Skip to content

Punters think we will have a ceasefire by the end of April but Polymarket and others might soon lose

SystemSystem Posts: 12,979
edited 3:36PM in General
Punters think we will have a ceasefire by the end of April but Polymarket and others might soon lose their predictive value– politicalbetting.com

TSE

Read the full story here

«13

Comments

  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 90,195
    edited 3:36PM
    By "punters" do we actually mean people whose surname definitely don't start with Tru and end with Mp.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 134,414
    Only if Iran agrees to Trump's terms or a new moderate regime has completely replaced the old one led by the now deceased Ayatollah
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 126,584
    I picked the wrong week to stop sniffing glue come back to work after a two and a half week holiday.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 90,195
    edited 3:38PM
    Starmer making a big deal that no US action allowed from RAF base in Cyprus.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 54,445
    Markets today seem to be taking it in their stride
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 57,758
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    I picked the wrong week to stop sniffing glue come back to work after a two and a half week holiday.

    Airplane. Brilliant film.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 57,923
    https://x.com/JasonGroves1/status/2028454075059101845

    No 10 says Keir Starmer’s commitment to upholding international law is ‘iron clad’
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 57,758
    Even a war just sounds interminably boring in his hands. As he meanders from cliche to cliche you lose the will to live.
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 16,046
    Labour need to get this cuckoo out of the nest. Fast.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 60,284
    War, what war?
  • novanova Posts: 940
    DavidL said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    I picked the wrong week to stop sniffing glue come back to work after a two and a half week holiday.

    Airplane. Brilliant film.
    Have you seen the side by side video of Airplane with Zero Hour, the original film they parodied? It's remarkable just how many lines were taken word for word.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 57,758
    nova said:

    DavidL said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    I picked the wrong week to stop sniffing glue come back to work after a two and a half week holiday.

    Airplane. Brilliant film.
    Have you seen the side by side video of Airplane with Zero Hour, the original film they parodied? It's remarkable just how many lines were taken word for word.
    No, that sounds fun.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 54,445
    edited 3:51PM
    Kemi putting the Tories firmly behind Trump’s Middle East war. *bold*, given the absence of any sign that the Americans know what they are trying to achieve.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 86,741
    nova said:

    DavidL said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    I picked the wrong week to stop sniffing glue come back to work after a two and a half week holiday.

    Airplane. Brilliant film.
    Have you seen the side by side video of Airplane with Zero Hour, the original film they parodied? It's remarkable just how many lines were taken word for word.
    Try the fish.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 37,741
    FrancisUrquhart said:

    By "punters" do we actually mean people whose surname definitely don't start with Tru and end with Mp.

    There has been much talking of insider trading at MAGA HQ.

    I am not sure even Trump, Miller and Hegseth understand when this ends.

    Trump's best bet is to take he decapitation of the Ayatollah win and contest that as his only goal. I thought he'd already got the nuclear stuff buttoned down last June.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 37,741
    edited 3:55PM
    Sweeney74 said:

    Why is it that under this government "international law" is always against our national interest - Kemi

    With all due respect, what an absolutely stupid statement from the LOTO.

    Starmer may be way out of his depth but this woman has zero gravitas.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 19,133
    IanB2 said:

    Kemi putting the Tories firmly behind Trump’s Middle East war. *bold*, given the absence of any sign that the Americans know what they are trying to achieve.

    The Americans know what they are trying to achieve. Some good headlines, their middle eastern allies liking them, and the Trump family being personally enriched.
  • Sweeney74Sweeney74 Posts: 175
    Mexicanpete said:

    Sweeney74 said:

    Why is it that under this government "international law" is always against our national interest - Kemi

    With all due respect, what an absolutely stupid statement from the LOTO.
    vibes, though
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 70,443
    Starmer is right.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 58,154
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    I picked the wrong week to stop sniffing glue come back to work after a two and a half week holiday.

    JUST KIDDING!
  • nico67nico67 Posts: 7,129
    Hardly a fan of Starmer but he’s done quite well so far .

    Kemi might regret jumping all in with the USA and Israel.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 37,741
    Sweeney74 said:

    Mexicanpete said:

    Sweeney74 said:

    Why is it that under this government "international law" is always against our national interest - Kemi

    With all due respect, what an absolutely stupid statement from the LOTO.
    vibes, though
    Well I don't think so when Starmer's biggest kicking is for allowing Fairford and Diego Garcia for future missions on Iran. The public seemed relatively content at his refusal.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 19,133
    Sweeney74 said:

    Why is it that under this government "international law" is always against our national interest - Kemi

    It isn't. It's just nobody notices and/or complains when it's in our national interest, which it often is.
  • numbertwelvenumbertwelve Posts: 8,818
    Ed Davey’s Donald Trump Bingo in full swing
  • Brixian59Brixian59 Posts: 1,021
    IanB2 said:

    Kemi putting the Tories firmly behind Trump’s Middle East war. *bold*, given the absence of any sign that the Americans know what they are trying to achieve.

    I've just read what she has said.

    Verbal diarrhoea is one term.

    The fact her mouth is always seconds in front of what brain she has never better evidenced.

    Unequivocally supporting USA and Israel without explaining why, blaming Muslim voters for influencing the left wing people Parliament is full of, and grandstanding the fact that she would not see a Commons Vote to go to War if she thought she would lose if frankly the political dynamite stick that should be crammed up her ass for infinity.

    Not fit to hold a once great office, totally ignoring international law, not only that, confirming she would completely ignore it.

    She made this speech outside of the House, I suspect if she makes it inside the One Nation Tories will have their head in their hands.

