Will Hutton @williamnhutton · 14h Refusing Trump permission to use British bases in Fairford Gloucestershire, Cyprus and Diego Garcia to mount a unilateral attack on Iran against international law takes some courage. Few mourn the murderous Ali Khamenei. But international law must be kept alive even in dark days
“ Refusing Trump permission to use British bases in Fairford Gloucestershire, Cyprus and Diego Garcia to mount a unilateral attack on Iran against international law’
Is this refusal “hearsay” or is their actual evidence? A lot of news agencies caveat it when repeating it.
There was a lot of weight leaned on HMG by the Gulf states in the last 24 hours. The decision to allow use of UK bases has marginal impact as the US planned without them anyway. Cyprus is handy for air patrol over Jordan and Israel if the US chose to station there and handy for refuelling and US facilities in the UK are already in active use as part of this conflict.
That decision, however, should be seen the in context of the rather negative feedback received from the Gulf states and less about the US leaning on London.
Starmer said only Diego Garcia and RAF Fairford bases to be used by the US.
Did Starmer say that? Or not mention which bases, and poor journalism mentions those two?
All media including the super close to #10 ones are running with this exact statement e.g Pippa Crerar and of course the "BBC Understands"....,
Keir Starmer has given US permission to use UK bases at RAF Fairford and Diego Garcia to launch “defensive” airstrikes against Iran - and destroy its missiles “at source” to prevent them firing across region.
i.e. that is what #10 has told all of them.
There could be reason UK government won’t share with journalists which ones. Journalists could all be “intelligent guessing”. All their “intelligent guessing” could be wrong. Anyhows, the point of this is it’s harder to do the defensive thing on the fireworks whilst they are airbourne, easier to do the defensive thing by blowing them up whilst still in the box, and that idea comes with time pressure - so we can expect to measure activity at Fairfield very soon? Or the activity is at a different base. No activity at Fairfield could also mean the US didn’t come back asking for this, it’s a unilateral gesture/suggestion from UK government.
If they were guessing, they would surely guess Cyrprus, as that has been used loads of times for missions in the Middle East. Also, they all have the same quote word for word, which says #10 told them this is the case.
I firmly believe media quote each other. A story, or rumour, only has to appear in one place, and they all quote it, regardless how dubious it might be.
What made me suspicious in the first place, when the Times first published it, it didn’t come across in the Times story as though told by the UK, it sounded like the US angle. Surely the two countries were in constant discussions at all different levels, I don’t think the first time bases are asked to be used is in a Tuesday night FaceTime between the two leaders. Starmer’s “offer” announced this evening but thrashed out much earlier, sounds voluntary to me, not result from a recent request.
BREAKING: Keir Starmer says the U.K. has given the US permission to use British bases to launch strikes on Iran
weak, weak, weak....
Did he genuinely think that "staying out of it" would work? Given past UK actions, the likes of Iran will still see the UK as part of the evil empire.
He is arguing it is "defensive" not "offensive", so that is the difference now. Pin head dancing.
My Persian friends here in LA tell me there is an old saying there:
"if you stub your toe on a rock, you can be sure an Englishman left it there"
They also tell me that the regime calls the US "the great Satan", and the UK "the little Satan".
Candidly, I'm insulted.
Israel is the Little Satan, shirley.
Nope
The US/UK/Great/Little Satan thing was one of Khomeni’s signature pieces from his death-by-boredom speeches in the 80s.
I demand an upgrade.
If Keir only manages one thing, I would like it to be getting the UK upgraded from "Little Satan" to -say- "Medium-Sized Satan".
The Iranian mullahs have always distrusted the UK, basically they think the Brits are a bit crafty and they dont have to dip far into their own history to get evidence. The Iranians believe there are current links between British Intelligence and arab separatist groups in the Khuzestan region.
Speaking of separatists, I wonder what the Iranian Kurds are upto right now
2) Tell everyone we weren't involved and hope they leave us alone.
3) oh dear, they didn't leave us alone. They're shooting missiles at us.
4) claim that the only way to stop this and protect British citizens is to destroy the missiles at source.
5) allow the Americans to use our bases to destroy the missiles at source.
6) refuse to help destroy the missiles at source, even though we just said destroying them at source is the only way to end the threat to British citizens.
7) tell everyone we're not involved and hope they'll leave us alone.
Correct approach.
Britain should stay as far as possible from the mad king's war because nobody knows what the plan is if such a thing exists and even if it does nobody knows whether that will still be the plan tomorrow.
When attacked as collateral from the said mad king's war the UK response can't really be nothing. But it should be the closest available option to nothing, which is what is described here.
On the plus side The Madness of King Trump should be one heck of a movie in 30 years. I predict 10 Oscars.
There was a lot of weight leaned on HMG by the Gulf states in the last 24 hours. The decision to allow use of UK bases has marginal impact as the US planned without them anyway. Cyprus is handy for air patrol over Jordan and Israel if the US chose to station there and handy for refuelling and US facilities in the UK are already in active use as part of this conflict.
That decision, however, should be seen the in context of the rather negative feedback received from the Gulf states and less about the US leaning on London.
Starmer said only Diego Garcia and RAF Fairford bases to be used by the US.
Did Starmer say that? Or not mention which bases, and poor journalism mentions those two?
All media including the super close to #10 ones are running with this exact statement e.g Pippa Crerar and of course the "BBC Understands"....,
Keir Starmer has given US permission to use UK bases at RAF Fairford and Diego Garcia to launch “defensive” airstrikes against Iran - and destroy its missiles “at source” to prevent them firing across region.
i.e. that is what #10 has told all of them.
There could be reason UK government won’t share with journalists which ones. Journalists could all be “intelligent guessing”. All their “intelligent guessing” could be wrong. Anyhows, the point of this is it’s harder to do the defensive thing on the fireworks whilst they are airbourne, easier to do the defensive thing by blowing them up whilst still in the box, and that idea comes with time pressure - so we can expect to measure activity at Fairfield very soon? Or the activity is at a different base. No activity at Fairfield could also mean the US didn’t come back asking for this, it’s a unilateral gesture/suggestion from UK government.
If they were guessing, they would surely guess Cyrprus, as that has been used loads of times for missions in the Middle East. Also, they all have the same quote word for word, which says #10 told them this is the case.
I firmly believe media quote each other. A story, or rumour, only has to appear in one place, and they all quote it, regardless how dubious it might be.
What made me suspicious in the first place, when the Times first published it, it didn’t come across in the Times story as though told by the UK, it sounded like the US angle. Surely the two countries were in constant discussions at all different levels, I don’t think the first time bases are asked to be used is in a Tuesday night FaceTime between the two leaders. Starmer’s “offer” announced this evening but thrashed out much earlier, sounds voluntary to me, not result from a recent request.
While i agree lots of journalists do this, but for big stories " BBC understands" is never guessing or quoting others, its come from the top
There was a lot of weight leaned on HMG by the Gulf states in the last 24 hours. The decision to allow use of UK bases has marginal impact as the US planned without them anyway. Cyprus is handy for air patrol over Jordan and Israel if the US chose to station there and handy for refuelling and US facilities in the UK are already in active use as part of this conflict.
That decision, however, should be seen the in context of the rather negative feedback received from the Gulf states and less about the US leaning on London.
Starmer said only Diego Garcia and RAF Fairford bases to be used by the US.
Did Starmer say that? Or not mention which bases, and poor journalism mentions those two?
All media including the super close to #10 ones are running with this exact statement e.g Pippa Crerar and of course the "BBC Understands"....,
Keir Starmer has given US permission to use UK bases at RAF Fairford and Diego Garcia to launch “defensive” airstrikes against Iran - and destroy its missiles “at source” to prevent them firing across region.
i.e. that is what #10 has told all of them.
There could be reason UK government won’t share with journalists which ones. Journalists could all be “intelligent guessing”. All their “intelligent guessing” could be wrong. Anyhows, the point of this is it’s harder to do the defensive thing on the fireworks whilst they are airbourne, easier to do the defensive thing by blowing them up whilst still in the box, and that idea comes with time pressure - so we can expect to measure activity at Fairfield very soon? Or the activity is at a different base. No activity at Fairfield could also mean the US didn’t come back asking for this, it’s a unilateral gesture/suggestion from UK government.
If they were guessing, they would surely guess Cyrprus, as that has been used loads of times for missions in the Middle East. Also, they all have the same quote word for word, which says #10 told them this is the case.
I firmly believe media quote each other. A story, or rumour, only has to appear in one place, and they all quote it, regardless how dubious it might be.
What made me suspicious in the first place, when the Times first published it, it didn’t come across in the Times story as though told by the UK, it sounded like the US angle. Surely the two countries were in constant discussions at all different levels, I don’t think the first time bases are asked to be used is in a Tuesday night FaceTime between the two leaders. Starmer’s “offer” announced this evening but thrashed out much earlier, sounds voluntary to me, not result from a recent request.
While i agree lots of journalists do this, but for big stories " BBC understands" is never guessing or quoting others, its come from the top
No. I don’t go along with u-turn based on new legal opinion all made up on the hoof in last couple of days. I wouldn’t be surpised if “we won’t be joining you in offensive capacity, nor can you can use our bases for offensive strikes making us legally culpable, but you can use the bases for defensive strikes” was the clear UK position given to US at every level in every channel many weeks ago, that prompted the US administration planting the bases story in the Times alongside Chagos u-turn on truth social, in pique, but also to pressure “more” from the UK government.
There was a lot of weight leaned on HMG by the Gulf states in the last 24 hours. The decision to allow use of UK bases has marginal impact as the US planned without them anyway. Cyprus is handy for air patrol over Jordan and Israel if the US chose to station there and handy for refuelling and US facilities in the UK are already in active use as part of this conflict.
That decision, however, should be seen the in context of the rather negative feedback received from the Gulf states and less about the US leaning on London.
Starmer said only Diego Garcia and RAF Fairford bases to be used by the US.
Did Starmer say that? Or not mention which bases, and poor journalism mentions those two?
All media including the super close to #10 ones are running with this exact statement e.g Pippa Crerar and of course the "BBC Understands"....,
Keir Starmer has given US permission to use UK bases at RAF Fairford and Diego Garcia to launch “defensive” airstrikes against Iran - and destroy its missiles “at source” to prevent them firing across region.
i.e. that is what #10 has told all of them.
There could be reason UK government won’t share with journalists which ones. Journalists could all be “intelligent guessing”. All their “intelligent guessing” could be wrong. Anyhows, the point of this is it’s harder to do the defensive thing on the fireworks whilst they are airbourne, easier to do the defensive thing by blowing them up whilst still in the box, and that idea comes with time pressure - so we can expect to measure activity at Fairfield very soon? Or the activity is at a different base. No activity at Fairfield could also mean the US didn’t come back asking for this, it’s a unilateral gesture/suggestion from UK government.
If they were guessing, they would surely guess Cyrprus, as that has been used loads of times for missions in the Middle East. Also, they all have the same quote word for word, which says #10 told them this is the case.
I firmly believe media quote each other. A story, or rumour, only has to appear in one place, and they all quote it, regardless how dubious it might be.
What made me suspicious in the first place, when the Times first published it, it didn’t come across in the Times story as though told by the UK, it sounded like the US angle. Surely the two countries were in constant discussions at all different levels, I don’t think the first time bases are asked to be used is in a Tuesday night FaceTime between the two leaders. Starmer’s “offer” announced this evening but thrashed out much earlier, sounds voluntary to me, not result from a recent request.
"I love rumours! Facts can be so misleading, but rumours, true or false, are often revealing!"
There was a lot of weight leaned on HMG by the Gulf states in the last 24 hours. The decision to allow use of UK bases has marginal impact as the US planned without them anyway. Cyprus is handy for air patrol over Jordan and Israel if the US chose to station there and handy for refuelling and US facilities in the UK are already in active use as part of this conflict.
That decision, however, should be seen the in context of the rather negative feedback received from the Gulf states and less about the US leaning on London.
Starmer said only Diego Garcia and RAF Fairford bases to be used by the US.
Did Starmer say that? Or not mention which bases, and poor journalism mentions those two?
