“Recent Pandemic Viruses Jumped to Humans Without Prior Adaptation, UC San Diego Study Finds “Large-scale evolutionary analysis shows most zoonotic viruses emerge without prior adaptation, while passing through a laboratory leaves detectable genetic signatures, offering a new tool to interpret outbreak origins”
People with vested interest in saying that laboratories do not create dangerous viruses say that laboratories do not create dangerous viruses.
Whatever the fate of polls and petrol prices, it was a wonderful opening day to the Cheltenham Festival yesterday and for a change I managed to find a couple of winners - obviously, @MoonRabbit found all seven, I imagine, or that's what I was led to believe.
Day Two beckons and another stellar card and if you want to read my innermost cerebral musings, I post a more detailed summation of the main races on racecafe.co.nz
I won't post all that here cos it's boring for those strange people who aren't horse racing fans and cut to the chase (or hurdle or indeed bumper) with today's selections:
Turners Novices Hurdle: BALLYFAD
Brown Advisory Chase: THE BIG WESTERNER (win), OSCAR'S BROTHER (each way)
Queen Mother Champion Chase: QUILIXIOS (each way)
Champion Bumper: KEEP HIM COMPANY
Mine for today, yesterday was terrible ,
13:20 No Drama This End 14:00 Kaid D'Authie 14:40 Storm Heart
Why are the twatty Bishops still in the HoL? Disestablish, now
Absolutely not, we have an established church and the Bishops should be there, they are less than 5% of the fully appointed unelected Lords anyway though a few more leaders from other faiths should be appointed as well. We should have kept the hereditaries too.
Disestablishment also removes the automatic right to a wedding or funeral in your local C of E Parish church
I was in a 2 hour briefing today on the Iran War. All the briefings are closed, because Trump can't defend this war in public.
I obviously can't disclose classified info, but you deserve to know how incoherent and incomplete these war plans are.
Here's what I can share. Maybe the lead is that the war goals DO NOT involve destroying Iran's nuclear weapons program. This is, uh...surprising...since Trump says over and over this is a key goal.
But then of course we already know air strikes can't wipe out their nuclear material.
Second, they confirmed "regime change" is also NOT on the list. So, they are going to spend hundreds of billions of your taxpayer dollars, get a whole bunch of Americans killed, and a hardline regime - probably a MORE anti-American hardline regime - will still be in charge.
Ok, so what ARE the goals? It seems, primarily, destroying lots of missiles and boats and drone factories.
But the question that stumped them: what happens when you stop bombing and they restart production?
They hinted at more bombing. Which is, of course, endless war.
And on the Strait of Hormuz, they had NO PLAN. I can't go into more detail about how Iran gums up the Strait, but suffice it say, right now, they don't know how to get it safely back open.
Which is unforgiveable, because this part of the disaster was 100% foreseeable
There's been an 'endless war' with Iran since 1979.
Until now Iran has been allowed to make all the moves.
Would be interesting to see how Israel and the US reacted to having all their nuclear scientists assasinated and in Israels case every member of the Knesset with the threat of a repeat action if they looked for replacements
Personally, I would say that Starmer has proven to be closer to my position on this than any of the leaders. If he wasn't so woolly, incoherent and inconsistent he might be doing even better.
He should take the flack from Trump and wear it with pride, it will do him more political good than anything else he or his government has done, well, ever actually.
My critique of Starmer and indeed the other European nations is that they have not gone far enough. They should have made it clear that there was no legal basis for this war, that it was and is a criminal act and that they disapprove of what both the US and Israel have done. After the Greenland fiasco Europe needs to stop aligning with the US by default. If they want a rules based system to survive they need to speak up for it. And that includes calling out your erstwhile friends when they act badly.
It is absolutely farcical to suggest there is no legal basis for war. Iran has been literally attacked Israel directly and indirectly and threatens their security, that is classic self-defence as has been the casus belli for plenty of wars over decades.
Some here have argued we should not join in as we are not Israel's ally, which I would dispute. But Israel absolutely has the right to fight Iran as part of its self-defence, and America is Israel's ally so has every right to assist them.