    She's clearly decided she wants to be farbti the right of Farage

    Genuine one nation decent Tories will surely be horrified at this utter gobshite.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 57,923
    nico67 said:

    Hardly a fan of Starmer but he’s done quite well so far .

    Kemi might regret jumping all in with the USA and Israel.

    He's trying to face both ways at once by implying that Trump acted illegally but then supporting further strikes. He's turning international law into a joke.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 9,134
    Feels like classic Starmer to thread the needle and find a compromise that keeps everyone unhappy.

    Badenoch reminding us that she isn't a serious figure.
  • Brixian59Brixian59 Posts: 1,021
    wooliedyed said:

    Labour need to get this cuckoo out of the nest. Fast.

    We certainly don't want war mad Kemikazie in charge.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 37,741
    rottenborough said:

    Starmer is right.

    In whatever context you have in mind I guarantee Urquhart and Woolie will disagree.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 58,154
    rkrkrk said:

    Feels like classic Starmer to thread the needle and find a compromise that keeps everyone unhappy.

    Badenoch reminding us that she isn't a serious figure.

    Ace Starmer - what a guy!
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 16,046
    Mexicanpete said:

    rottenborough said:

    Starmer is right.

    In whatever context you have in mind I guarantee Urquhart and Woolie will disagree.
    Shouldn't you be busy checking under the bed for Tories?
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 37,741
    wooliedyed said:

    Mexicanpete said:

    rottenborough said:

    Starmer is right.

    In whatever context you have in mind I guarantee Urquhart and Woolie will disagree.
    Shouldn't you be busy checking under the bed for Tories?
    No need I can detect their aroma a mile off.
  • Sweeney74Sweeney74 Posts: 175
    let me get this right, so we've allowed the US to use our bases for defensive operations only, and those defensive operations include strikes in Iran to remove the capability to launch attacks... SKS just said as much.
    Sounds like offensive operations to me. Dancing on the head of a pin.
  • numbertwelvenumbertwelve Posts: 8,818
    rkrkrk said:

    Feels like classic Starmer to thread the needle and find a compromise that keeps everyone unhappy.

    Badenoch reminding us that she isn't a serious figure.

    I think Starmer has this broadly right. Still, he manages to sound completely leaden and infuriating even when defending perfectly sensible policy decisions.

  • AnneJGPAnneJGP Posts: 4,867
    rottenborough said:

    IanB2 said:

    Kemi putting the Tories firmly behind Trump’s Middle East war. *bold*, given the absence of any sign that the Americans know what they are trying to achieve.

    The complete lack of a plan or strategy or exit criteria is a red line, legal or not.
    Mr Trump's track record suggests to me that he needs no plan or strategy or exit criteria, he starts something when he thinks he will and stops/changes direction when he thinks he will.
  • nico67nico67 Posts: 7,129
    Sweeney74 said:

    let me get this right, so we've allowed the US to use our bases for defensive operations only, and those defensive operations include strikes in Iran to remove the capability to launch attacks... SKS just said as much.
    Sounds like offensive operations to me. Dancing on the head of a pin.

    It will be interesting to see the legal advice when it’s published .
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 70,443
    When this Iranian adventure goes very badly wrong Kemi's lot are going to bitterly regret today.
  • nico67nico67 Posts: 7,129
    edited 4:07PM
    rottenborough said:

    When this Iranian adventure goes very badly wrong Kemi's lot are going to bitterly regret today.

    Even some of her own backbenchers don’t seem convinced .
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 70,443
    nico67 said:

    rottenborough said:

    When this Iranian adventure goes very badly wrong Kemi's lot are going to bitterly regret today.

    Even her own backbenchers don’t seem convinced .
    Edward Leigh certainly doesn't
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 37,741
    Whataboutery corner.

    When one considers what Farage, Badenoch, Truss, Johnson and even Blair would have done under similar circumstances (most probably provided RAF air resources) by comparison Starmer is a least on a 5/10 to their 0/10.
  • eekeek Posts: 32,694
    rottenborough said:

    When this Iranian adventure goes very badly wrong Kemi's lot are going to bitterly regret today.

    It went wrong when Israel managed to take out most of the obvious replacements in their first strike
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 70,138
    Starmer made his case well, but it remains he should have approved the US request earlier

    Kemi made the point Canada and Australia gave immediate and unconditional support of the US and Israel action

    I doubt it will help Starmer as he is caught in the middle of two different positions

    Anyway a better debate than expected but the whole subject is entirely unpredictable
  • FishingFishing Posts: 6,103
    Brixian59 said:

    wooliedyed said:

    Labour need to get this cuckoo out of the nest. Fast.

    We certainly don't want war mad Kemikazie in charge.
    So which Starmer do you want in charge instead? The one who refused the US permission to use our bases, or the one who joined in a few hours later?

    He manages to be slippery, indecisive, out of his depth and incompetent in the space of a couple of days.

    So no change there.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 41,306
    I think if Pehlavi wants to be the legitimate leader of Iran he actually needs to cut a deal with Israel and the US now to physically return with thousands of guns and support for air strikes to arm and back the rebels and protestors against the IRGC.

    Carping from the sidelines is one thing, actually bringing about a revolution is another. Without an actual leader who is accepted by the people the movement for freedom will go nowhere and without guns it won't even get started.

    In historical terms, this is the moment Iran needs heroes to be made not just talk.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 61,152
    Sweeney74 said:

    let me get this right, so we've allowed the US to use our bases for defensive operations only, and those defensive operations include strikes in Iran to remove the capability to launch attacks... SKS just said as much.
    Sounds like offensive operations to me. Dancing on the head of a pin.

    Indeed.

    This photos has both defensive and offensive JDAMS in it. Can you spot which one is which?