All media including the super close to #10 ones are running with this exact statement e.g Pippa Crerar and of course the "BBC Understands"....,
Keir Starmer has given US permission to use UK bases at RAF Fairford and Diego Garcia to launch “defensive” airstrikes against Iran - and destroy its missiles “at source” to prevent them firing across region.
i.e. that is what #10 has told all of them.
There could be reason UK government won’t share with journalists which ones. Journalists could all be “intelligent guessing”. All their “intelligent guessing” could be wrong. Anyhows, the point of this is it’s harder to do the defensive thing on the fireworks whilst they are airbourne, easier to do the defensive thing by blowing them up whilst still in the box, and that idea comes with time pressure - so we can expect to measure activity at Fairfield very soon? Or the activity is at a different base. No activity at Fairfield could also mean the US didn’t come back asking for this, it’s a unilateral gesture/suggestion from UK government.
If they were guessing, they would surely guess Cyrprus, as that has been used loads of times for missions in the Middle East. Also, they all have the same quote word for word, which says #10 told them this is the case.
I firmly believe media quote each other. A story, or rumour, only has to appear in one place, and they all quote it, regardless how dubious it might be.
What made me suspicious in the first place, when the Times first published it, it didn’t come across in the Times story as though told by the UK, it sounded like the US angle. Surely the two countries were in constant discussions at all different levels, I don’t think the first time bases are asked to be used is in a Tuesday night FaceTime between the two leaders. Starmer’s “offer” announced this evening but thrashed out much earlier, sounds voluntary to me, not result from a recent request.
My comment on that is that the Times tends afaics to be the primary source of "Anonymous General (or identified 'expert') says that UK forces are shit" stories of which we see a steady trickle.
On the "they quote each other" - of course, circulation or clicks has been more important than accurate reporting since 2006, or possible 1896 when the Daily Mail started, or before that with the Spectator, Punch and the Georgian pamphlet publishers.
As I noted before, US bases are important for bringing in munitions for a sustained campaign, as they were at desert storm, and Diego Garcia is a secure storage location, unlike the USA Gulf bases.
So yes we need multiple sources and the statement from SKS to be sure.
IMO it is a bad mistake to get caught up in what remains a vanity war by Trump to distract from his political problems. If true, it is a bad decision by Starmer, especially. given our limited defence capability against attack drones.
There was a lot of weight leaned on HMG by the Gulf states in the last 24 hours. The decision to allow use of UK bases has marginal impact as the US planned without them anyway. Cyprus is handy for air patrol over Jordan and Israel if the US chose to station there and handy for refuelling and US facilities in the UK are already in active use as part of this conflict.
That decision, however, should be seen the in context of the rather negative feedback received from the Gulf states and less about the US leaning on London.
Starmer said only Diego Garcia and RAF Fairford bases to be used by the US.
Did Starmer say that? Or not mention which bases, and poor journalism mentions those two?
All media including the super close to #10 ones are running with this exact statement e.g Pippa Crerar and of course the "BBC Understands"....,
Keir Starmer has given US permission to use UK bases at RAF Fairford and Diego Garcia to launch “defensive” airstrikes against Iran - and destroy its missiles “at source” to prevent them firing across region.
i.e. that is what #10 has told all of them.
There could be reason UK government won’t share with journalists which ones. Journalists could all be “intelligent guessing”. All their “intelligent guessing” could be wrong. Anyhows, the point of this is it’s harder to do the defensive thing on the fireworks whilst they are airbourne, easier to do the defensive thing by blowing them up whilst still in the box, and that idea comes with time pressure - so we can expect to measure activity at Fairfield very soon? Or the activity is at a different base. No activity at Fairfield could also mean the US didn’t come back asking for this, it’s a unilateral gesture/suggestion from UK government.
If they were guessing, they would surely guess Cyrprus, as that has been used loads of times for missions in the Middle East. Also, they all have the same quote word for word, which says #10 told them this is the case.
At least we know now why Trump u-turned on his stance towards the Chagos deal. Given that he’s conceded that this operation has been under planning for months, and they clearly need DG for something critical.
From the ABC News Chief Washington correspondent: .
Pres Trump told me tonight the US had identified possible candidates to take over Iran, but they were killed in the initial attack.
"The attack was so successful it knocked out most of the candidates," Trump told me. "It's not going to be anybody that we were thinking of because they are all dead. Second or third place is dead."
I have been laying the Greens most seats to an average of about 10/1, but a controversial war could see them actually do it. They’re 11/2 now, I thought that crazy, but maybe not
They have, to my view, an oversimplified stance on difficult geopolitical issues, but that is the kind of thing most people like, nice and straightforward, and despite the view of many on here the Greens seem to be generally positive regarded by a lot of people, or seen as harmless at any rate, so can easily pick up new voters once they get momentum.
I'm still with my view since way back that the Greens are very good locally, but have never had a realistic head on some national questions.
One thing I do note is the Right (including some on PB) picking up another fake narrative from MAGA. MAGA tries to paint democrats as "an alliance of marxists and islamists", which is now being used by the likes of Matt Goodwin and Farage post the Gorton and Denton byelection.
Goodwin and Farage have started using the "sectarian voting" line as they have referring back to the 2024 Election (which is tricky as Labour did not do well amongst Muslims in 2024), whilst Reform themselves own that description. Goodwin is trying to cover his backside, whilst Farage is groping for a line to get his supporters back in the silo.
Why does the US need UK bases to mount attacks on Iranian rocket sites, when it didn’t need them to assassinate the country’s leadership? Because the former requires heavy bunker-busting bombs?
There was a lot of weight leaned on HMG by the Gulf states in the last 24 hours. The decision to allow use of UK bases has marginal impact as the US planned without them anyway. Cyprus is handy for air patrol over Jordan and Israel if the US chose to station there and handy for refuelling and US facilities in the UK are already in active use as part of this conflict.
That decision, however, should be seen the in context of the rather negative feedback received from the Gulf states and less about the US leaning on London.
Starmer said only Diego Garcia and RAF Fairford bases to be used by the US.
Did Starmer say that? Or not mention which bases, and poor journalism mentions those two?
All media including the super close to #10 ones are running with this exact statement e.g Pippa Crerar and of course the "BBC Understands"....,
Keir Starmer has given US permission to use UK bases at RAF Fairford and Diego Garcia to launch “defensive” airstrikes against Iran - and destroy its missiles “at source” to prevent them firing across region.
i.e. that is what #10 has told all of them.
There could be reason UK government won’t share with journalists which ones. Journalists could all be “intelligent guessing”. All their “intelligent guessing” could be wrong. Anyhows, the point of this is it’s harder to do the defensive thing on the fireworks whilst they are airbourne, easier to do the defensive thing by blowing them up whilst still in the box, and that idea comes with time pressure - so we can expect to measure activity at Fairfield very soon? Or the activity is at a different base. No activity at Fairfield could also mean the US didn’t come back asking for this, it’s a unilateral gesture/suggestion from UK government.
A credible reason for a delay could be to get what drone defences we have in place in Cyprus.
There's nothing to stop Iran sending a Ukraine War style salvo of 100 or 200 Shahed drones at Akrotiri, never mind the one or two possible "sighting shots" we have had. AFAIK the base is not even hardened. The distance is only about 1000 miles.
One hopes that land-based Dragonfire has been under development.
There was a lot of weight leaned on HMG by the Gulf states in the last 24 hours. The decision to allow use of UK bases has marginal impact as the US planned without them anyway. Cyprus is handy for air patrol over Jordan and Israel if the US chose to station there and handy for refuelling and US facilities in the UK are already in active use as part of this conflict.
That decision, however, should be seen the in context of the rather negative feedback received from the Gulf states and less about the US leaning on London.
Starmer said only Diego Garcia and RAF Fairford bases to be used by the US.
Did Starmer say that? Or not mention which bases, and poor journalism mentions those two?
All media including the super close to #10 ones are running with this exact statement e.g Pippa Crerar and of course the "BBC Understands"....,
Keir Starmer has given US permission to use UK bases at RAF Fairford and Diego Garcia to launch “defensive” airstrikes against Iran - and destroy its missiles “at source” to prevent them firing across region.
i.e. that is what #10 has told all of them.
There could be reason UK government won’t share with journalists which ones. Journalists could all be “intelligent guessing”. All their “intelligent guessing” could be wrong. Anyhows, the point of this is it’s harder to do the defensive thing on the fireworks whilst they are airbourne, easier to do the defensive thing by blowing them up whilst still in the box, and that idea comes with time pressure - so we can expect to measure activity at Fairfield very soon? Or the activity is at a different base. No activity at Fairfield could also mean the US didn’t come back asking for this, it’s a unilateral gesture/suggestion from UK government.
If they were guessing, they would surely guess Cyrprus, as that has been used loads of times for missions in the Middle East. Also, they all have the same quote word for word, which says #10 told them this is the case.
At least we know now why Trump u-turned on his stance towards the Chagos deal. Given that he’s conceded that this operation has been under planning for months, and they clearly need DG for something critical.
The B-2 bombers flew from the US, and straight back again afterwards without landing. They would have planned to use DG, instead had to rely on tankers based out of the Azores.
There was a lot of weight leaned on HMG by the Gulf states in the last 24 hours. The decision to allow use of UK bases has marginal impact as the US planned without them anyway. Cyprus is handy for air patrol over Jordan and Israel if the US chose to station there and handy for refuelling and US facilities in the UK are already in active use as part of this conflict.
That decision, however, should be seen the in context of the rather negative feedback received from the Gulf states and less about the US leaning on London.
Starmer said only Diego Garcia and RAF Fairford bases to be used by the US.
Did Starmer say that? Or not mention which bases, and poor journalism mentions those two?
All media including the super close to #10 ones are running with this exact statement e.g Pippa Crerar and of course the "BBC Understands"....,
Keir Starmer has given US permission to use UK bases at RAF Fairford and Diego Garcia to launch “defensive” airstrikes against Iran - and destroy its missiles “at source” to prevent them firing across region.
i.e. that is what #10 has told all of them.
There could be reason UK government won’t share with journalists which ones. Journalists could all be “intelligent guessing”. All their “intelligent guessing” could be wrong. Anyhows, the point of this is it’s harder to do the defensive thing on the fireworks whilst they are airbourne, easier to do the defensive thing by blowing them up whilst still in the box, and that idea comes with time pressure - so we can expect to measure activity at Fairfield very soon? Or the activity is at a different base. No activity at Fairfield could also mean the US didn’t come back asking for this, it’s a unilateral gesture/suggestion from UK government.
A credible reason for a delay could be to get what drone defences we have in place in Cyprus.
There's nothing to stop Iran sending a Ukraine War style salvo of 100 or 200 Shahed drones at Akrotiri, never mind the one or two possible "sighting shots" we have had. AFAIK the base is not even hardened. The distance is only about 1000 miles.
One hopes that land-based Dragonfire has been under development.
UAE alone has shot down more than 500 Iranian drones in the last 48 hours.
They’re cheap ($80k) and plentiful (possibly 50k of them in stock), designed not so much for causing damage on the ground (they don’t have massive warheads), but to exhaust the air defence capabilities of the enemy.
Morning all. Thankfully a quiet night in the sandpit, at least for my little part of it.
Roads are eerily quiet, as schools have been closed and everyone told to work from home where possible today and tomorrow.
I'm pleased that you are safe.
It’s all good, nothing like as bad as Ukraine. In Dubai itself there’s only been a handful of incidents, mostly falling debris. A couple of hits on the airport after it had been closed, and military or O&G facilities.
Local military here all working very well so far.
If anyone does know of anyone in the Gulf, the Foreign Office are encouraging people, especially tourists to register with them.
At the moment there’s some airspace open in Saudi and Oman, and stories of people travelling over land to leave UAE, Bahrain, Qatar. A lot of multinational companies will have well-rehearsed contingency plans for this sort of event, which we all knew would come one day!
This is the Trump playbook to a T. Make up claims of voter fraud and "threats to democracy". Reform have been compliaining about the wrong sort of postal voting for years, but have never produced any actual evidence of fraud. Goodwin didn't lose because of Commonwealth citizens voting. I remain lost what role cousin marriages supposedly played in his defeat.
(Also, Reform have clarified that their policy of only British citizens can vote isn't actually that only British citizens should be able to vote. They want to keep the vote for Irish citizens.)
FFS, why?
Ireland went independent well over a century ago.
Time to end this bullshit.
