands in the armed militia.
A decapitation bombing campaign wouldn't even guarantee chaos. (And given the huge death toll in Iraq from their post invasion chaos, you're also being utterly blasé about what that might mean.)
If the administration has a plan beyond drop lots of bombs, it has been kept remarkably secret. And whatever it might be, it doesn't involve US ground troops.
The Iranian regime has been less authoritarian than some of their recent neighbours (Syria or Iraq under Baathists, Afghanistan under the Taliban, Turkmenistan today). They have more consciously sought a degree of popular support, although their support is greater in rural areas, among ethnic Persians and among Shia Muslims and less in urban areas, the less Persian west or east, and among Iran’s religious minorities.
Reportedly the militias killed forty thousand people in the space of a couple of days during the first protests. A quite extraordinary number. That gives some idea of their numbers, and brutality.
Thats why there's a lot of doubt about bombing overthrowing the regime. It's possible, but it's very far from certain.
Its also why taking action is absolutely the right thing to do, in the face of such utter evil.
The Royal Family being in a bit of jeopardy is going to make Reform's Government's job a bit easier. They are going to be too glad that someone is in power who actually likes them and wants to keep them to make much trouble (as I feared Charles would).
Not sure that is entirely true.
The latest Yougov poll finds Tories have the highest favourable rating for the King at +75% but then LDs at +30% are higher than Reform voters at +28% in having a positive view of Charles. Indeed Labour voters at +28% are tied with Reform voters in their view of the King with only Green voters at -11% lower.
I mean really the leadership of the Government. Nigel is staunchly loyal that way. And he may well be in coalition with the Tories. Starmer has already been throwing the Windsors under the bus (telling Andrew to go to America) to try to save his own worthless hide. The Greens, who could massively improve their representation next time, are definitely not big Monarchists.
To get their constitutional changes through, Reform may have to threaten to stuff the Lords. Labour has already been stuffing it in preparation for this battle. The King could cause an impasse by threatening to block this or hold it up. I now think he won't do this.
Plenty of Reform voters think the King is too sympathetic to Islam.
Starmer is anti Andrew (but then so are all parties now) but not the King. If Reform won a majority then the King would ultimately yes accept what they wanted but that would be the same whichever party won
Reform voters probably think Richard the Lionheart was too sympathetic to Islam.
But at least their ancestors hardly ever saw the bugger with his fancy French ways.
Will Jacks is the greatest cricketer since Sir Donald Bradman.
What a luxury to win before Rashid has even completed his overs. England's batting might be dodgy, but their bowling options in this format are superb.
It's hard not to be amazed by student protesters returning to the streets in Iran given what has happened.
I don't think the UK public will back any Trump led military action. Though we also have to bear in mind Iraq, Libya etc.
It's always what replaced the incumbent in that neck of the woods.
There are better options.
There are infinitely worse.
One thing is for sure, any sign if interfering in regime change generally results in a worse outcome
Hard to get much worse than the Ayatollahs.
I think ISIS would probably be worse. The current regime is evil, but functions somewhat as a state. ISIS is just an abbatoir.
Ceasing to operate as a state would be an improvement. At least then people locally could fight for their freedom.
Chaos is better than authoritarianism.
I think that's a bit naive. The regime still has millions of ideological supporters, and many thousands in the armed militia.
A decapitation bombing campaign wouldn't even guarantee chaos. (And given the huge death toll in Iraq from their post invasion chaos, you're also being utterly blasé about what that might mean.)
If the administration has a plan beyond drop lots of bombs, it has been kept remarkably secret. And whatever it might be, it doesn't involve US ground troops.
The Iranian regime has been less authoritarian than some of their recent neighbours (Syria or Iraq under Baathists, Afghanistan under the Taliban, Turkmenistan today). They have more consciously sought a degree of popular support, although their support is greater in rural areas, among ethnic Persians and among Shia Muslims and less in urban areas, the less Persian west or east, and among Iran’s religious minorities.
Reportedly the militias killed forty thousand people in the space of a couple of days during the first protests. A quite extraordinary number. That gives some idea of their numbers, and brutality.
Thats why there's a lot of doubt about bombing overthrowing the regime. It's possible, but it's very far from certain.
The US and Israel have bombed Iran multiple times before and the regime stayed intact. The US recently launched attacks on Venezuela and their regime stayed intact. I don’t think limited bombing attacks have much hope of budging the Iranian regime. I don’t think the Trump administration remotely has the stomach for a protracted campaign, let alone a ground attack.
Were there to be a more significant civil uprising with support from at least some of the Iranian armed forces, then maybe selected air strikes by the US could help them, but that would require a certain degree of competence from the Americans. The experience of Venezuela was that Trump is interested in headlines and bribes over supporting opposition groups, even if opposition leaders give him their Nobel prizes.
Comments
https://x.com/Soureh_design2/status/2024967394628706399?s=20
eg https://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2017/02/trump-fbi-files-discrimination-case-235067
He hasn't deteriorated, see 19 years ago he could speak well.
I don't think this match is over yet. The pitch isn't so easy.
Although, as my wife always says, this is cricket!
Yet when their lot are out of the leadership, any notion of loyalty goes out of the window and they are at the leader like piranhas, or they just full out bugger off and start a new Party like Anna Soubry.