  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 16,046
    rottenborough said:

    nico67 said:

    rottenborough said:

    When this Iranian adventure goes very badly wrong Kemi's lot are going to bitterly regret today.

    Even her own backbenchers don’t seem convinced .
    Edward Leigh certainly doesn't
    We saw similar re Iraq - Malcolm Rifkind the most prominent dissenter
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 57,758
    Sweeney74 said:

    Mexicanpete said:

    Sweeney74 said:

    Why is it that under this government "international law" is always against our national interest - Kemi

    With all due respect, what an absolutely stupid statement from the LOTO.
    vibes, though
    She's chosen a side and, in fairness, she is not alone in doing so. Carney and Albanese have done the same.

    Starmer's position is a lot more nuanced. He refused to take part in the initial raids but is willing to support and take part in defensive measures when Iran tries to fight back. He says our consent is for "defensive actions" but when these "defensive actions" include trying to destroy Iranian missiles in Iran that doesn't make a lot of sense.

    FWIW (and that is not a lot) I am with Starmer rather than her on this. The attacks were illegal, dangerous and ill thought through (if there was any thinking at all). We were right not to take part and if that puts us in the metaphorical dog house with Trump I am immensely relaxed about that. But I don't think that Kemi's position is "absolutely stupid", even if I don't agree with it.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 37,741
    rottenborough said:

    When this Iranian adventure goes very badly wrong Kemi's lot are going to bitterly regret today.

    She says she never makes errors. What she says or does has no bearing on events so she can just brazenly deny it later. No one was listening anyway.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 22,333
    nico67 said:

    rottenborough said:

    When this Iranian adventure goes very badly wrong Kemi's lot are going to bitterly regret today.

    Even her own backbenchers don’t seem convinced .
    Did I hear a poll on Alastair Campbell's podcast saying something like 30% approved and 65% disapproved of the invasion? I think I've got it wrong. I was travelling The disapprove number must be higher than that.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 126,584
    @Malmesbury

    It’s a limit of one picture per day!
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 57,923
    rottenborough said:

    When this Iranian adventure goes very badly wrong Kemi's lot are going to bitterly regret today.

    On one level, declaring war on Germany in 1939 went badly wrong, but we don't look upon the people who were against it with any fondness now.
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 15,208
    Brixian59 said:

    IanB2 said:

    Kemi putting the Tories firmly behind Trump’s Middle East war. *bold*, given the absence of any sign that the Americans know what they are trying to achieve.

    I've just read what she has said.

    Verbal diarrhoea is one term.

    The fact her mouth is always seconds in front of what brain she has never better evidenced.

    Unequivocally supporting USA and Israel without explaining why, blaming Muslim voters for influencing the left wing people Parliament is full of, and grandstanding the fact that she would not see a Commons Vote to go to War if she thought she would lose if frankly the political dynamite stick that should be crammed up her ass for infinity.

    Not fit to hold a once great office, totally ignoring international law, not only that, confirming she would completely ignore it.

    She made this speech outside of the House, I suspect if she makes it inside the One Nation Tories will have their head in their hands.

    She's clearly decided she wants to be farbti the right of Farage

    Genuine one nation decent Tories will surely be horrified at this utter gobshite.
    So you agree with Starmer - there is such a thing as defensive bombing of Iran - its armouries, its security apparatus, its abilities to defend itself - that is so clearly distinct from an offensive bombing raid?

    Or that BBRRRRRRRRRMMMMM over the top of you, I think that must have been a mirage.
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 17,891
    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2026/feb/27/ramadan-muslim-briton-headline-threat-stereotype
  • Brixian59Brixian59 Posts: 1,021
    DavidL said:

    Sweeney74 said:

    Mexicanpete said:

    Sweeney74 said:

    Why is it that under this government "international law" is always against our national interest - Kemi

    With all due respect, what an absolutely stupid statement from the LOTO.
    vibes, though
    She's chosen a side and, in fairness, she is not alone in doing so. Carney and Albanese have done the same.

    Starmer's position is a lot more nuanced. He refused to take part in the initial raids but is willing to support and take part in defensive measures when Iran tries to fight back. He says our consent is for "defensive actions" but when these "defensive actions" include trying to destroy Iranian missiles in Iran that doesn't make a lot of sense.

    FWIW (and that is not a lot) I am with Starmer rather than her on this. The attacks were illegal, dangerous and ill thought through (if there was any thinking at all). We were right not to take part and if that puts us in the metaphorical dog house with Trump I am immensely relaxed about that. But I don't think that Kemi's position is "absolutely stupid", even if I don't agree with it.
    The fundamental difference with Carney and Albanase is that they reached their current position is stages, as has Starmer.

    Badenoch would be all in feet first.

    I have to say I do wonder who is leading the Tory Party Badenoch or the MP for Tel Avv who has already been banged to rights for passing confidential information to Netanyahu. A crime she was found guilty of by Independent Commons ombudsman.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 57,923
    MoonRabbit said:

    Brixian59 said:

    IanB2 said:

    Kemi putting the Tories firmly behind Trump’s Middle East war. *bold*, given the absence of any sign that the Americans know what they are trying to achieve.

    I've just read what she has said.

    Verbal diarrhoea is one term.

    The fact her mouth is always seconds in front of what brain she has never better evidenced.

    Unequivocally supporting USA and Israel without explaining why, blaming Muslim voters for influencing the left wing people Parliament is full of, and grandstanding the fact that she would not see a Commons Vote to go to War if she thought she would lose if frankly the political dynamite stick that should be crammed up her ass for infinity.

    Not fit to hold a once great office, totally ignoring international law, not only that, confirming she would completely ignore it.

    She made this speech outside of the House, I suspect if she makes it inside the One Nation Tories will have their head in their hands.