I imagine one would have to renegotiate the GFA. It is a silly anomaly that citizens of any territory that once belonged to the British empire should have the right to vote here.
The Commonwealth issue is subtly differnt to the Ireland issue, in that Irish citizens are not considered 'aliens', and have the same rights as British citizens.
The former -the Commonwealth issue- is all the more anomolous, in that a British citizen living lawfully in India with a visa has no right to vote there. As far as I am aware, there would be no treaty issues associated with ending the right of Commonwealth citizens to vote, and -simply- if you want to vote... become a British citizen.
Ireland is harder, because I believe we've enshrined the rights of Irish citiziens in the UK in that agreement. It's probably worth revisiting, but feels less .. urgent. One could probably also find a compomise that fits inside the the spirit of the GFA, perhaps allowing Irish citizens resident in Northern Ireland (or vice versa) to continue to exercise the right to vote, while eliminating from those who are not Northern irish.
Yes, in Northern Ireland is reasonable, since that allows both sides to effectively claim it while allowing citizens to choose either.
But in Britain? No, and I don't know of any Treaty issue.
As far as I know its not reciprocal there either. As far as I know, if I moved to the Republic of Ireland I would not be able to vote. If I am wrong and its reciprocal then fair enough, but if it is not it is well past time to end it.
As almost always you are wrong.
British people have the right to reside and vote in the Republic of Ireland.
Any time I am wrong I am prepared to put my hand up and say so, I said "as far as I know" but did not check it. If it is reciprocal, then that is fair enough, and I am happy to take it back and draw a line under it. I was wrong.
The rest of the Commonwealth though should lose their votes. It is not reciprocal with them (unless there's any remaining odd exceptions on a case by case basis).
EDIT: Actually we were both wrong.
British citizens can vote in General Elections, but can not vote in either Referenda or Presidential Elections. So it is a mix of both, a grey area.
Fucking hell @BartholomewRoberts . You went on this rant before and I explained it to you then. You really don’t listen do you? You are so cement headed that even when you’re wrong and have that explained to you you don’t accept it. You just carry on with your prejudices. Link below
It’s not a grey area as we don’t have presidential elections, for obvious reasons, and referenda in Ireland are required to change the constitution which is, again, a requirement we don’t have. Ours are ad hoc.
Also, saying Irish citizens can’t vote in UK elections requires everyone in Northern Ireland to identify (at least impliedly) as British.
Sometimes you are wrong. Just accept it. Passage of time after it having been explained to you doesn’t make you magically right again,
There was a lot of weight leaned on HMG by the Gulf states in the last 24 hours. The decision to allow use of UK bases has marginal impact as the US planned without them anyway. Cyprus is handy for air patrol over Jordan and Israel if the US chose to station there and handy for refuelling and US facilities in the UK are already in active use as part of this conflict.
That decision, however, should be seen the in context of the rather negative feedback received from the Gulf states and less about the US leaning on London.
Starmer said only Diego Garcia and RAF Fairford bases to be used by the US.
Did Starmer say that? Or not mention which bases, and poor journalism mentions those two?
All media including the super close to #10 ones are running with this exact statement e.g Pippa Crerar and of course the "BBC Understands"....,
Keir Starmer has given US permission to use UK bases at RAF Fairford and Diego Garcia to launch “defensive” airstrikes against Iran - and destroy its missiles “at source” to prevent them firing across region.
i.e. that is what #10 has told all of them.
There could be reason UK government won’t share with journalists which ones. Journalists could all be “intelligent guessing”. All their “intelligent guessing” could be wrong. Anyhows, the point of this is it’s harder to do the defensive thing on the fireworks whilst they are airbourne, easier to do the defensive thing by blowing them up whilst still in the box, and that idea comes with time pressure - so we can expect to measure activity at Fairfield very soon? Or the activity is at a different base. No activity at Fairfield could also mean the US didn’t come back asking for this, it’s a unilateral gesture/suggestion from UK government.
A credible reason for a delay could be to get what drone defences we have in place in Cyprus.
There's nothing to stop Iran sending a Ukraine War style salvo of 100 or 200 Shahed drones at Akrotiri, never mind the one or two possible "sighting shots" we have had. AFAIK the base is not even hardened. The distance is only about 1000 miles.
One hopes that land-based Dragonfire has been under development.
UAE alone has shot down more than 500 Iranian drones in the last 48 hours.
They’re cheap ($80k) and plentiful (possibly 50k of them in stock), designed not so much for causing damage on the ground (they don’t have massive warheads), but to exhaust the air defence capabilities of the enemy.
They're tough to deal with, both at source and at the sharp end.
Israeli aircraft now operating in Iranian airspace. US deployed B-2s to strike underground ballistic missile sites. Hearing from US sources Shaheds are so far the most dangerous threat. They’re getting through AD. https://x.com/michaeldweiss/status/2028128216561430896
The greater problem is if the bombardment is months (or years) long, rather than a few days.
And the worst defended base in the region is possibly ours on Cyprus.
This is the Trump playbook to a T. Make up claims of voter fraud and "threats to democracy". Reform have been compliaining about the wrong sort of postal voting for years, but have never produced any actual evidence of fraud. Goodwin didn't lose because of Commonwealth citizens voting. I remain lost what role cousin marriages supposedly played in his defeat.
(Also, Reform have clarified that their policy of only British citizens can vote isn't actually that only British citizens should be able to vote. They want to keep the vote for Irish citizens.)
FFS, why?
Ireland went independent well over a century ago.
Time to end this bullshit.
I imagine one would have to renegotiate the GFA. It is a silly anomaly that citizens of any territory that once belonged to the British empire should have the right to vote here.
The Commonwealth issue is subtly differnt to the Ireland issue, in that Irish citizens are not considered 'aliens', and have the same rights as British citizens.
The former -the Commonwealth issue- is all the more anomolous, in that a British citizen living lawfully in India with a visa has no right to vote there. As far as I am aware, there would be no treaty issues associated with ending the right of Commonwealth citizens to vote, and -simply- if you want to vote... become a British citizen.
Ireland is harder, because I believe we've enshrined the rights of Irish citiziens in the UK in that agreement. It's probably worth revisiting, but feels less .. urgent. One could probably also find a compomise that fits inside the the spirit of the GFA, perhaps allowing Irish citizens resident in Northern Ireland (or vice versa) to continue to exercise the right to vote, while eliminating from those who are not Northern irish.
Yes, in Northern Ireland is reasonable, since that allows both sides to effectively claim it while allowing citizens to choose either.
But in Britain? No, and I don't know of any Treaty issue.
As far as I know its not reciprocal there either. As far as I know, if I moved to the Republic of Ireland I would not be able to vote. If I am wrong and its reciprocal then fair enough, but if it is not it is well past time to end it.
As almost always you are wrong.
British people have the right to reside and vote in the Republic of Ireland.
Any time I am wrong I am prepared to put my hand up and say so, I said "as far as I know" but did not check it. If it is reciprocal, then that is fair enough, and I am happy to take it back and draw a line under it. I was wrong.
The rest of the Commonwealth though should lose their votes. It is not reciprocal with them (unless there's any remaining odd exceptions on a case by case basis).
EDIT: Actually we were both wrong.
British citizens can vote in General Elections, but can not vote in either Referenda or Presidential Elections. So it is a mix of both, a grey area.
Fucking hell @BartholomewRoberts . You went on this rant before and I explained it to you then. You really don’t listen do you? You are so cement headed that even when you’re wrong and have that explained to you you don’t accept it. You just carry on with your prejudices. Link below
It’s not a grey area as we don’t have presidential elections, for obvious reasons, and referenda in Ireland are required to change the constitution which is, again, a requirement we don’t have. Ours are ad hoc.
Also, saying Irish citizens can’t vote in UK elections requires everyone in Northern Ireland to identify (at least impliedly) as British.
Sometimes you are wrong. Just accept it. Passage of time after it having been explained to you doesn’t make you magically right again,
No, but it was 2 years ago. I forgot in that intervening time, sorry.
I did accept it then, and I accept it now. Sorry I forgot a conversation from 2 years ago.
Hezbollah fired a barrage of missiles at Israel after midnight, according to Israeli security officials.
Really? An Iranian backed militia (indeed, arguably Iran's main militia given they have extensive influence in Iran including murdering protestors) has responded to Israel bombing Iran by bombing Israel?
This is the Trump playbook to a T. Make up claims of voter fraud and "threats to democracy". Reform have been compliaining about the wrong sort of postal voting for years, but have never produced any actual evidence of fraud. Goodwin didn't lose because of Commonwealth citizens voting. I remain lost what role cousin marriages supposedly played in his defeat.
(Also, Reform have clarified that their policy of only British citizens can vote isn't actually that only British citizens should be able to vote. They want to keep the vote for Irish citizens.)
FFS, why?
Ireland went independent well over a century ago.
Time to end this bullshit.
I imagine one would have to renegotiate the GFA. It is a silly anomaly that citizens of any territory that once belonged to the British empire should have the right to vote here.
The Commonwealth issue is subtly differnt to the Ireland issue, in that Irish citizens are not considered 'aliens', and have the same rights as British citizens.
The former -the Commonwealth issue- is all the more anomolous, in that a British citizen living lawfully in India with a visa has no right to vote there. As far as I am aware, there would be no treaty issues associated with ending the right of Commonwealth citizens to vote, and -simply- if you want to vote... become a British citizen.
Ireland is harder, because I believe we've enshrined the rights of Irish citiziens in the UK in that agreement. It's probably worth revisiting, but feels less .. urgent. One could probably also find a compomise that fits inside the the spirit of the GFA, perhaps allowing Irish citizens resident in Northern Ireland (or vice versa) to continue to exercise the right to vote, while eliminating from those who are not Northern irish.
Yes, in Northern Ireland is reasonable, since that allows both sides to effectively claim it while allowing citizens to choose either.
But in Britain? No, and I don't know of any Treaty issue.
As far as I know its not reciprocal there either. As far as I know, if I moved to the Republic of Ireland I would not be able to vote. If I am wrong and its reciprocal then fair enough, but if it is not it is well past time to end it.
As almost always you are wrong.
British people have the right to reside and vote in the Republic of Ireland.
Any time I am wrong I am prepared to put my hand up and say so, I said "as far as I know" but did not check it. If it is reciprocal, then that is fair enough, and I am happy to take it back and draw a line under it. I was wrong.
The rest of the Commonwealth though should lose their votes. It is not reciprocal with them (unless there's any remaining odd exceptions on a case by case basis).
EDIT: Actually we were both wrong.
British citizens can vote in General Elections, but can not vote in either Referenda or Presidential Elections. So it is a mix of both, a grey area.
Fucking hell @BartholomewRoberts . You went on this rant before and I explained it to you then. You really don’t listen do you? You are so cement headed that even when you’re wrong and have that explained to you you don’t accept it. You just carry on with your prejudices. Link below
It’s not a grey area as we don’t have presidential elections, for obvious reasons, and referenda in Ireland are required to change the constitution which is, again, a requirement we don’t have. Ours are ad hoc.
Also, saying Irish citizens can’t vote in UK elections requires everyone in Northern Ireland to identify (at least impliedly) as British.
Sometimes you are wrong. Just accept it. Passage of time after it having been explained to you doesn’t make you magically right again,
Jesus, you have high standards.
I don't remember what my wife or kids told me five minutes ago, let alone two years ago.
Hermer, a frequent target in the press and often criticised for that very lack of political experience, has now had his moment. Starmer has taken his advice. The prime minister has drawn a distinction between defensive and offensive action, attempted to reassure the British public of the difference and published the legal thinking behind the action: all the while saying explicitly that he does not want a repeat of the mistakes of Iraq. He has also taken an approach of moving in lockstep with the other E3 countries (France and Germany) rather than the US.
This is the Trump playbook to a T. Make up claims of voter fraud and "threats to democracy". Reform have been compliaining about the wrong sort of postal voting for years, but have never produced any actual evidence of fraud. Goodwin didn't lose because of Commonwealth citizens voting. I remain lost what role cousin marriages supposedly played in his defeat.
(Also, Reform have clarified that their policy of only British citizens can vote isn't actually that only British citizens should be able to vote. They want to keep the vote for Irish citizens.)
FFS, why?
Ireland went independent well over a century ago.