Has either Israel or the United States actually declared war? Odd that.
AFAIK America has never declared war since World War II so that is rather moot. Literally every single President since WWII has taken offensive actions abroad with their military, without seeking Congressional approval for doing so.
Similarly Iran and Israel have been fighting a shadow war since 1979 but formal declarations of war have fallen out of common practice globally post-WWII.
Personally, I would say that Starmer has proven to be closer to my position on this than any of the leaders. If he wasn't so woolly, incoherent and inconsistent he might be doing even better.
He should take the flack from Trump and wear it with pride, it will do him more political good than anything else he or his government has done, well, ever actually.
My critique of Starmer and indeed the other European nations is that they have not gone far enough. They should have made it clear that there was no legal basis for this war, that it was and is a criminal act and that they disapprove of what both the US and Israel have done. After the Greenland fiasco Europe needs to stop aligning with the US by default. If they want a rules based system to survive they need to speak up for it. And that includes calling out your erstwhile friends when they act badly.
It is absolutely farcical to suggest there is no legal basis for war. Iran has been literally attacked Israel directly and indirectly and threatens their security, that is classic self-defence as has been the casus belli for plenty of wars over decades.
Some here have argued we should not join in as we are not Israel's ally, which I would dispute. But Israel absolutely has the right to fight Iran as part of its self-defence, and America is Israel's ally so has every right to assist them.
Well it's you versus pretty much everybody with expertise in the matter.
Law - what is it good for? Deciding what is legal. Which this isn't.
Would you say that His Honour Jeff Blackett OBE, the Judge Advocate General of the Armed Forces between 2004 and 2020, has expertise in this matter?
Trigger warning for those who despise the Spectator, but he is not a Spectator hack, is an expert, and is quite adamant that it is legal, on multiple grounds.
You didnt used to be able to type the name of the actress who played the maid, Martine McCutcheon because Martin was verboden due to the actions of Mr Day. It would trip the spam filter
I wonder what happened to Martin Day.
He had unfortunate mental health problems.
I hope he recovered and was able to rebuild his life.
Personally, I would say that Starmer has proven to be closer to my position on this than any of the leaders. If he wasn't so woolly, incoherent and inconsistent he might be doing even better.
He should take the flack from Trump and wear it with pride, it will do him more political good than anything else he or his government has done, well, ever actually.
My critique of Starmer and indeed the other European nations is that they have not gone far enough. They should have made it clear that there was no legal basis for this war, that it was and is a criminal act and that they disapprove of what both the US and Israel have done. After the Greenland fiasco Europe needs to stop aligning with the US by default. If they want a rules based system to survive they need to speak up for it. And that includes calling out your erstwhile friends when they act badly.
It is absolutely farcical to suggest there is no legal basis for war. Iran has been literally attacked Israel directly and indirectly and threatens their security, that is classic self-defence as has been the casus belli for plenty of wars over decades.
Some here have argued we should not join in as we are not Israel's ally, which I would dispute. But Israel absolutely has the right to fight Iran as part of its self-defence, and America is Israel's ally so has every right to assist them.
Has either Israel or the United States actually declared war? Odd that.
AFAIK America has never declared war since World War II so that is rather moot. Literally every single President since WWII has taken offensive actions abroad with their military, without seeking Congressional approval for doing so.
Similarly Iran and Israel have been fighting a shadow war since 1979 but formal declarations of war have fallen out of common practice globally post-WWII.
You've been corrected on this before. Congressional approval was granted for numerous previous conflicts the US has been involved in, including both wars against Iraq, but that didn't involve declaring war as such. At the same time all Presidents have taken military action without prior Congressional approval.
I'm really not sure what the significance of a formal declaration of war would be, and why one is no longer made.
You didnt used to be able to type the name of the actress who played the maid, Martine McCutcheon because Martin was verboden due to the actions of Mr Day. It would trip the spam filter
I wonder what happened to Martin Day.