    She's clearly decided she wants to be farbti the right of Farage

    Genuine one nation decent Tories will surely be horrified at this utter gobshite.
    So you agree with Starmer - there is such a thing as defensive bombing of Iran - its armouries, its security apparatus, its abilities to defend itself - that is so clearly distinct from an offensive bombing raid?

    Or that BBRRRRRRRRRMMMMM over the top of you, I think that must have been a mirage.
    Theo argument doesn’t depend on the choice of targets but only on the order of operations.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 61,152
    MoonRabbit said:

    Brixian59 said:

    IanB2 said:

    Kemi putting the Tories firmly behind Trump’s Middle East war. *bold*, given the absence of any sign that the Americans know what they are trying to achieve.

    I've just read what she has said.

    Verbal diarrhoea is one term.

    The fact her mouth is always seconds in front of what brain she has never better evidenced.

    Unequivocally supporting USA and Israel without explaining why, blaming Muslim voters for influencing the left wing people Parliament is full of, and grandstanding the fact that she would not see a Commons Vote to go to War if she thought she would lose if frankly the political dynamite stick that should be crammed up her ass for infinity.

    Not fit to hold a once great office, totally ignoring international law, not only that, confirming she would completely ignore it.

    She made this speech outside of the House, I suspect if she makes it inside the One Nation Tories will have their head in their hands.

    She's clearly decided she wants to be farbti the right of Farage

    Genuine one nation decent Tories will surely be horrified at this utter gobshite.
    So you agree with Starmer - there is such a thing as defensive bombing of Iran - its armouries, its security apparatus, its abilities to defend itself - that is so clearly distinct from an offensive bombing raid?

    Or that BBRRRRRRRRRMMMMM over the top of you, I think that must have been a mirage.
    Do keep up - the defensive bombs will have "Defensive Use Only" paperwork zip tied to them.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 61,152
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    @Malmesbury

    It’s a limit of one picture per day!

    Sorry
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 37,741
    Big_G_NorthWales said:



    Kemi made the point Canada and Australia gave immediate and unconditional support of the US and Israel action

    I doubt it will help Starmer as he is caught in the middle of two different positions

    Anyway a better debate than expected but the whole subject is entirely unpredictable

    "Starmer made his case well, but it remains he should have approved the US request earlier"

    No he shouldn't.

    I would question whether Fairford should still be off limits. Now one could argue what Starmer has claimed, but I still think it weak but justification could be argued. No UK justification could be offered for Operation Epstein Fury.
  • Brixian59Brixian59 Posts: 1,021
    Fishing said:

    Brixian59 said:

    wooliedyed said:

    Labour need to get this cuckoo out of the nest. Fast.

    We certainly don't want war mad Kemikazie in charge.
    So which Starmer do you want in charge instead? The one who refused the US permission to use our bases, or the one who joined in a few hours later?

    He manages to be slippery, indecisive, out of his depth and incompetent in the space of a couple of days.

    So no change there.
    Fishing said:

    Brixian59 said:

    wooliedyed said:

    Labour need to get this cuckoo out of the nest. Fast.

    We certainly don't want war mad Kemikazie in charge.
    So which Starmer do you want in charge instead? The one who refused the US permission to use our bases, or the one who joined in a few hours later?

    He manages to be slippery, indecisive, out of his depth and incompetent in the space of a couple of days.

    So no change there.
    Clearly you fail to grasp the fact that in matters are fluid and you have to react.

  • Sweeney74Sweeney74 Posts: 175
    williamglenn said:

    nico67 said:

    Hardly a fan of Starmer but he’s done quite well so far .

    Kemi might regret jumping all in with the USA and Israel.

    He's trying to face both ways at once by implying that Trump acted illegally but then supporting further strikes. He's turning international law into a joke.
    International law isn’t a joke because Starmer’s inconsistent. It’s a joke because enforcement depends on who’s got the aircraft carriers.
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 15,208
    AnneJGP said:

    rottenborough said:

    IanB2 said:

    Kemi putting the Tories firmly behind Trump’s Middle East war. *bold*, given the absence of any sign that the Americans know what they are trying to achieve.

    The complete lack of a plan or strategy or exit criteria is a red line, legal or not.
    Mr Trump's track record suggests to me that he needs no plan or strategy or exit criteria, he starts something when he thinks he will and stops/changes direction when he thinks he will.
    I think Trump as someone who doesn’t worry about elections, or legacy in history books. Novel position in politics.

    So what is the motivation behind all his decisions, if it’s not the kerching of a cash till.
  • Brixian59Brixian59 Posts: 1,021
    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    Starmer made his case well, but it remains he should have approved the US request earlier

    Kemi made the point Canada and Australia gave immediate and unconditional support of the US and Israel action

    I doubt it will help Starmer as he is caught in the middle of two different positions

    Anyway a better debate than expected but the whole subject is entirely unpredictable

    For the umpteenth time Canada and Australia initially were same as UK
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 70,138
    My question is what is the difference in this between defensive and offensive action ?

    If you assume Starmer refused the US permission to use British bases to attack Iran was defensive, but 24 hours later changed his view to allow the US to take offensive action from them

    As others have said Starmer is dancing on a pin head
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 57,758
    Brixian59 said:

    DavidL said:

    Sweeney74 said:

    Mexicanpete said:

    Sweeney74 said:

    Why is it that under this government "international law" is always against our national interest - Kemi

    With all due respect, what an absolutely stupid statement from the LOTO.
    vibes, though
    She's chosen a side and, in fairness, she is not alone in doing so. Carney and Albanese have done the same.