Time to end this bullshit.
I imagine one would have to renegotiate the GFA. It is a silly anomaly that citizens of any territory that once belonged to the British empire should have the right to vote here.
The Commonwealth issue is subtly differnt to the Ireland issue, in that Irish citizens are not considered 'aliens', and have the same rights as British citizens.
The former -the Commonwealth issue- is all the more anomolous, in that a British citizen living lawfully in India with a visa has no right to vote there. As far as I am aware, there would be no treaty issues associated with ending the right of Commonwealth citizens to vote, and -simply- if you want to vote... become a British citizen.
Ireland is harder, because I believe we've enshrined the rights of Irish citiziens in the UK in that agreement. It's probably worth revisiting, but feels less .. urgent. One could probably also find a compomise that fits inside the the spirit of the GFA, perhaps allowing Irish citizens resident in Northern Ireland (or vice versa) to continue to exercise the right to vote, while eliminating from those who are not Northern irish.
Yes, in Northern Ireland is reasonable, since that allows both sides to effectively claim it while allowing citizens to choose either.
But in Britain? No, and I don't know of any Treaty issue.
As far as I know its not reciprocal there either. As far as I know, if I moved to the Republic of Ireland I would not be able to vote. If I am wrong and its reciprocal then fair enough, but if it is not it is well past time to end it.
As almost always you are wrong.
British people have the right to reside and vote in the Republic of Ireland.
Any time I am wrong I am prepared to put my hand up and say so, I said "as far as I know" but did not check it. If it is reciprocal, then that is fair enough, and I am happy to take it back and draw a line under it. I was wrong.
The rest of the Commonwealth though should lose their votes. It is not reciprocal with them (unless there's any remaining odd exceptions on a case by case basis).
EDIT: Actually we were both wrong.
British citizens can vote in General Elections, but can not vote in either Referenda or Presidential Elections. So it is a mix of both, a grey area.
Fucking hell @BartholomewRoberts . You went on this rant before and I explained it to you then. You really don’t listen do you? You are so cement headed that even when you’re wrong and have that explained to you you don’t accept it. You just carry on with your prejudices. Link below
It’s not a grey area as we don’t have presidential elections, for obvious reasons, and referenda in Ireland are required to change the constitution which is, again, a requirement we don’t have. Ours are ad hoc.
Also, saying Irish citizens can’t vote in UK elections requires everyone in Northern Ireland to identify (at least impliedly) as British.
Sometimes you are wrong. Just accept it. Passage of time after it having been explained to you doesn’t make you magically right again,
Jesus, you have high standards.
I don't remember what my wife or kids told me five minutes ago, let alone two years ago.
That must come expensive when they ask you for $50 ten times an hour.
Since moving the site to Cloudflare, I now get really good analytics on the number of people who visit the site, where they come from and how long they stay.
In total, we get about 13,000 unique users per daym and about 30,000 a month. That's obviously peanuts compared to the BBC, but given that the average time on site is about 65 minutes and involves 12 page views there are a lot of people reading the threads.
The number one IP address is resolves to News International in London. The second is the Houses of Parliament (although I suspect more staffers than MPs and Lords). I haven't cross references posters IP addresses with News International yet, but when I get bored I will do that :-).
Iran is not a top 10 country, with the UK and the US accounting for about 90% of traffic. Bizarrely we do get a handful of regular visitors from North Korea.
Why does the US need UK bases to mount attacks on Iranian rocket sites, when it didn’t need them to assassinate the country’s leadership? Because the former requires heavy bunker-busting bombs?
Since moving the site to Cloudflare, I now get really good analytics on the number of people who visit the site, where they come from and how long they stay.
In total, we get about 13,000 unique users per daym and about 30,000 a month. That's obviously peanuts compared to the BBC, but given that the average time on site is about 65 minutes and involves 12 page views there are a lot of people reading the threads.
The number one IP address is resolves to News International in London. The second is the Houses of Parliament (although I suspect more staffers than MPs and Lords). I haven't cross references posters IP addresses with News International yet, but when I get bored I will do that :-).
Iran is not a top 10 country, with the UK and the US accounting for about 90% of traffic. Bizarrely we do get a handful of regular visitors from North Korea.
From the ABC News Chief Washington correspondent: .
Pres Trump told me tonight the US had identified possible candidates to take over Iran, but they were killed in the initial attack.
"The attack was so successful it knocked out most of the candidates," Trump told me. "It's not going to be anybody that we were thinking of because they are all dead. Second or third place is dead."
I feel like Israel might be responsible for that, with its intelligence. Trump might have wanted a nice speedy takeover with most of the state aparatus intact, Israel might have a very different vision.
This is the Trump playbook to a T. Make up claims of voter fraud and "threats to democracy". Reform have been compliaining about the wrong sort of postal voting for years, but have never produced any actual evidence of fraud. Goodwin didn't lose because of Commonwealth citizens voting. I remain lost what role cousin marriages supposedly played in his defeat.
(Also, Reform have clarified that their policy of only British citizens can vote isn't actually that only British citizens should be able to vote. They want to keep the vote for Irish citizens.)
FFS, why?
Ireland went independent well over a century ago.
Time to end this bullshit.
I imagine one would have to renegotiate the GFA. It is a silly anomaly that citizens of any territory that once belonged to the British empire should have the right to vote here.
The Commonwealth issue is subtly differnt to the Ireland issue, in that Irish citizens are not considered 'aliens', and have the same rights as British citizens.
The former -the Commonwealth issue- is all the more anomolous, in that a British citizen living lawfully in India with a visa has no right to vote there. As far as I am aware, there would be no treaty issues associated with ending the right of Commonwealth citizens to vote, and -simply- if you want to vote... become a British citizen.
Ireland is harder, because I believe we've enshrined the rights of Irish citiziens in the UK in that agreement. It's probably worth revisiting, but feels less .. urgent. One could probably also find a compomise that fits inside the the spirit of the GFA, perhaps allowing Irish citizens resident in Northern Ireland (or vice versa) to continue to exercise the right to vote, while eliminating from those who are not Northern irish.
Yes, in Northern Ireland is reasonable, since that allows both sides to effectively claim it while allowing citizens to choose either.
But in Britain? No, and I don't know of any Treaty issue.
As far as I know its not reciprocal there either. As far as I know, if I moved to the Republic of Ireland I would not be able to vote. If I am wrong and its reciprocal then fair enough, but if it is not it is well past time to end it.
As almost always you are wrong.
British people have the right to reside and vote in the Republic of Ireland.
Any time I am wrong I am prepared to put my hand up and say so, I said "as far as I know" but did not check it. If it is reciprocal, then that is fair enough, and I am happy to take it back and draw a line under it. I was wrong.
The rest of the Commonwealth though should lose their votes. It is not reciprocal with them (unless there's any remaining odd exceptions on a case by case basis).
EDIT: Actually we were both wrong.
British citizens can vote in General Elections, but can not vote in either Referenda or Presidential Elections. So it is a mix of both, a grey area.
Fucking hell @BartholomewRoberts . You went on this rant before and I explained it to you then. You really don’t listen do you? You are so cement headed that even when you’re wrong and have that explained to you you don’t accept it. You just carry on with your prejudices. Link below
It’s not a grey area as we don’t have presidential elections, for obvious reasons, and referenda in Ireland are required to change the constitution which is, again, a requirement we don’t have. Ours are ad hoc.
Also, saying Irish citizens can’t vote in UK elections requires everyone in Northern Ireland to identify (at least impliedly) as British.
Sometimes you are wrong. Just accept it. Passage of time after it having been explained to you doesn’t make you magically right again,
Jesus, you have high standards.
I don't remember what my wife or kids told me five minutes ago, let alone two years ago.
Worse than that -Observer Everyman crossword clue yesterday wanted a former president 5 letters starting with B ending with N! Happily my wife remembered!
From the ABC News Chief Washington correspondent: .
Pres Trump told me tonight the US had identified possible candidates to take over Iran, but they were killed in the initial attack.
"The attack was so successful it knocked out most of the candidates," Trump told me. "It's not going to be anybody that we were thinking of because they are all dead. Second or third place is dead."
I feel like Israel might be responsible for that, with its intelligence. Trump might have wanted a nice speedy takeover with most of the state aparatus intact, Israel might have a very different vision.
The history of writing down thoughts and feelings could be tens of thousands of years older than previously believed, surprising archaeologists who made the discovery.
The researchers discerned patterns of meaning in lines, notches, dots, and crosses on objects like mammoth tusks as old as 45,000 years in caves in Germany.
The headlines have exaggerated the claim. The researchers are arguing that this is proto-writing: that these symbols have meaning, but not that they’re a written language.
From the ABC News Chief Washington correspondent: .
Pres Trump told me tonight the US had identified possible candidates to take over Iran, but they were killed in the initial attack.
"The attack was so successful it knocked out most of the candidates," Trump told me. "It's not going to be anybody that we were thinking of because they are all dead. Second or third place is dead."
I feel like Israel might be responsible for that, with its intelligence. Trump might have wanted a nice speedy takeover with most of the state aparatus intact, Israel might have a very different vision.
Pahlavi might end up installed because they’ve killed everyone semi competent.
Since moving the site to Cloudflare, I now get really good analytics on the number of people who visit the site, where they come from and how long they stay.
In total, we get about 13,000 unique users per daym and about 30,000 a month. That's obviously peanuts compared to the BBC, but given that the average time on site is about 65 minutes and involves 12 page views there are a lot of people reading the threads.
The number one IP address is resolves to News International in London. The second is the Houses of Parliament (although I suspect more staffers than MPs and Lords). I haven't cross references posters IP addresses with News International yet, but when I get bored I will do that :-).
Iran is not a top 10 country, with the UK and the US accounting for about 90% of traffic. Bizarrely we do get a handful of regular visitors from North Korea.
Why does the US need UK bases to mount attacks on Iranian rocket sites, when it didn’t need them to assassinate the country’s leadership? Because the former requires heavy bunker-busting bombs?
Because the UK's regional allies are being hit by missiles and drones from those sites. That's pretty clear evidence of both necessity, and justification for the decision.
Starmer has done a fairly poor job of advocating for that position, but it doesn't seem unreasonable to me (and I also thought it correct to deny the US use of our bases for the original attack).
Iran's widening of the conflict is also contrary to international law. Something the Greens and the left of Labour have conspicuously failed to note.
This is the Trump playbook to a T. Make up claims of voter fraud and "threats to democracy". Reform have been compliaining about the wrong sort of postal voting for years, but have never produced any actual evidence of fraud. Goodwin didn't lose because of Commonwealth citizens voting. I remain lost what role cousin marriages supposedly played in his defeat.
(Also, Reform have clarified that their policy of only British citizens can vote isn't actually that only British citizens should be able to vote. They want to keep the vote for Irish citizens.)
FFS, why?
Ireland went independent well over a century ago.
Time to end this bullshit.
I imagine one would have to renegotiate the GFA. It is a silly anomaly that citizens of any territory that once belonged to the British empire should have the right to vote here.
The Commonwealth issue is subtly differnt to the Ireland issue, in that Irish citizens are not considered 'aliens', and have the same rights as British citizens.
The former -the Commonwealth issue- is all the more anomolous, in that a British citizen living lawfully in India with a visa has no right to vote there. As far as I am aware, there would be no treaty issues associated with ending the right of Commonwealth citizens to vote, and -simply- if you want to vote... become a British citizen.
Ireland is harder, because I believe we've enshrined the rights of Irish citiziens in the UK in that agreement. It's probably worth revisiting, but feels less .. urgent. One could probably also find a compomise that fits inside the the spirit of the GFA, perhaps allowing Irish citizens resident in Northern Ireland (or vice versa) to continue to exercise the right to vote, while eliminating from those who are not Northern irish.
Yes, in Northern Ireland is reasonable, since that allows both sides to effectively claim it while allowing citizens to choose either.
But in Britain? No, and I don't know of any Treaty issue.
As far as I know its not reciprocal there either. As far as I know, if I moved to the Republic of Ireland I would not be able to vote. If I am wrong and its reciprocal then fair enough, but if it is not it is well past time to end it.
As almost always you are wrong.
British people have the right to reside and vote in the Republic of Ireland.