He had unfortunate mental health problems.
I hope he recovered and was able to rebuild his life.
Yes, i do hope he ended up ok.as a fellow MH sufferer, things can get very very tough and life can go off the rails at pace
Personally, I would say that Starmer has proven to be closer to my position on this than any of the leaders. If he wasn't so woolly, incoherent and inconsistent he might be doing even better.
He should take the flack from Trump and wear it with pride, it will do him more political good than anything else he or his government has done, well, ever actually.
My critique of Starmer and indeed the other European nations is that they have not gone far enough. They should have made it clear that there was no legal basis for this war, that it was and is a criminal act and that they disapprove of what both the US and Israel have done. After the Greenland fiasco Europe needs to stop aligning with the US by default. If they want a rules based system to survive they need to speak up for it. And that includes calling out your erstwhile friends when they act badly.
It is absolutely farcical to suggest there is no legal basis for war. Iran has been literally attacked Israel directly and indirectly and threatens their security, that is classic self-defence as has been the casus belli for plenty of wars over decades.
Some here have argued we should not join in as we are not Israel's ally, which I would dispute. But Israel absolutely has the right to fight Iran as part of its self-defence, and America is Israel's ally so has every right to assist them.
Well it's you versus pretty much everybody with expertise in the matter.
Law - what is it good for? Deciding what is legal. Which this isn't.
Would you say that His Honour Jeff Blackett OBE, the Judge Advocate General of the Armed Forces between 2004 and 2020, has expertise in this matter?
Trigger warning for those who despise the Spectator, but he is not a Spectator hack, is an expert, and is quite adamant that it is legal, on multiple grounds.
As too did Carney, initially, until he realised it was unpopular and reverse ferreted which is politics not law.
Carney - who didn't opine on the legality (it was politics as you say) - and the Spectator.
We're as we were, I think.
Carney did opine on the legality, but then reverse ferreted.
Ignore the fact that it is the Spectator, it was not an article by the Spectator, it is an article within it, by someone who was for nearly two decades the Judge Advocate General of the Armed Forces.
Do you deny that the former Judge Advocate General of the Armed Forces who served for nearly two decades, was appointed under a Labour Prime Minister and served under 5 different Prime Ministers might just have some expertise in this matter?
It’s going to be an amazing afternoon of TV Sport, because this card is so mixed up - the cross country, the bumper, and I can barely pick a winner from seven wide open races I ain’t daring to NAP one.
All I can say is, whatever you are on, best of luck. 🙋♀️
Wednesday
13:20 - Taurus Bay {long shot rabbit from the hat} 14:00 - Wendigo 14:40 - The Yellow Clay 15:20 - Stumptown 16:00 - L'Eau Du Sud 16:40 - Be Aware 17:20 - Love Sign d'Aunou
Personally, I would say that Starmer has proven to be closer to my position on this than any of the leaders. If he wasn't so woolly, incoherent and inconsistent he might be doing even better.
He should take the flack from Trump and wear it with pride, it will do him more political good than anything else he or his government has done, well, ever actually.
My critique of Starmer and indeed the other European nations is that they have not gone far enough. They should have made it clear that there was no legal basis for this war, that it was and is a criminal act and that they disapprove of what both the US and Israel have done. After the Greenland fiasco Europe needs to stop aligning with the US by default. If they want a rules based system to survive they need to speak up for it. And that includes calling out your erstwhile friends when they act badly.
It is absolutely farcical to suggest there is no legal basis for war. Iran has been literally attacked Israel directly and indirectly and threatens their security, that is classic self-defence as has been the casus belli for plenty of wars over decades.
Some here have argued we should not join in as we are not Israel's ally, which I would dispute. But Israel absolutely has the right to fight Iran as part of its self-defence, and America is Israel's ally so has every right to assist them.
Has either Israel or the United States actually declared war? Odd that.
AFAIK America has never declared war since World War II so that is rather moot. Literally every single President since WWII has taken offensive actions abroad with their military, without seeking Congressional approval for doing so.