    Starmer's position is a lot more nuanced. He refused to take part in the initial raids but is willing to support and take part in defensive measures when Iran tries to fight back. He says our consent is for "defensive actions" but when these "defensive actions" include trying to destroy Iranian missiles in Iran that doesn't make a lot of sense.

    FWIW (and that is not a lot) I am with Starmer rather than her on this. The attacks were illegal, dangerous and ill thought through (if there was any thinking at all). We were right not to take part and if that puts us in the metaphorical dog house with Trump I am immensely relaxed about that. But I don't think that Kemi's position is "absolutely stupid", even if I don't agree with it.
    The fundamental difference with Carney and Albanase is that they reached their current position is stages, as has Starmer.

    Badenoch would be all in feet first.

    I have to say I do wonder who is leading the Tory Party Badenoch or the MP for Tel Avv who has already been banged to rights for passing confidential information to Netanyahu. A crime she was found guilty of by Independent Commons ombudsman.
    What stages? They supported the attacks and their support was unequivocal without a legal justification and without any knowledge of a plan (since it doesn't seem to even exist yet). A surprising line, to be honest. And more consistent with Kemi than with Starmer. You are trying to suggest Badenoch is isolated. She is not. Whether that is right or wrong.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 22,333
    nico67 said:

    Sweeney74 said:

    let me get this right, so we've allowed the US to use our bases for defensive operations only, and those defensive operations include strikes in Iran to remove the capability to launch attacks... SKS just said as much.
    Sounds like offensive operations to me. Dancing on the head of a pin.

    It will be interesting to see the legal advice when it’s published .
    or maybe we'll get a parent whose son gets killed following Starmer around as happened to Blair after his illegal lraq adventure
  • FossFoss Posts: 2,430
    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    My question is what is the difference in this between defensive and offensive action ?

    If you assume Starmer refused the US permission to use British bases to attack Iran was defensive, but 24 hours later changed his view to allow the US to take offensive action from them

    As others have said Starmer is dancing on a pin head

    The difference between an offensive and defensive action is that Starmer thinks he can retain more of the Islamist and Islamist-adjacent vote with the latter.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 61,152
    Sweeney74 said:

    williamglenn said:

    nico67 said:

    Hardly a fan of Starmer but he’s done quite well so far .

    Kemi might regret jumping all in with the USA and Israel.

    He's trying to face both ways at once by implying that Trump acted illegally but then supporting further strikes. He's turning international law into a joke.
    International law isn’t a joke because Starmer’s inconsistent. It’s a joke because enforcement depends on who’s got the aircraft carriers.
    International law isn't a joke because of that. It just depends on something other than abstract morality - the biggest stick

    For most of history, that's how it worked.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 42,679
    @adamjschwarz.bsky.social‬

    Lib Dem Leader Ed Davey:

    "Tax exiles like Isabel Oakeshott and washed up old footballers who mock ordinary people who stay in the UK and pay our taxes... As we protect them, it's only right for tax exiles to start paying taxes to fund our armed forces, just like the rest of us".

    https://bsky.app/profile/adamjschwarz.bsky.social/post/3mg3ng53yos2i
  • BatteryCorrectHorseBatteryCorrectHorse Posts: 5,232
    Starmer seems to have accidentally played this quite well. Badenoch’s position is inexplicable and she’d been doing quite well of late.
  • Jim_the_LurkerJim_the_Lurker Posts: 261
    DavidL said:

    Sweeney74 said:

    Mexicanpete said:

    Sweeney74 said:

    Why is it that under this government "international law" is always against our national interest - Kemi

    With all due respect, what an absolutely stupid statement from the LOTO.
    vibes, though
    She's chosen a side and, in fairness, she is not alone in doing so. Carney and Albanese have done the same.

    Starmer's position is a lot more nuanced. He refused to take part in the initial raids but is willing to support and take part in defensive measures when Iran tries to fight back. He says our consent is for "defensive actions" but when these "defensive actions" include trying to destroy Iranian missiles in Iran that doesn't make a lot of sense.

    FWIW (and that is not a lot) I am with Starmer rather than her on this. The attacks were illegal, dangerous and ill thought through (if there was any thinking at all). We were right not to take part and if that puts us in the metaphorical dog house with Trump I am immensely relaxed about that. But I don't think that Kemi's position is "absolutely stupid", even if I don't agree with it.
    I appreciate that Prime Minister Carney and Albanese have backed the strikes - but what exactly does their support entail? As far as I am aware it is more warm words than material support (albeit am sure they will probably be peripheral support on intel / etc.). The UK’s support would have been material from the get go - the bombers would be flying from British territory.

    Whatever we all may think about Prime Minister Starmer’s position - defensive missiles only here - ultimately he was in a tighter spot. And he, probably sensibly, has retreated to his comfort zone; the law.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 70,138
    edited 4:24PM
    Brixian59 said:

    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    Starmer made his case well, but it remains he should have approved the US request earlier

    Kemi made the point Canada and Australia gave immediate and unconditional support of the US and Israel action

    I doubt it will help Starmer as he is caught in the middle of two different positions

    Anyway a better debate than expected but the whole subject is entirely unpredictable

    For the umpteenth time Canada and Australia initially were same as UK
    And for the umpteenth time you are wrong

    https://nationalpost.com/opinion/michael-higgins-carney-meets-the-moment-backs-trump-against-iran

  • Sweeney74Sweeney74 Posts: 175
    Malmesbury said:

    Sweeney74 said:

    williamglenn said:

    nico67 said:

    Hardly a fan of Starmer but he’s done quite well so far .

    Kemi might regret jumping all in with the USA and Israel.