Any time I am wrong I am prepared to put my hand up and say so, I said "as far as I know" but did not check it. If it is reciprocal, then that is fair enough, and I am happy to take it back and draw a line under it. I was wrong.
The rest of the Commonwealth though should lose their votes. It is not reciprocal with them (unless there's any remaining odd exceptions on a case by case basis).
EDIT: Actually we were both wrong.
British citizens can vote in General Elections, but can not vote in either Referenda or Presidential Elections. So it is a mix of both, a grey area.
Fucking hell @BartholomewRoberts . You went on this rant before and I explained it to you then. You really don’t listen do you? You are so cement headed that even when you’re wrong and have that explained to you you don’t accept it. You just carry on with your prejudices. Link below
It's a pity that BR never pursued a career in the armed forces. He has the precise Weltanschauung and commincation style that assures swift and untroubled promotion to very senior ranks in the British forces. Particularly the army.
Hezbollah fired a barrage of missiles at Israel after midnight, according to Israeli security officials.
Really? An Iranian backed militia (indeed, arguably Iran's main militia given they have extensive influence in Iran including murdering protestors) has responded to Israel bombing Iran by bombing Israel?
I'm shocked. Shocked, I tell you.
Iran's main militia will be shocked when the money dries up.
From the ABC News Chief Washington correspondent: .
Pres Trump told me tonight the US had identified possible candidates to take over Iran, but they were killed in the initial attack.
"The attack was so successful it knocked out most of the candidates," Trump told me. "It's not going to be anybody that we were thinking of because they are all dead. Second or third place is dead."
I feel like Israel might be responsible for that, with its intelligence. Trump might have wanted a nice speedy takeover with most of the state aparatus intact, Israel might have a very different vision.
Pahlavi might end up installed because they’ve killed everyone semi competent.
Iran has a population of around 87 million. Knocking out second and third place isn’t going to make much difference.
From the ABC News Chief Washington correspondent: .
Pres Trump told me tonight the US had identified possible candidates to take over Iran, but they were killed in the initial attack.
"The attack was so successful it knocked out most of the candidates," Trump told me. "It's not going to be anybody that we were thinking of because they are all dead. Second or third place is dead."
I feel like Israel might be responsible for that, with its intelligence. Trump might have wanted a nice speedy takeover with most of the state aparatus intact, Israel might have a very different vision.
The President of Israel stated very clearly (and quite vehemently) this morning on R4 that Israel is not seeking regime change.
Why does the US need UK bases to mount attacks on Iranian rocket sites, when it didn’t need them to assassinate the country’s leadership? Because the former requires heavy bunker-busting bombs?
Because the UK's regional allies are being hit by missiles and drones from those sites. That's pretty clear evidence of both necessity, and justification for the decision.
Starmer has done a fairly poor job of advocating for that position, but it doesn't seem unreasonable to me (and I also thought it correct to deny the US use of our bases for the original attack).
Iran's widening of the conflict is also contrary to international law. Something the Greens and the left of Labour have conspicuously failed to note.
First Starmer refused British bases toTrump, thereby annoying part of the country, then U turned to join in the bombing, therefore annoying the rest.
It is all so Starmer to pick the worst route through a quagmire.
From the ABC News Chief Washington correspondent: .
Pres Trump told me tonight the US had identified possible candidates to take over Iran, but they were killed in the initial attack.
"The attack was so successful it knocked out most of the candidates," Trump told me. "It's not going to be anybody that we were thinking of because they are all dead. Second or third place is dead."
I feel like Israel might be responsible for that, with its intelligence. Trump might have wanted a nice speedy takeover with most of the state aparatus intact, Israel might have a very different vision.
The President of Israel stated very clearly (and quite vehemently) this morning on R4 that Israel is not seeking regime change.
This is the Trump playbook to a T. Make up claims of voter fraud and "threats to democracy". Reform have been compliaining about the wrong sort of postal voting for years, but have never produced any actual evidence of fraud. Goodwin didn't lose because of Commonwealth citizens voting. I remain lost what role cousin marriages supposedly played in his defeat.
(Also, Reform have clarified that their policy of only British citizens can vote isn't actually that only British citizens should be able to vote. They want to keep the vote for Irish citizens.)
FFS, why?
Ireland went independent well over a century ago.
Time to end this bullshit.
I imagine one would have to renegotiate the GFA. It is a silly anomaly that citizens of any territory that once belonged to the British empire should have the right to vote here.
The Commonwealth issue is subtly differnt to the Ireland issue, in that Irish citizens are not considered 'aliens', and have the same rights as British citizens.
The former -the Commonwealth issue- is all the more anomolous, in that a British citizen living lawfully in India with a visa has no right to vote there. As far as I am aware, there would be no treaty issues associated with ending the right of Commonwealth citizens to vote, and -simply- if you want to vote... become a British citizen.
Ireland is harder, because I believe we've enshrined the rights of Irish citiziens in the UK in that agreement. It's probably worth revisiting, but feels less .. urgent. One could probably also find a compomise that fits inside the the spirit of the GFA, perhaps allowing Irish citizens resident in Northern Ireland (or vice versa) to continue to exercise the right to vote, while eliminating from those who are not Northern irish.
Yes, in Northern Ireland is reasonable, since that allows both sides to effectively claim it while allowing citizens to choose either.
But in Britain? No, and I don't know of any Treaty issue.
As far as I know its not reciprocal there either. As far as I know, if I moved to the Republic of Ireland I would not be able to vote. If I am wrong and its reciprocal then fair enough, but if it is not it is well past time to end it.
As almost always you are wrong.
British people have the right to reside and vote in the Republic of Ireland.
Any time I am wrong I am prepared to put my hand up and say so, I said "as far as I know" but did not check it. If it is reciprocal, then that is fair enough, and I am happy to take it back and draw a line under it. I was wrong.
The rest of the Commonwealth though should lose their votes. It is not reciprocal with them (unless there's any remaining odd exceptions on a case by case basis).
EDIT: Actually we were both wrong.
British citizens can vote in General Elections, but can not vote in either Referenda or Presidential Elections. So it is a mix of both, a grey area.
Fucking hell @BartholomewRoberts . You went on this rant before and I explained it to you then. You really don’t listen do you? You are so cement headed that even when you’re wrong and have that explained to you you don’t accept it. You just carry on with your prejudices. Link below
It's a pity that BR never pursued a career in the armed forces. He has the precise Weltanschauung and commincation style that assures swift and untroubled promotion to very senior ranks in the British forces. Particularly the army.
Indeed. But his bravery only extends to wanting others to die for his convictions. Like any politician.
Time travelling casus belli. Some Trumpite dick on R4 saying the fact that Iran fired off missiles and drones after being struck multiple times and having its leadership killed is proof that it was about to do this in any case. It’s logic Jim, but not as we know it.
Why does the US need UK bases to mount attacks on Iranian rocket sites, when it didn’t need them to assassinate the country’s leadership? Because the former requires heavy bunker-busting bombs?
Because the UK's regional allies are being hit by missiles and drones from those sites. That's pretty clear evidence of both necessity, and justification for the decision.
Starmer has done a fairly poor job of advocating for that position, but it doesn't seem unreasonable to me (and I also thought it correct to deny the US use of our bases for the original attack).
Iran's widening of the conflict is also contrary to international law. Something the Greens and the left of Labour have conspicuously failed to note.
What makes it harder is that the truthful statement (roughly "Israel were psychotic and Trump moronic for starting this. In an ideal world, the UK would have left them to it, but we've been dragged into this by the attacks on Cyprus") is unsayable by the British government.
Why does the US need UK bases to mount attacks on Iranian rocket sites, when it didn’t need them to assassinate the country’s leadership? Because the former requires heavy bunker-busting bombs?
Because the UK's regional allies are being hit by missiles and drones from those sites. That's pretty clear evidence of both necessity, and justification for the decision.
Starmer has done a fairly poor job of advocating for that position, but it doesn't seem unreasonable to me (and I also thought it correct to deny the US use of our bases for the original attack).
Iran's widening of the conflict is also contrary to international law. Something the Greens and the left of Labour have conspicuously failed to note.
First Starmer refused British bases toTrump, thereby annoying part of the country, then U turned to join in the bombing, therefore annoying the rest.
It is all so Starmer to pick the worst route through a quagmire.
Sure, it's not deft politics. But it's actually not unreasonable.
From the ABC News Chief Washington correspondent: .
Pres Trump told me tonight the US had identified possible candidates to take over Iran, but they were killed in the initial attack.
"The attack was so successful it knocked out most of the candidates," Trump told me. "It's not going to be anybody that we were thinking of because they are all dead. Second or third place is dead."
I feel like Israel might be responsible for that, with its intelligence. Trump might have wanted a nice speedy takeover with most of the state aparatus intact, Israel might have a very different vision.
The President of Israel stated very clearly (and quite vehemently) this morning on R4 that Israel is not seeking regime change.
Was he lying ?
Israel knows where it is with this regime: at war.
Why does the US need UK bases to mount attacks on Iranian rocket sites, when it didn’t need them to assassinate the country’s leadership? Because the former requires heavy bunker-busting bombs?
Because the UK's regional allies are being hit by missiles and drones from those sites. That's pretty clear evidence of both necessity, and justification for the decision.
Starmer has done a fairly poor job of advocating for that position, but it doesn't seem unreasonable to me (and I also thought it correct to deny the US use of our bases for the original attack).
Iran's widening of the conflict is also contrary to international law. Something the Greens and the left of Labour have conspicuously failed to note.
First Starmer refused British bases toTrump, thereby annoying part of the country, then U turned to join in the bombing, therefore annoying the rest.
It is all so Starmer to pick the worst route through a quagmire.
This is the Trump playbook to a T. Make up claims of voter fraud and "threats to democracy". Reform have been compliaining about the wrong sort of postal voting for years, but have never produced any actual evidence of fraud. Goodwin didn't lose because of Commonwealth citizens voting. I remain lost what role cousin marriages supposedly played in his defeat.
(Also, Reform have clarified that their policy of only British citizens can vote isn't actually that only British citizens should be able to vote. They want to keep the vote for Irish citizens.)
FFS, why?
Ireland went independent well over a century ago.
Time to end this bullshit.
I imagine one would have to renegotiate the GFA. It is a silly anomaly that citizens of any territory that once belonged to the British empire should have the right to vote here.
The Commonwealth issue is subtly differnt to the Ireland issue, in that Irish citizens are not considered 'aliens', and have the same rights as British citizens.
The former -the Commonwealth issue- is all the more anomolous, in that a British citizen living lawfully in India with a visa has no right to vote there. As far as I am aware, there would be no treaty issues associated with ending the right of Commonwealth citizens to vote, and -simply- if you want to vote... become a British citizen.
Ireland is harder, because I believe we've enshrined the rights of Irish citiziens in the UK in that agreement. It's probably worth revisiting, but feels less .. urgent. One could probably also find a compomise that fits inside the the spirit of the GFA, perhaps allowing Irish citizens resident in Northern Ireland (or vice versa) to continue to exercise the right to vote, while eliminating from those who are not Northern irish.
Yes, in Northern Ireland is reasonable, since that allows both sides to effectively claim it while allowing citizens to choose either.
But in Britain? No, and I don't know of any Treaty issue.
As far as I know its not reciprocal there either. As far as I know, if I moved to the Republic of Ireland I would not be able to vote. If I am wrong and its reciprocal then fair enough, but if it is not it is well past time to end it.
As almost always you are wrong.
British people have the right to reside and vote in the Republic of Ireland.
Any time I am wrong I am prepared to put my hand up and say so, I said "as far as I know" but did not check it. If it is reciprocal, then that is fair enough, and I am happy to take it back and draw a line under it. I was wrong.
The rest of the Commonwealth though should lose their votes. It is not reciprocal with them (unless there's any remaining odd exceptions on a case by case basis).
EDIT: Actually we were both wrong.
British citizens can vote in General Elections, but can not vote in either Referenda or Presidential Elections. So it is a mix of both, a grey area.
Fucking hell @BartholomewRoberts . You went on this rant before and I explained it to you then. You really don’t listen do you? You are so cement headed that even when you’re wrong and have that explained to you you don’t accept it. You just carry on with your prejudices. Link below
It's a pity that BR never pursued a career in the armed forces. He has the precise Weltanschauung and commincation style that assures swift and untroubled promotion to very senior ranks in the British forces. Particularly the army.