Similarly Iran and Israel have been fighting a shadow war since 1979 but formal declarations of war have fallen out of common practice globally post-WWII.
You've been corrected on this before. Congressional approval was granted for numerous previous conflicts the US has been involved in, including both wars against Iraq, but that didn't involve declaring war as such. At the same time all Presidents have taken military action without prior Congressional approval.
I'm really not sure what the significance of a formal declaration of war would be, and why one is no longer made.
Declaration of war now only occurs in Thumb War Even the Falklands War was, as the blesed one told us, a conflict
The UK ending almost all jury trials is a genuine "moment". I feel a "Please pinch me - I want to wake up now." sensation. It's like we abolished the monarchy - & then some. We're led by people who have no interest in or respect for the assembled wisdom of centuries.
Personally, I would say that Starmer has proven to be closer to my position on this than any of the leaders. If he wasn't so woolly, incoherent and inconsistent he might be doing even better.
He should take the flack from Trump and wear it with pride, it will do him more political good than anything else he or his government has done, well, ever actually.
My critique of Starmer and indeed the other European nations is that they have not gone far enough. They should have made it clear that there was no legal basis for this war, that it was and is a criminal act and that they disapprove of what both the US and Israel have done. After the Greenland fiasco Europe needs to stop aligning with the US by default. If they want a rules based system to survive they need to speak up for it. And that includes calling out your erstwhile friends when they act badly.
It is absolutely farcical to suggest there is no legal basis for war. Iran has been literally attacked Israel directly and indirectly and threatens their security, that is classic self-defence as has been the casus belli for plenty of wars over decades.
Some here have argued we should not join in as we are not Israel's ally, which I would dispute. But Israel absolutely has the right to fight Iran as part of its self-defence, and America is Israel's ally so has every right to assist them.
Has either Israel or the United States actually declared war? Odd that.
AFAIK America has never declared war since World War II so that is rather moot. Literally every single President since WWII has taken offensive actions abroad with their military, without seeking Congressional approval for doing so.
Similarly Iran and Israel have been fighting a shadow war since 1979 but formal declarations of war have fallen out of common practice globally post-WWII.
You've been corrected on this before. Congressional approval was granted for numerous previous conflicts the US has been involved in, including both wars against Iraq, but that didn't involve declaring war as such. At the same time all Presidents have taken military action without prior Congressional approval.
I'm really not sure what the significance of a formal declaration of war would be, and why one is no longer made.
No, I've not been corrected as what I said was correct.
I never said no President has sought Congressional approval before, that is not correct. Sometimes they have.
But literally every single US President since WWII has taken military action without Congressional approval, which you then acknowledge, so I was correct.
Yes, sometimes, they have sought approval. But literally every single President (not just Trump) since WWII has taken military action without prior approval.
Multiple practical reasons why formal declarations are no longer made. On a practical basis, because of modern technology giving a heads up to your enemy is a bad idea, a first strike without warning gives an opportunity to inflict great damage.
Whatever the fate of polls and petrol prices, it was a wonderful opening day to the Cheltenham Festival yesterday and for a change I managed to find a couple of winners - obviously, @MoonRabbit found all seven, I imagine, or that's what I was led to believe.
Day Two beckons and another stellar card and if you want to read my innermost cerebral musings, I post a more detailed summation of the main races on racecafe.co.nz
I won't post all that here cos it's boring for those strange people who aren't horse racing fans and cut to the chase (or hurdle or indeed bumper) with today's selections:
Turners Novices Hurdle: BALLYFAD
Brown Advisory Chase: THE BIG WESTERNER (win), OSCAR'S BROTHER (each way)
Queen Mother Champion Chase: QUILIXIOS (each way)
Champion Bumper: KEEP HIM COMPANY
Mine for today, yesterday was terrible ,
13:20 No Drama This End 14:00 Kaid D'Authie 14:40 Storm Heart
Why are the twatty Bishops still in the HoL? Disestablish, now
Absolutely not, we have an established church and the Bishops should be there, they are less than 5% of the fully appointed unelected Lords anyway though a few more leaders from other faiths should be appointed as well. We should have kept the hereditaries too.