Now we have one of our own, who is evidently such a loyal Tory that she creates a new alias so she can campaign for the Labour Party, defend the Chagos mess and go into fifth gear her attacks on Kemi. Bunch of complete nutters.
Whatever happens I wouldn't read too much into the results as far as the GE is concerned. Bettingwise, that remains impenetrable.
A hundred lines of "Never judge a pitch until both teams have batted on it" on my desk tomorrow morning from all the doomsters saying England were X runs short please
Boris won in 2019 getting 43% of the vote a big majority over a Labour Party still on 32% but if the Tories and Reform both got 25% then Labour could be re elected on just 26% with FPTP even though the right vote combined was even bigger than in 2019
At the Epping demos she was closely associated with Callum Barker (Homeland Party) and Mark Collett (Patriotic Alternative, BNP national figure). And was not interested when it was pointed out who they are.
Sarah White may go as well. She was in a similar role at Epping.
Orla's content:
I don't think the UK public will back any Trump led military action. Though we also have to bear in mind Iraq, Libya etc.
Its rerunning the late noughties BNP type push
The conversation was around polls and someone from the constituency claimed they had been polled by Yougov. I assumed that was a constituency poll as it was a big coincidence if not.
I think it was probably his involvement in wrestling, and realisation that he could move a crowd, that turned him into a megalomaniac.
There are better options.
There are infinitely worse.
One thing is for sure, any sign if interfering in regime change generally results in a worse outcome
Joyce Cooper: Fascist!
Nicholas Angel: I beg your pardon?
Joyce Cooper: [doing a crossword puzzle] System of government categorized by extreme dictatorship. Seven across.
Nicholas Angel: Oh, I see. It's "fascism."
Joyce Cooper: "Fascism"! Wonderful. Now, we've put you in the Castle Suite. Bernard will escort you over there
[PtP drums fingers and smiles smugly.]
Chaos is better than authoritarianism.
Indeed a narrow Reform win with Labour a close second and the Greens third would be better for SKS than a Green win as at least he could then say 'Vote Green, get Reform'
The core service systems, as like Libya was under Gaddafi, aren't bad.
ISIS would destroy everything.
Better than ISIS controlling everything too.
Furthermore, I'm not saying chaos would be worse, I am saying a state controlled by ISIS would be worse.
The Green vote is much flakier than the Reform vote in many Labour seats
It's easier to persuade people with a degree of intelligence to vote tactically, less so with your average Reform bone head
Sometimes more than one revolution is required, but stability of authoritarianism does not lead to it.
The latest Yougov poll finds Tories have the highest favourable rating for the King at +75% but then LDs at +30% are higher than Reform voters at +28% in having a positive view of Charles. Indeed Labour voters at +28% are tied with Reform voters in their view of the King with only Green voters at -11% lower.
Reform voters have a better view of Camilla and Prince William than Labour and LD and Green voters though, albeit William has net positive ratings with all parties voters, even the Greens, while Camilla has net negative ratings with Labour, LD and Green voters
https://ygo-assets-websites-editorial-emea.yougov.net/documents/Internal_RoyalFamilyTracker_260109.pdf
17 acre island, off Port Meirion, with one house on it.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cdx4xkkly9qo
Didn't expect this 10 overs ago.
7 down.
Mrs PtP regularly bemoans the fact Britain never had a revolution. I never know what to say.
70% of Democrats opposed and 52% of Independents but 57% of Republicans in favour
https://today.yougov.com/politics/articles/54025-us-military-intervention-iran-little-support-half-americans-think-likely-to-happen-soon-january-30-february-2-2026-economist-yougov-poll
69-7
The regime still has millions of ideological supporters, and many thousands in the armed militia.
A decapitation bombing campaign wouldn't even guarantee chaos. (And given the huge death toll in Iraq from their post invasion chaos, you're also being utterly blasé about what that might mean.)
If the administration has a plan beyond drop lots of bombs, it has been kept remarkably secret. And whatever it might be, it doesn't involve US ground troops.
Iran's government completely breaking down would be an improvement, even if conditions worsen at least then the government won't be massacring those who protest or seek to make things better.
1: Removing the Ayatollahs would be a good thing.
2: I have zero confidence that the US administration has a coherent plan, or even will act. Indeed I expect TACO.
I do however remember a young Graham Gooch doing it in Australia and the Aussies didn't notice it until it was too late to appeal. Extraordinary.
To get their constitutional changes through, Reform may have to threaten to stuff the Lords. Labour has already been stuffing it in preparation for this battle. The King could cause an impasse by threatening to block this or hold it up. I now think he won't do this.
Starmer is anti Andrew (but then so are all parties now) but not the King. If Reform won a majority then the King would ultimately yes accept what they wanted but that would be the same whichever party won
And of course Botham failing to get his leg over (that one was noticed).
That gives some idea of their numbers, and brutality.
Thats why there's a lot of doubt about bombing overthrowing the regime.
It's possible, but it's very far from certain.
Best not to argue with her.
The PB Discipliniary Committee is going to be busy this evening.
Oh ye of little faith. He says, talking to himself again!
England's batting might be dodgy, but their bowling options in this format are superb.
Were there to be a more significant civil uprising with support from at least some of the Iranian armed forces, then maybe selected air strikes by the US could help them, but that would require a certain degree of competence from the Americans. The experience of Venezuela was that Trump is interested in headlines and bribes over supporting opposition groups, even if opposition leaders give him their Nobel prizes.