Why does the US need UK bases to mount attacks on Iranian rocket sites, when it didn’t need them to assassinate the country’s leadership? Because the former requires heavy bunker-busting bombs?
Because the UK's regional allies are being hit by missiles and drones from those sites. That's pretty clear evidence of both necessity, and justification for the decision.
Starmer has done a fairly poor job of advocating for that position, but it doesn't seem unreasonable to me (and I also thought it correct to deny the US use of our bases for the original attack).
Iran's widening of the conflict is also contrary to international law. Something the Greens and the left of Labour have conspicuously failed to note.
First Starmer refused British bases toTrump, thereby annoying part of the country, then U turned to join in the bombing, therefore annoying the rest.
It is all so Starmer to pick the worst route through a quagmire.
Trouble is, both those decisions were objectively right. "Not my circus" was obviously the right thing to do when the USA and Israel attacked Iran. The attack on Cyprus demands a response, but that response couldn't be pre-emptive.
BREAKING: Keir Starmer says the U.K. has given the US permission to use British bases to launch strikes on Iran
weak, weak, weak....
Did he genuinely think that "staying out of it" would work? Given past UK actions, the likes of Iran will still see the UK as part of the evil empire.
He is arguing it is "defensive" not "offensive", so that is the difference now. Pin head dancing.
My Persian friends here in LA tell me there is an old saying there:
"if you stub your toe on a rock, you can be sure an Englishman left it there"
They also tell me that the regime calls the US "the great Satan", and the UK "the little Satan".
Candidly, I'm insulted.
Israel is the Little Satan, shirley.
Nope
The US/UK/Great/Little Satan thing was one of Khomeni’s signature pieces from his death-by-boredom speeches in the 80s.
I demand an upgrade.
If Keir only manages one thing, I would like it to be getting the UK upgraded from "Little Satan" to -say- "Medium-Sized Satan".
The Iranian mullahs have always distrusted the UK, basically they think the Brits are a bit crafty and they dont have to dip far into their own history to get evidence. The Iranians believe there are current links between British Intelligence and arab separatist groups in the Khuzestan region.
Speaking of separatists, I wonder what the Iranian Kurds are upto right now
1980 called. It wants its Iranian embassy siege back.
Why does the US need UK bases to mount attacks on Iranian rocket sites, when it didn’t need them to assassinate the country’s leadership? Because the former requires heavy bunker-busting bombs?
Because the UK's regional allies are being hit by missiles and drones from those sites. That's pretty clear evidence of both necessity, and justification for the decision.
Starmer has done a fairly poor job of advocating for that position, but it doesn't seem unreasonable to me (and I also thought it correct to deny the US use of our bases for the original attack).
Iran's widening of the conflict is also contrary to international law. Something the Greens and the left of Labour have conspicuously failed to note.
What makes it harder is that the truthful statement (roughly "Israel were psychotic and Trump moronic for starting this. In an ideal world, the UK would have left them to it, but we've been dragged into this by the attacks on Cyprus") is unsayable by the British government.
By Starmer, evidently.
We weren't dragged in by the Cypress attack (which I believe happened shortly after Starmer's decision) but rather by the (illegal) attacks on various gulf states.
The maddest thing about all of this is that the official causus belli (Iran's nuclear ambitions) is only a thing because Trump set aside the agreement Obama negotiated (one of the latter's very few foreign policy successes).
Why does the US need UK bases to mount attacks on Iranian rocket sites, when it didn’t need them to assassinate the country’s leadership? Because the former requires heavy bunker-busting bombs?
Because the UK's regional allies are being hit by missiles and drones from those sites. That's pretty clear evidence of both necessity, and justification for the decision.
Starmer has done a fairly poor job of advocating for that position, but it doesn't seem unreasonable to me (and I also thought it correct to deny the US use of our bases for the original attack).
Iran's widening of the conflict is also contrary to international law. Something the Greens and the left of Labour have conspicuously failed to note.
First Starmer refused British bases toTrump, thereby annoying part of the country, then U turned to join in the bombing, therefore annoying the rest.
It is all so Starmer to pick the worst route through a quagmire.
Trouble is, both those decisions were objectively right. "Not my circus" was obviously the right thing to do when the USA and Israel attacked Iran. The attack on Cyprus demands a response, but that response couldn't be pre-emptive.
In the end with Starmer it’s always about delivery. Slippery Tone would have talked his way out of it, Starmer with his leaden, quacking emphasis on key words for the hard of thinking couldn’t persuade an escape from a wet paper bag. Not ideal for a court room lawyer.
A good chunk (most?) of its population are very religious and have no problem with absolute repression, brutal punishments, a low to low-medium standard of living, very little freedom, and being an international pariah, provided they can chant death to the great Satan and attack Israel and the West regularly. Seems to be popular.
The Shah's son, whilst undoubtedly wanting reform and representing progress, I bet would still resort to some sort of repression - just as the last one did - because how else would he stop the mad mullahs and Islamists from assassinating him or being re-elected almost straight away? Particularly since so many Iranian exiles who'd back him have since left.
It's difficult to know what to do.
Unbrainwash their people's minds would be a start.
A good chunk (most?) of its population are very religious and have no problem with absolute repression, brutal punishments, a low to low-medium standard of living, very little freedom, and being an international pariah, provided they can chant death to the great Satan and attack Israel and the West regularly. Seems to be popular.
The Shah's son, whilst undoubtedly wanting reform and representing progress, I bet would still resort to some sort of repression - just as the last one did - because how else would he stop the mad mullahs and Islamists from assassinating him or being re-elected almost straight away? Particularly since so many Iranian exiles who'd back him have since left.
It's difficult to know what to do.
Unbrainwash their people's minds would be a start.
Indeed, hardline religious elements or moves away from secularism in general appear to be getting more popular in the region not less. Having been in power for so long and facing multiple crises might make things different in Iran, but even in an improbable scenario where the theocracy evaporated there's bound to be plenty left who had liked them.
From the ABC News Chief Washington correspondent: .
Pres Trump told me tonight the US had identified possible candidates to take over Iran, but they were killed in the initial attack.
"The attack was so successful it knocked out most of the candidates," Trump told me. "It's not going to be anybody that we were thinking of because they are all dead. Second or third place is dead."
I feel like Israel might be responsible for that, with its intelligence. Trump might have wanted a nice speedy takeover with most of the state aparatus intact, Israel might have a very different vision.
The President of Israel stated very clearly (and quite vehemently) this morning on R4 that Israel is not seeking regime change.
Was he lying ?
Quite possibly. Regime change is a red line you are not allowed to cross (even in the current psychotic world) so if you want to do it, you have to lie about it.
A bit like seeking a political party leadership when there isn't a vacancy. Of course Wes and Andy want it, and if course they are prepared to lie about it. The political game requires it.
Lying is just another strategy which many people use to their advantage. I don't know why people get so surprised or upset about it. I used to work at the Jobcentre and many of my clients lied to me, often for trivial reasons. It's just something some people do.
In any case, you are *supposed* to lie to the enemy during wartime, sometimes that means lying to the rest of us. So Netanyahu is perfectly correct to be prepared to lie on Radio 4 about his war aims. I hope Starmer is too, where there is military advantage in it.
Since moving the site to Cloudflare, I now get really good analytics on the number of people who visit the site, where they come from and how long they stay.
In total, we get about 13,000 unique users per daym and about 30,000 a month. That's obviously peanuts compared to the BBC, but given that the average time on site is about 65 minutes and involves 12 page views there are a lot of people reading the threads.
The number one IP address is resolves to News International in London. The second is the Houses of Parliament (although I suspect more staffers than MPs and Lords). I haven't cross references posters IP addresses with News International yet, but when I get bored I will do that :-).
Iran is not a top 10 country, with the UK and the US accounting for about 90% of traffic. Bizarrely we do get a handful of regular visitors from North Korea.
Greetings, Pyongyang.
Imagine being based in Acton and being forced to access the internet via Pyongyang. What would be latency on that? Would make it even harder to have a robust debate
From the ABC News Chief Washington correspondent: .
Pres Trump told me tonight the US had identified possible candidates to take over Iran, but they were killed in the initial attack.
"The attack was so successful it knocked out most of the candidates," Trump told me. "It's not going to be anybody that we were thinking of because they are all dead. Second or third place is dead."
I feel like Israel might be responsible for that, with its intelligence. Trump might have wanted a nice speedy takeover with most of the state aparatus intact, Israel might have a very different vision.
The President of Israel stated very clearly (and quite vehemently) this morning on R4 that Israel is not seeking regime change.
Was he lying ?
Quite possibly. Regime change is a red line you are not allowed to cross (even in the current psychotic world) so if you want to do it, you have to lie about it.
A bit like seeking a political party leadership when there isn't a vacancy. Of course Wes and Andy want it, and if course they are prepared to lie about it. The political game requires it.
Lying is just another strategy which many people use to their advantage. I don't know why people get so surprised or upset about it. I used to work at the Jobcentre and many of my clients lied to me, often for trivial reasons. It's just something some people do.
In any case, you are *supposed* to lie to the enemy during wartime, sometimes that means lying to the rest of us. So Netanyahu is perfectly correct to be prepared to lie on Radio 4 about his war aims. I hope Starmer is too, where there is military advantage in it.
To be pedantic it was President Herzog. Don’t think anyone would be surprised at Bibi lying, in fact that would be the reflexive expectation.
Time travelling casus belli. Some Trumpite dick on R4 saying the fact that Iran fired off missiles and drones after being struck multiple times and having its leadership killed is proof that it was about to do this in any case. It’s logic Jim, but not as we know it.
Well if you switch off Radio 4 in Iran how on earth of the commanders supposed to get the “stand down” order when the supreme leader is killed?
In news from "Eabhal's local facebook groups", we've had our first panic about filling up at Asda before fuel prices spike. Being met with ridicule so far, but one to watch.
(I have offered "just cycle to work" but this sensible advice has met with a certain degree of white-hot fury)
In news from "Eabhal's local facebook groups", we've had our first panic about filling up at Asda before fuel prices spike. Being met with ridicule so far, but one to watch.
(I have offered "just cycle to work" but this sensible advice has met with a certain degree of white-hot fury)
Why does the US need UK bases to mount attacks on Iranian rocket sites, when it didn’t need them to assassinate the country’s leadership? Because the former requires heavy bunker-busting bombs?
Because the UK's regional allies are being hit by missiles and drones from those sites. That's pretty clear evidence of both necessity, and justification for the decision.
Starmer has done a fairly poor job of advocating for that position, but it doesn't seem unreasonable to me (and I also thought it correct to deny the US use of our bases for the original attack).
Iran's widening of the conflict is also contrary to international law. Something the Greens and the left of Labour have conspicuously failed to note.
First Starmer refused British bases toTrump, thereby annoying part of the country, then U turned to join in the bombing, therefore annoying the rest.
It is all so Starmer to pick the worst route through a quagmire.
Trouble is, both those decisions were objectively right. "Not my circus" was obviously the right thing to do when the USA and Israel attacked Iran. The attack on Cyprus demands a response, but that response couldn't be pre-emptive.
In the end with Starmer it’s always about delivery. Slippery Tone would have talked his way out of it, Starmer with his leaden, quacking emphasis on key words for the hard of thinking couldn’t persuade an escape from a wet paper bag. Not ideal for a court room lawyer.
He wasn’t a court room lawyer more of a back room paper shuffler
A little reminder of Farag's previous opinions on the "wonderful Persian people":
"Reform will leave the ECHR and repeal or "disapply" all other rights treaties to bar all asylum claims and ensure migrants who arrive without authorization are deported, he added. It will scale up the capacity of detention facilities and secure deals with countries including Afghanistan, Eritrea and Iran to return migrants, Farage said, without offering details.
Asked about the prospect of asylum-seekers being tortured or killed if they were sent back to countries they fled, Farage said: "The alternative is to do nothing ... We cannot be responsible for all the sins that take place around the world.""
From the ABC News Chief Washington correspondent: .
Pres Trump told me tonight the US had identified possible candidates to take over Iran, but they were killed in the initial attack.
"The attack was so successful it knocked out most of the candidates," Trump told me. "It's not going to be anybody that we were thinking of because they are all dead. Second or third place is dead."