    He's trying to face both ways at once by implying that Trump acted illegally but then supporting further strikes. He's turning international law into a joke.
    International law isn’t a joke because Starmer’s inconsistent. It’s a joke because enforcement depends on who’s got the aircraft carriers.
    International law isn't a joke because of that. It just depends on something other than abstract morality - the biggest stick

    For most of history, that's how it worked.
    quite, hence my aircraft carriers quip
  • BatteryCorrectHorseBatteryCorrectHorse Posts: 5,232
    If Dan Hodges is backing Starmer then Labour has got this wrong in the theatre of public opinion.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 66,854
    Ooh. I’ve just been invited to hang out with gorillas in Africa


    I’ve said yes. Hope they’re friendly
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 15,208
    nico67 said:

    Sweeney74 said:

    let me get this right, so we've allowed the US to use our bases for defensive operations only, and those defensive operations include strikes in Iran to remove the capability to launch attacks... SKS just said as much.
    Sounds like offensive operations to me. Dancing on the head of a pin.

    It will be interesting to see the legal advice when it’s published .
    In his boring way, Starmer mopped a lot of questions up.

    This was a new request from the USA, to use bases solely for defensive bombing.

    He didn’t make clear at what point he knew it was legal to use the basis for defensive bombing.

    And it’s just “legal opinion” we havn’t heard yet from those who write these laws whether Starmer and the UK are now in breach of the law - which Pirates like Barty and Kemi say isn’t important anyway, but I say it’s fundamental to the hill Starmer has chosen to die on.

    I can see Starmer getting in a lot of trouble from this statement this afternoon. I think this can force him out of office by the summer now.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 57,758
    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    Brixian59 said:

    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    Starmer made his case well, but it remains he should have approved the US request earlier

    Kemi made the point Canada and Australia gave immediate and unconditional support of the US and Israel action

    I doubt it will help Starmer as he is caught in the middle of two different positions

    Anyway a better debate than expected but the whole subject is entirely unpredictable

    For the umpteenth time Canada and Australia initially were same as UK
    And for the umpteenth time you are wrong

    https://nationalpost.com/opinion/michael-higgins-carney-meets-the-moment-backs-trump-against-iran

    See also: https://www.cbc.ca/player/play/video/9.7110745
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 61,152
    Sweeney74 said:

    Malmesbury said:

    Sweeney74 said:

    williamglenn said:

    nico67 said:

    Hardly a fan of Starmer but he’s done quite well so far .

    Kemi might regret jumping all in with the USA and Israel.

    He's trying to face both ways at once by implying that Trump acted illegally but then supporting further strikes. He's turning international law into a joke.
    International law isn’t a joke because Starmer’s inconsistent. It’s a joke because enforcement depends on who’s got the aircraft carriers.
    International law isn't a joke because of that. It just depends on something other than abstract morality - the biggest stick

    For most of history, that's how it worked.
    quite, hence my aircraft carriers quip
    When I was student, I found a folio of letters in one of the second hand books stores near the British museum. Sadly I lost them, long ago.

    Letters between an RN midshipman and his sisters in the 19th cent - he was serving in the anti-slavery patrols off West Africa.

    The end of the folio was a copperplate letter from his Captain, giving the sad news of his death. And a letter from the crew of the cutter he'd been in command of - apparently he'd been killed by a shot from a slave ship. So they boarded, and him being a popular chap, they gave No Quarter.

    Might and Right, two characters in a bar. Are they friends or foe?
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 57,758
    Leon said:

    Ooh. I’ve just been invited to hang out with gorillas in Africa


    I’ve said yes. Hope they’re friendly

    My daughter did that on her honeymoon. Some of the pictures were simply magical.
  • Sweeney74Sweeney74 Posts: 175
    Leon said:

    Ooh. I’ve just been invited to hang out with gorillas in Africa


    I’ve said yes. Hope they’re friendly

    Say hi to Damon for me...
  • RogerRoger Posts: 22,333
    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    Brixian59 said:

    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    Starmer made his case well, but it remains he should have approved the US request earlier

    Kemi made the point Canada and Australia gave immediate and unconditional support of the US and Israel action

    I doubt it will help Starmer as he is caught in the middle of two different positions

    Anyway a better debate than expected but the whole subject is entirely unpredictable

    For the umpteenth time Canada and Australia initially were same as UK
    And for the umpteenth time you are wrong

    https://nationalpost.com/opinion/michael-higgins-carney-meets-the-moment-backs-trump-against-iran

    He's an idiot then. Invading a country that is not posing an imminent threat is against international law. T'he rest is politics' worth listening to today.
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 15,208
    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    Starmer made his case well, but it remains he should have approved the US request earlier

    Kemi made the point Canada and Australia gave immediate and unconditional support of the US and Israel action

    I doubt it will help Starmer as he is caught in the middle of two different positions

    Anyway a better debate than expected but the whole subject is entirely unpredictable

    “ but it remains he should have approved the US request earlier”

    he should have responded to the NEW request before it was even made?

    Or you see no difference between the two requests?
  • Sweeney74Sweeney74 Posts: 175
    Malmesbury said:

    Sweeney74 said:

    Malmesbury said:

    Sweeney74 said:

    williamglenn said:

    nico67 said:

    Hardly a fan of Starmer but he’s done quite well so far .

    Kemi might regret jumping all in with the USA and Israel.

    He's trying to face both ways at once by implying that Trump acted illegally but then supporting further strikes. He's turning international law into a joke.
    International law isn’t a joke because Starmer’s inconsistent. It’s a joke because enforcement depends on who’s got the aircraft carriers.
    International law isn't a joke because of that. It just depends on something other than abstract morality - the biggest stick

    For most of history, that's how it worked.
    quite, hence my aircraft carriers quip
    When I was student, I found a folio of letters in one of the second hand books stores near the British museum. Sadly I lost them, long ago.