I feel like Israel might be responsible for that, with its intelligence. Trump might have wanted a nice speedy takeover with most of the state aparatus intact, Israel might have a very different vision.
The President of Israel stated very clearly (and quite vehemently) this morning on R4 that Israel is not seeking regime change.
Was he lying ?
Quite possibly. Regime change is a red line you are not allowed to cross (even in the current psychotic world) so if you want to do it, you have to lie about it.
A bit like seeking a political party leadership when there isn't a vacancy. Of course Wes and Andy want it, and if course they are prepared to lie about it. The political game requires it.
Lying is just another strategy which many people use to their advantage. I don't know why people get so surprised or upset about it. I used to work at the Jobcentre and many of my clients lied to me, often for trivial reasons. It's just something some people do.
In any case, you are *supposed* to lie to the enemy during wartime, sometimes that means lying to the rest of us. So Netanyahu is perfectly correct to be prepared to lie on Radio 4 about his War aims. I hope Starmer is to, where there is military advantage in it.
One of my favourite games, Suzerain, is a text based political game in a pseudo-cold war setting with fake nations. It involves a lot of political wrangling, ethnic tensions, constitutional shenanigans and policy decisions - one quite effective method to get ahead in various sections is to just lie through your teeth about your intentions until you can force it through, something guides have to emphasise which suggests many gamers are charmingly honest.
I'd recommend it even for non gamers as it's really just a choose your own adventure story. A secondary campaign involves taking on a traditional monarchy in a gas producing region dealing with crazy dictators, and an Iranian style theocracy.
From the ABC News Chief Washington correspondent: .
Pres Trump told me tonight the US had identified possible candidates to take over Iran, but they were killed in the initial attack.
"The attack was so successful it knocked out most of the candidates," Trump told me. "It's not going to be anybody that we were thinking of because they are all dead. Second or third place is dead."
I feel like Israel might be responsible for that, with its intelligence. Trump might have wanted a nice speedy takeover with most of the state aparatus intact, Israel might have a very different vision.
The President of Israel stated very clearly (and quite vehemently) this morning on R4 that Israel is not seeking regime change.
Was he lying ?
Quite possibly. Regime change is a red line you are not allowed to cross (even in the current psychotic world) so if you want to do it, you have to lie about it.
A bit like seeking a political party leadership when there isn't a vacancy. Of course Wes and Andy want it, and if course they are prepared to lie about it. The political game requires it.
Lying is just another strategy which many people use to their advantage. I don't know why people get so surprised or upset about it. I used to work at the Jobcentre and many of my clients lied to me, often for trivial reasons. It's just something some people do.
In any case, you are *supposed* to lie to the enemy during wartime, sometimes that means lying to the rest of us. So Netanyahu is perfectly correct to be prepared to lie on Radio 4 about his War aims. I hope Starmer is to, where there is military advantage in it.
One of my favourite games, Suzerain, is a text based political game in a pseudo-cold war setting with fake nations. It involves a lot of political wrangling, ethnic tensions, constitutional shenanigans and policy decisions - one quite effective method to get ahead in various sections is to just lie through your teeth about your intentions until you can force it through, something guides have to emphasise which suggests many gamers are charmingly honest.
I'd recommend it even for non gamers as it's really just a choose your own adventure story. A secondary campaign involves taking on a traditional monarchy in a gas producing region dealing with crazy dictators, and an Iranian style theocracy.
Why does the US need UK bases to mount attacks on Iranian rocket sites, when it didn’t need them to assassinate the country’s leadership? Because the former requires heavy bunker-busting bombs?
Because the UK's regional allies are being hit by missiles and drones from those sites. That's pretty clear evidence of both necessity, and justification for the decision.
Starmer has done a fairly poor job of advocating for that position, but it doesn't seem unreasonable to me (and I also thought it correct to deny the US use of our bases for the original attack).
Iran's widening of the conflict is also contrary to international law. Something the Greens and the left of Labour have conspicuously failed to note.
First Starmer refused British bases toTrump, thereby annoying part of the country, then U turned to join in the bombing, therefore annoying the rest.
It is all so Starmer to pick the worst route through a quagmire.
Trouble is, both those decisions were objectively right. "Not my circus" was obviously the right thing to do when the USA and Israel attacked Iran. The attack on Cyprus demands a response, but that response couldn't be pre-emptive.
In the end with Starmer it’s always about delivery. Slippery Tone would have talked his way out of it, Starmer with his leaden, quacking emphasis on key words for the hard of thinking couldn’t persuade an escape from a wet paper bag. Not ideal for a court room lawyer.
He wasn’t a court room lawyer more of a back room paper shuffler
According to Wiki Starmer defended people under threat of the death penalty in the Caribbean, what his success rate was idk. He also provided pro bono advice for the successful defendants in the McLibel case. I heard interviews with him at the time and he sounded relatively normal and genuinely idealistic & principled. Something’s gone wrong down the line.
From the ABC News Chief Washington correspondent: .
Pres Trump told me tonight the US had identified possible candidates to take over Iran, but they were killed in the initial attack.
"The attack was so successful it knocked out most of the candidates," Trump told me. "It's not going to be anybody that we were thinking of because they are all dead. Second or third place is dead."
I feel like Israel might be responsible for that, with its intelligence. Trump might have wanted a nice speedy takeover with most of the state aparatus intact, Israel might have a very different vision.
Same with Gaza. Hard for America to negotiate if everyone they talk to is killed.
Poor Rachel just as things were looking up inflation could be hit by rising oil prices .
Ditto Trump, who took power promising gas prices would fall from Biden-levels. He was Trump-eting $1.80 gas in the SOTN on Tuesday - which was in itself about a dollar lower than reality.
A good chunk (most?) of its population are very religious and have no problem with absolute repression, brutal punishments, a low to low-medium standard of living, very little freedom, and being an international pariah, provided they can chant death to the great Satan and attack Israel and the West regularly. Seems to be popular.
The Shah's son, whilst undoubtedly wanting reform and representing progress, I bet would still resort to some sort of repression - just as the last one did - because how else would he stop the mad mullahs and Islamists from assassinating him or being re-elected almost straight away? Particularly since so many Iranian exiles who'd back him have since left.
It's difficult to know what to do.
Unbrainwash their people's minds would be a start.
Hmmm...Casino your (most?) makes me question either your or my knowledge of Iranian culture.
My understanding, partial as it is, is that the 1979 revolution was driven as much by secular leftists and centrists wanting rid of the Shah as it was the mad mullahs. The latter were seen as a moral alternative that could be kept in a box, until they leapt out of their box and went very immoral themselves.
Since then my anecdotal understanding has always been that there has been a surface of radical religion underneath which a much more rich, secular society operated quite freely.
If I'm right, then we might see the edifice of religious power crumble rather quickly. Which is why I'm just a tiny bit more hopeful about this roll of the dice than others.
Why does the US need UK bases to mount attacks on Iranian rocket sites, when it didn’t need them to assassinate the country’s leadership? Because the former requires heavy bunker-busting bombs?
Because the UK's regional allies are being hit by missiles and drones from those sites. That's pretty clear evidence of both necessity, and justification for the decision.
Starmer has done a fairly poor job of advocating for that position, but it doesn't seem unreasonable to me (and I also thought it correct to deny the US use of our bases for the original attack).
Iran's widening of the conflict is also contrary to international law. Something the Greens and the left of Labour have conspicuously failed to note.
First Starmer refused British bases toTrump, thereby annoying part of the country, then U turned to join in the bombing, therefore annoying the rest.
It is all so Starmer to pick the worst route through a quagmire.
Trouble is, both those decisions were objectively right. "Not my circus" was obviously the right thing to do when the USA and Israel attacked Iran. The attack on Cyprus demands a response, but that response couldn't be pre-emptive.
In the end with Starmer it’s always about delivery. Slippery Tone would have talked his way out of it, Starmer with his leaden, quacking emphasis on key words for the hard of thinking couldn’t persuade an escape from a wet paper bag. Not ideal for a court room lawyer.
He has started doing his 'angry' thing all the time in interviews now. He's obviously had some coaching to show people 'passion'. As the effort is completely synthetic, somehow it comes over as worse than the non-passionate version.
It may be a simple translation error relating to the incident we've seen, but the Kuwaiti military are reporting multiple US jets have crashed within its territory this morning, though all crews are reportedly accounted for.
Why does the US need UK bases to mount attacks on Iranian rocket sites, when it didn’t need them to assassinate the country’s leadership? Because the former requires heavy bunker-busting bombs?
Because the UK's regional allies are being hit by missiles and drones from those sites. That's pretty clear evidence of both necessity, and justification for the decision.
Starmer has done a fairly poor job of advocating for that position, but it doesn't seem unreasonable to me (and I also thought it correct to deny the US use of our bases for the original attack).
Iran's widening of the conflict is also contrary to international law. Something the Greens and the left of Labour have conspicuously failed to note.
First Starmer refused British bases toTrump, thereby annoying part of the country, then U turned to join in the bombing, therefore annoying the rest.
It is all so Starmer to pick the worst route through a quagmire.
Trouble is, both those decisions were objectively right. "Not my circus" was obviously the right thing to do when the USA and Israel attacked Iran. The attack on Cyprus demands a response, but that response couldn't be pre-emptive.
In the end with Starmer it’s always about delivery. Slippery Tone would have talked his way out of it, Starmer with his leaden, quacking emphasis on key words for the hard of thinking couldn’t persuade an escape from a wet paper bag. Not ideal for a court room lawyer.
He wasn’t a court room lawyer more of a back room paper shuffler
According to Wiki Starmer defended people under threat of the death penalty in the Caribbean, what his success rate was idk. He also provided pro bono advice for the successful defendants in the McLibel case. I heard interviews with him at the time and he sounded relatively normal and genuinely idealistic & principled. Something’s gone wrong down the line.
I thought McLibel was his only courtroom experience but don’t know about the Caribbean work. Presumably that was in front of the judicial committee of the privy council so not normal court work though
Why does the US need UK bases to mount attacks on Iranian rocket sites, when it didn’t need them to assassinate the country’s leadership? Because the former requires heavy bunker-busting bombs?
Because the UK's regional allies are being hit by missiles and drones from those sites. That's pretty clear evidence of both necessity, and justification for the decision.
Starmer has done a fairly poor job of advocating for that position, but it doesn't seem unreasonable to me (and I also thought it correct to deny the US use of our bases for the original attack).
Iran's widening of the conflict is also contrary to international law. Something the Greens and the left of Labour have conspicuously failed to note.
First Starmer refused British bases toTrump, thereby annoying part of the country, then U turned to join in the bombing, therefore annoying the rest.
It is all so Starmer to pick the worst route through a quagmire.
Trouble is, both those decisions were objectively right. "Not my circus" was obviously the right thing to do when the USA and Israel attacked Iran. The attack on Cyprus demands a response, but that response couldn't be pre-emptive.
In the end with Starmer it’s always about delivery. Slippery Tone would have talked his way out of it, Starmer with his leaden, quacking emphasis on key words for the hard of thinking couldn’t persuade an escape from a wet paper bag. Not ideal for a court room lawyer.
He wasn’t a court room lawyer more of a back room paper shuffler
According to Wiki Starmer defended people under threat of the death penalty in the Caribbean, what his success rate was idk. He also provided pro bono advice for the successful defendants in the McLibel case. I heard interviews with him at the time and he sounded relatively normal and genuinely idealistic & principled. Something’s gone wrong down the line.
He was so good at his job at CPS that David Cameron arranged an extra ordinary Bonus payment and Pension provision.
He was so good as the leader of the Opposition that he picked Labour up by it;s bootstrps and went from no hoper to Government in 5 years.
Whislt he has clearly made errors as PM, his charachter assasination by right wing media has been relentless, disgusting and misses TWO massive relevant points - he's had to deal with 14 years SHIT SHOW Governance that destroyed the very fabric of our public services hollowed out and left useless and an economy destroyed in 7 weeks by TRUSS. Laid waste by Sunak and tax cuts that were not funded.
He'has then had to deal every day by the meglamaniac cnut in the White House.