    Letters between an RN midshipman and his sisters in the 19th cent - he was serving in the anti-slavery patrols off West Africa.

    The end of the folio was a copperplate letter from his Captain, giving the sad news of his death. And a letter from the crew of the cutter he'd been in command of - apparently he'd been killed by a shot from a slave ship. So they boarded, and him being a popular chap, they gave No Quarter.

    Might and Right, two characters in a bar. Are they friends or foe?
    Oh what a shame, that folio sounds fascinating, would love to have seen that.

    In answer to your question: Depends on how much they've had to drink and if Right is sleeping with Might's sister or not.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 70,138
    BatteryCorrectHorse said:

    If Dan Hodges is backing Starmer then Labour has got this wrong in the theatre of public opinion.

    I think Starmer made his case and was so much better than his angry self

    However, Kemi is correct about Canada and Australia's immediate support

    I expect he will have support but he is a hostage to events
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 70,138
    Roger said:

    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    Brixian59 said:

    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    Starmer made his case well, but it remains he should have approved the US request earlier

    Kemi made the point Canada and Australia gave immediate and unconditional support of the US and Israel action

    I doubt it will help Starmer as he is caught in the middle of two different positions

    Anyway a better debate than expected but the whole subject is entirely unpredictable

    For the umpteenth time Canada and Australia initially were same as UK
    And for the umpteenth time you are wrong

    https://nationalpost.com/opinion/michael-higgins-carney-meets-the-moment-backs-trump-against-iran

    He's an idiot then. Invading a country that is not posing an imminent threat is against international law. T'he rest is politics' worth listening to today.
    Anyone who disagrees with you is an idiot apparently, even the widely praised Carney
  • Brixian59Brixian59 Posts: 1,021
    BatteryCorrectHorse said:

    If Dan Hodges is backing Starmer then Labour has got this wrong in the theatre of public opinion.

    If Dan Hodges is backing Labour it just shows what a massive balls up Badenoch has made.

    You factor in that 20 or 30 on the Labour left will be against every war, Badenoch has just alienated over half of her Party and a key section of more experienced one nation Tories.

    Sunak, Cameron, May, Major, Thatcher would never have made that speech. Never
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 42,679
    Leon said:

    Ooh. I’ve just been invited to hang out with gorillas in Africa


    I’ve said yes. Hope they’re friendly

    Primates have lots of nasty communicable diseases
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 70,138
    DavidL said:

    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    Brixian59 said:

    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    Starmer made his case well, but it remains he should have approved the US request earlier

    Kemi made the point Canada and Australia gave immediate and unconditional support of the US and Israel action

    I doubt it will help Starmer as he is caught in the middle of two different positions

    Anyway a better debate than expected but the whole subject is entirely unpredictable

    For the umpteenth time Canada and Australia initially were same as UK
    And for the umpteenth time you are wrong

    https://nationalpost.com/opinion/michael-higgins-carney-meets-the-moment-backs-trump-against-iran

    See also: https://www.cbc.ca/player/play/video/9.7110745
    Our eldest and his Canadian wife living in Vancouver text Carney's comments in support of the action at the time

    There was no equivication
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 19,133
    Scott_xP said:

    Leon said:

    Ooh. I’ve just been invited to hang out with gorillas in Africa


    I’ve said yes. Hope they’re friendly

    Primates have lots of nasty communicable diseases
    That's enough about Leon. What about the gorillas?
  • Brixian59Brixian59 Posts: 1,021
    Foss said:

    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    My question is what is the difference in this between defensive and offensive action ?

    If you assume Starmer refused the US permission to use British bases to attack Iran was defensive, but 24 hours later changed his view to allow the US to take offensive action from them

    As others have said Starmer is dancing on a pin head

    The difference between an offensive and defensive action is that Starmer thinks he can retain more of the Islamist and Islamist-adjacent vote with the latter.
    It's patently clear what he means.

    Stopping a drone or missile or bombing a remote missile site is defensive.

    Carpet bombing of towns and cities is not.

  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 61,152
    Sweeney74 said:

    Malmesbury said:

    Sweeney74 said:

    Malmesbury said:

    Sweeney74 said:

    williamglenn said:

    nico67 said:

    Hardly a fan of Starmer but he’s done quite well so far .

    Kemi might regret jumping all in with the USA and Israel.

    He's trying to face both ways at once by implying that Trump acted illegally but then supporting further strikes. He's turning international law into a joke.
    International law isn’t a joke because Starmer’s inconsistent. It’s a joke because enforcement depends on who’s got the aircraft carriers.
    International law isn't a joke because of that. It just depends on something other than abstract morality - the biggest stick

    For most of history, that's how it worked.
    quite, hence my aircraft carriers quip
    When I was student, I found a folio of letters in one of the second hand books stores near the British museum. Sadly I lost them, long ago.

    Letters between an RN midshipman and his sisters in the 19th cent - he was serving in the anti-slavery patrols off West Africa.

    The end of the folio was a copperplate letter from his Captain, giving the sad news of his death. And a letter from the crew of the cutter he'd been in command of - apparently he'd been killed by a shot from a slave ship. So they boarded, and him being a popular chap, they gave No Quarter.

    Might and Right, two characters in a bar. Are they friends or foe?
    Oh what a shame, that folio sounds fascinating, would love to have seen that.

    In answer to your question: Depends on how much they've had to drink and if Right is sleeping with Might's sister or not.