When his time has ended as PM some actually proper and intuitive and responsible journalist might accept he's had the hardest transition since Attlee (the Nazis destoyed the UK fabric on that occasion not The Tories and Brexshit) and whilst he is certainly no Attlee is he certainly FAR BETTER than May , Boris . Truss , Sunak.
I see that this morning it is Cooper's turn to come out with the 'how dare they shoot back' nonsense.
I quite forgot she is our foreign secretary for a moment. Surely one of the most invisible presences from someone whose job description requires them to be out and about on the world stage.
Ukraine has demonstrated how vulnerable hydrocarbons plants are to drones. Iran's numerous ballistic missiles are an order of magnitude nastier.
There's an enormous oil storage facility in Fujaira. That would be an obvious target, as product exported from there doesn't have to transit the Strait of Hormuz.
They might start targeting the power and desalination plants too. That would give UAE a few problems.
I see that this morning it is Cooper's turn to come out with the 'how dare they shoot back' nonsense.
Well, they could have stuck to US and Israeli targets. You normally defend yourselves against the countries attacking, not lash out at anyone nearby
When at war, countries are inclined to do war-like things.
I don't think anyone can reasonably blame Iran for its response. The US and Israel need to have a plan to finish what they started.
Chopping a few heads off a hydra won't count as victory unless it is at least partly tamed going forward. These attacks are designed to demonstrate it is not yet tamed.
Comments
Is this refusal “hearsay” or is their actual evidence? A lot of news agencies caveat it when repeating it.
If Keir only manages one thing, I would like it to be getting the UK upgraded from "Little Satan" to -say- "Medium-Sized Satan".
What made me suspicious in the first place, when the Times first published it, it didn’t come across in the Times story as though told by the UK, it sounded like the US angle.
Surely the two countries were in constant discussions at all different levels, I don’t think the first time bases are asked to be used is in a Tuesday night FaceTime between the two leaders.
Starmer’s “offer” announced this evening but thrashed out much earlier, sounds voluntary to me, not result from a recent request.
Speaking of separatists, I wonder what the Iranian Kurds are upto right now
Hezbollah fired a barrage of missiles at Israel after midnight, according to Israeli security officials.
https://news.sky.com/story/iran-latest-israel-launches-preventative-attack-defence-minister-says-13509565#11176097
On the "they quote each other" - of course, circulation or clicks has been more important than accurate reporting since 2006, or possible 1896 when the Daily Mail started, or before that with the Spectator, Punch and the Georgian pamphlet publishers.
As I noted before, US bases are important for bringing in munitions for a sustained campaign, as they were at desert storm, and Diego Garcia is a secure storage location, unlike the USA Gulf bases.
So yes we need multiple sources and the statement from SKS to be sure.
IMO it is a bad mistake to get caught up in what remains a vanity war by Trump to distract from his political problems. If true, it is a bad decision by Starmer, especially. given our limited defence capability against attack drones.
Pres Trump told me tonight the US had identified possible candidates to take over Iran, but they were killed in the initial attack.
"The attack was so successful it knocked out most of the candidates," Trump told me. "It's not going to be anybody that we were thinking of because they are all dead. Second or third place is dead."
One thing I do note is the Right (including some on PB) picking up another fake narrative from MAGA. MAGA tries to paint democrats as "an alliance of marxists and islamists", which is now being used by the likes of Matt Goodwin and Farage post the Gorton and Denton byelection.
Goodwin and Farage have started using the "sectarian voting" line as they have referring back to the 2024 Election (which is tricky as Labour did not do well amongst Muslims in 2024), whilst Reform themselves own that description. Goodwin is trying to cover his backside, whilst Farage is groping for a line to get his supporters back in the silo.
There's nothing to stop Iran sending a Ukraine War style salvo of 100 or 200 Shahed drones at Akrotiri, never mind the one or two possible "sighting shots" we have had. AFAIK the base is not even hardened. The distance is only about 1000 miles.
One hopes that land-based Dragonfire has been under development.
Roads are eerily quiet, as schools have been closed and everyone told to work from home where possible today and tomorrow.
They’re cheap ($80k) and plentiful (possibly 50k of them in stock), designed not so much for causing damage on the ground (they don’t have massive warheads), but to exhaust the air defence capabilities of the enemy.
https://x.com/modgovae/status/2028218651292393920
https://x.com/jonkarl/status/2028299468223676673?s=61&t=LYVEHh2mqFy1oUJAdCfe-Q
Local military here all working very well so far.
If anyone does know of anyone in the Gulf, the Foreign Office are encouraging people, especially tourists to register with them.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/foreign-office-travel-advice-updates
At the moment there’s some airspace open in Saudi and Oman, and stories of people travelling over land to leave UAE, Bahrain, Qatar. A lot of multinational companies will have well-rehearsed contingency plans for this sort of event, which we all knew would come one day!
Link below
https://vf.politicalbetting.com/discussion/comment/4816219/#Comment_4816219
It’s not a grey area as we don’t have presidential elections, for obvious reasons, and referenda in Ireland are required to change the constitution which is, again, a requirement we don’t have. Ours are ad hoc.
Also, saying Irish citizens can’t vote in UK elections requires everyone in Northern Ireland to identify (at least impliedly) as British.
Sometimes you are wrong. Just accept it. Passage of time after it having been explained to you doesn’t make you magically right again,
Israeli aircraft now operating in Iranian airspace. US deployed B-2s to strike underground ballistic missile sites. Hearing from US sources Shaheds are so far the most dangerous threat. They’re getting through AD.
https://x.com/michaeldweiss/status/2028128216561430896
The greater problem is if the bombardment is months (or years) long, rather than a few days.
And the worst defended base in the region is possibly ours on Cyprus.
I did accept it then, and I accept it now. Sorry I forgot a conversation from 2 years ago.
I'm shocked. Shocked, I tell you.
I don't remember what my wife or kids told me five minutes ago, let alone two years ago.
Since moving the site to Cloudflare, I now get really good analytics on the number of people who visit the site, where they come from and how long they stay.
In total, we get about 13,000 unique users per daym and about 30,000 a month. That's obviously peanuts compared to the BBC, but given that the average time on site is about 65 minutes and involves 12 page views there are a lot of people reading the threads.
The number one IP address is resolves to News International in London. The second is the Houses of Parliament (although I suspect more staffers than MPs and Lords). I haven't cross references posters IP addresses with News International yet, but when I get bored I will do that :-).
Iran is not a top 10 country, with the UK and the US accounting for about 90% of traffic. Bizarrely we do get a handful of regular visitors from North Korea.
And you've had a bad day, everyone is dead
Everyone is dead, now you are the king
The modern curse must be ‘may you never star in your own disaster movie’
That's pretty clear evidence of both necessity, and justification for the decision.
Starmer has done a fairly poor job of advocating for that position, but it doesn't seem unreasonable to me (and I also thought it correct to deny the US use of our bases for the original attack).
Iran's widening of the conflict is also contrary to international law. Something the Greens and the left of Labour have conspicuously failed to note.
Was he lying ?
It is all so Starmer to pick the worst route through a quagmire.
Some Trumpite dick on R4 saying the fact that Iran fired off missiles and drones after being struck multiple times and having its leadership killed is proof that it was about to do this in any case.
It’s logic Jim, but not as we know it.
But it's actually not unreasonable.
"Not my circus" was obviously the right thing to do when the USA and Israel attacked Iran. The attack on Cyprus demands a response, but that response couldn't be pre-emptive.
https://x.com/watcherguru/status/2028368374787440764?s=61
We weren't dragged in by the Cypress attack (which I believe happened shortly after Starmer's decision) but rather by the (illegal) attacks on various gulf states.
The maddest thing about all of this is that the official causus belli (Iran's nuclear ambitions) is only a thing because Trump set aside the agreement Obama negotiated (one of the latter's very few foreign policy successes).
Not ideal for a court room lawyer.
A good chunk (most?) of its population are very religious and have no problem with absolute repression, brutal punishments, a low to low-medium standard of living, very little freedom, and being an international pariah, provided they can chant death to the great Satan and attack Israel and the West regularly. Seems to be popular.
The Shah's son, whilst undoubtedly wanting reform and representing progress, I bet would still resort to some sort of repression - just as the last one did - because how else would he stop the mad mullahs and Islamists from assassinating him or being re-elected almost straight away? Particularly since so many Iranian exiles who'd back him have since left.
It's difficult to know what to do.
Unbrainwash their people's minds would be a start.
A bit like seeking a political party leadership when there isn't a vacancy. Of course Wes and Andy want it, and if course they are prepared to lie about it. The political game requires it.
Lying is just another strategy which many people use to their advantage. I don't know why people get so surprised or upset about it. I used to work at the Jobcentre and many of my clients lied to me, often for trivial reasons. It's just something some people do.
In any case, you are *supposed* to lie to the enemy during wartime, sometimes that means lying to the rest of us. So Netanyahu is perfectly correct to be prepared to lie on Radio 4 about his war aims. I hope Starmer is too, where there is military advantage in it.
(I have offered "just cycle to work" but this sensible advice has met with a certain degree of white-hot fury)
ETA I see you're awake. Congratulations on not being nuked in the night.
"Reform will leave the ECHR and repeal or "disapply" all other rights treaties to bar all asylum claims and ensure migrants who arrive without authorization are deported, he added. It will scale up the capacity of detention facilities and secure deals with countries including Afghanistan, Eritrea and Iran to return migrants, Farage said, without offering details.
Asked about the prospect of asylum-seekers being tortured or killed if they were sent back to countries they fled, Farage said: "The alternative is to do nothing ... We cannot be responsible for all the sins that take place around the world.""
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/uks-hard-right-reform-party-pledges-mass-deportations-if-it-wins-power
I'd recommend it even for non gamers as it's really just a choose your own adventure story. A secondary campaign involves taking on a traditional monarchy in a gas producing region dealing with crazy dictators, and an Iranian style theocracy.
It was over $110 back in 2022, for context. Future direction all depends on how sustained this war is.
He also provided pro bono advice for the successful defendants in the McLibel case. I heard interviews with him at the time and he sounded relatively normal and genuinely idealistic & principled. Something’s gone wrong down the line.
Conflicting reports about who exactly fired on it
My understanding, partial as it is, is that the 1979 revolution was driven as much by secular leftists and centrists wanting rid of the Shah as it was the mad mullahs. The latter were seen as a moral alternative that could be kept in a box, until they leapt out of their box and went very immoral themselves.
Since then my anecdotal understanding has always been that there has been a surface of radical religion underneath which a much more rich, secular society operated quite freely.
One anecdotal example is that there is, by all accounts, a thriving underground techno scene in Tehran: https://mixmag.net/feature/10-djs-of-iranian-descent-you-need-to-know. Dubfire, an Iranian DJ, was one of the world's best known back in the 2010s. Hardly fundamentalist.
If I'm right, then we might see the edifice of religious power crumble rather quickly. Which is why I'm just a tiny bit more hopeful about this roll of the dice than others.
It may be a simple translation error relating to the incident we've seen, but the Kuwaiti military are reporting multiple US jets have crashed within its territory this morning, though all crews are reportedly accounted for.
Ukraine has demonstrated how vulnerable hydrocarbons plants are to drones. Iran's numerous ballistic missiles are an order of magnitude nastier.
He was so good as the leader of the Opposition that he picked Labour up by it;s bootstrps and went from no hoper to Government in 5 years.
Whislt he has clearly made errors as PM, his charachter assasination by right wing media has been relentless, disgusting and misses TWO massive relevant points - he's had to deal with 14 years SHIT SHOW Governance that destroyed the very fabric of our public services hollowed out and left useless and an economy destroyed in 7 weeks by TRUSS. Laid waste by Sunak and tax cuts that were not funded.
He'has then had to deal every day by the meglamaniac cnut in the White House.
When his time has ended as PM some actually proper and intuitive and responsible journalist might accept he's had the hardest transition since Attlee (the Nazis destoyed the UK fabric on that occasion not The Tories and Brexshit) and whilst he is certainly no Attlee is he certainly FAR BETTER than May , Boris . Truss , Sunak.
They might start targeting the power and desalination plants too. That would give UAE a few problems.
I don't think anyone can reasonably blame Iran for its response. The US and Israel need to have a plan to finish what they started.
Chopping a few heads off a hydra won't count as victory unless it is at least partly tamed going forward. These attacks are designed to demonstrate it is not yet tamed.