    Would have made a hell of a film I think. Ending it with the last letter - they threw the slavers overboard, as was customary in such circumstances, would have been a punch to the audience.
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 15,208
    DavidL said:

    Sweeney74 said:

    Mexicanpete said:

    Sweeney74 said:

    Why is it that under this government "international law" is always against our national interest - Kemi

    With all due respect, what an absolutely stupid statement from the LOTO.
    vibes, though
    She's chosen a side and, in fairness, she is not alone in doing so. Carney and Albanese have done the same.

    Starmer's position is a lot more nuanced. He refused to take part in the initial raids but is willing to support and take part in defensive measures when Iran tries to fight back. He says our consent is for "defensive actions" but when these "defensive actions" include trying to destroy Iranian missiles in Iran that doesn't make a lot of sense.

    FWIW (and that is not a lot) I am with Starmer rather than her on this. The attacks were illegal, dangerous and ill thought through (if there was any thinking at all). We were right not to take part and if that puts us in the metaphorical dog house with Trump I am immensely relaxed about that. But I don't think that Kemi's position is "absolutely stupid", even if I don't agree with it.
    “ Starmer's position is a lot more nuanced.”

    Nuance was the first casualty of this war! It’s totally black and white, whether you lend them your bucket. You can’t say “yes if you’re going to make sandcastles - no if you are going to piss in it.” You handed over the bucket when asked or you didn’t - Nuance is just confusing the whole thing.

    I don’t think the nuance of this will be covered correctly in the history books, let alone the immediate media coverage, which is just ignoring nuance. The only person on earth trying to find nuance in this situation is me.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 57,758
    Jim_the_Lurker said:

    DavidL said:

    Sweeney74 said:

    Mexicanpete said:

    Sweeney74 said:

    Why is it that under this government "international law" is always against our national interest - Kemi

    With all due respect, what an absolutely stupid statement from the LOTO.
    vibes, though
    She's chosen a side and, in fairness, she is not alone in doing so. Carney and Albanese have done the same.

    Starmer's position is a lot more nuanced. He refused to take part in the initial raids but is willing to support and take part in defensive measures when Iran tries to fight back. He says our consent is for "defensive actions" but when these "defensive actions" include trying to destroy Iranian missiles in Iran that doesn't make a lot of sense.

    FWIW (and that is not a lot) I am with Starmer rather than her on this. The attacks were illegal, dangerous and ill thought through (if there was any thinking at all). We were right not to take part and if that puts us in the metaphorical dog house with Trump I am immensely relaxed about that. But I don't think that Kemi's position is "absolutely stupid", even if I don't agree with it.
    I appreciate that Prime Minister Carney and Albanese have backed the strikes - but what exactly does their support entail? As far as I am aware it is more warm words than material support (albeit am sure they will probably be peripheral support on intel / etc.). The UK’s support would have been material from the get go - the bombers would be flying from British territory.

    Whatever we all may think about Prime Minister Starmer’s position - defensive missiles only here - ultimately he was in a tighter spot. And he, probably sensibly, has retreated to his comfort zone; the law.
    I don't disagree with any of this. Neither Canada nor Australia were involved in any way in the initial attacks and have no relevant assets. They have both focused on the allegation that Iran were seeking to build nuclear weapons. The echoes of those who convinced themselves that Saddam was building weapons of mass destruction sound loud in my ears.

    The UK did have relevant assets. We initially refused to allow their use for offensive actions. Trump did not appreciate that. We have effectively folded because the difference between offensive and defensive has become meaningless. As I say, I support the stance that Starmer took but real politik may have pointed in Badenoch's direction. It's not straightforward and will increasingly become so as Trump's lawless world prevails.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 22,333
    Malmesbury said:

    MoonRabbit said:

    Brixian59 said:

    IanB2 said:

    Kemi putting the Tories firmly behind Trump’s Middle East war. *bold*, given the absence of any sign that the Americans know what they are trying to achieve.

    I've just read what she has said.

    Verbal diarrhoea is one term.

    The fact her mouth is always seconds in front of what brain she has never better evidenced.

    Unequivocally supporting USA and Israel without explaining why, blaming Muslim voters for influencing the left wing people Parliament is full of, and grandstanding the fact that she would not see a Commons Vote to go to War if she thought she would lose if frankly the political dynamite stick that should be crammed up her ass for infinity.

    Not fit to hold a once great office, totally ignoring international law, not only that, confirming she would completely ignore it.

    She made this speech outside of the House, I suspect if she makes it inside the One Nation Tories will have their head in their hands.

    She's clearly decided she wants to be farbti the right of Farage

    Genuine one nation decent Tories will surely be horrified at this utter gobshite.
    So you agree with Starmer - there is such a thing as defensive bombing of Iran - its armouries, its security apparatus, its abilities to defend itself - that is so clearly distinct from an offensive bombing raid?

    Or that BBRRRRRRRRRMMMMM over the top of you, I think that must have been a mirage.
    Do keep up - the defensive bombs will have "Defensive Use Only" paperwork zip tied to them.
    Just like Russias defensive bombing of Ukraine. Kemi's a clown. This'll go down like a bowl of vomit
  • LeonLeon Posts: 66,854
    DavidL said:

    Leon said:

    Ooh. I’ve just been invited to hang out with gorillas in Africa


    I’ve said yes. Hope they’re friendly

    My daughter did that on her honeymoon. Some of the pictures were simply magical.
    I’ve heard various reports. Mostly very positive

    Am quite excited
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 57,923
    https://x.com/sentdefender/status/2028500861572268177

    Qatar’s Ministry of Defense announces that the Qatar Emiri Air Force successfully downed 2 Iranian Su-24s that were approaching Qatari Airspace from the direction of the Persian Gulf, in addition to 7 ballistic missiles and 5 drones launched by Iran against areas of Qatar.
Sign In or Register to comment.

© Vanilla Keystone Theme 2026