Disestablishment also removes the automatic right to a wedding or funeral in your local C of E Parish church
Disagree with your final statement. The Church in Wales is disestablished and we can still do the things you mention.
Why are the twatty Bishops still in the HoL? Disestablish, now
Absolutely not, we have an established church and the Bishops should be there, they are less than 5% of the fully appointed unelected Lords anyway though a few more leaders from other faiths should be appointed as well. We should have kept the hereditaries too.
Disestablishment also removes the automatic right to a wedding or funeral in your local C of E Parish church
I dont want to get married.
I'm off to do things in the sun.
A very rabbit-holey point from the other day is that Ian Huntley probably has the right to be buried in his village churchyard (subject to exceptions), but does not have a right to have his ashes scattered there.
I'm no longer on YG panel but the description of their rather unique methodology explained a few days ago almost certainly explains the difference. It's a shame we don't see their baseline figures which I suspect are much closer to MIC and others.
I think they are under scoring Reform and Labour to the benefit of Tory and Green in a vain attempt to try to assess a tactical voting scenario, that at this point of the electoral cycle isn't particularly relevsnt
The UK ending almost all jury trials is a genuine "moment". I feel a "Please pinch me - I want to wake up now." sensation. It's like we abolished the monarchy - & then some. We're led by people who have no interest in or respect for the assembled wisdom of centuries.
Clearly this Iran conflict has boosted Starmer somewhat, Labour is up in the polls a bit and Reform stagnating and the Tories and LDs generally slightly down and any Green surge contained and a plurality of voters thinking he is opposing them for moral reasons will boost his position. Starmer's position of allowing UK bases to be used for defensive US strike operations only is also the position of the median Labour and UK voter overall based on the More in Common poll.
By contrast I don't think Farage's support for the War damaged him at all, given the median Reform voter wants the UK to allow its bases to be used for both defensive and offensive operations by the US and most Reform voters agree with Trump that Starmer is 'no Winston Churchill' if anything Farage showing reservations about UK involvement in the conflict is moving him away from his more hawklike voters. Although he can also say only a quarter of Reform voters want the UK RAF to take part in the strikes themselves.
The Greens are the only party where most of its voters say the UK should take no part in the conflict at all and not allow its bases to be used, so Polanski's position matches his voters there. The median LD and Tory voter though says the UK should allow its bases to be used for defensive operations only so Starmer is actually closer to LD and Tory voters than Davey's outright opposition to UK involvement in the conflict and Kemi's backing using the RAF to strike Iranian missile launchers is. So Starmer's poll bounce may continue if he can squeeze the LD and Conservative vote a bit further
TBH, I don’t see the distinction between offensive and defensive bombing as amounting to much, even if it helps some lawyers sleep at night.
It's a question of attitude.
Offensive bombing is done by people like Hesgeth: "Yeah, take that you camel jockeys!"
Defensive bombing is done by people like Starmer: "Terribly sorry old chap, but you've forced us to do this."
It's really not complicated. See Russia vs Ukraine.
You can argue about who falls in which category on occasion, but the difference between offence and defence is a very clear one indeed.
Clearly this Iran conflict has boosted Starmer somewhat, Labour is up in the polls a bit and Reform stagnating and the Tories and LDs generally slightly down and any Green surge contained and a plurality of voters thinking he is opposing them for moral reasons will boost his position. Starmer's position of allowing UK bases to be used for defensive operations only is also the position of the median Labour and UK voter overall based on the More in Common poll.
By contrast I don't think Farage's support for the War damaged him at all, given the median Reform voter wants the UK to allow its bases to be used for both defensive and offensive operations by the US and most Reform voters agree with Trump that Starmer is 'no Winston Churchill' if anything Farage showing reservations about UK involvement in the conflict is moving him away from his more hawklike voters. Although he can also say only a quarter of Reform voters want the UK RAF to take part in the strikes themselves.
The Greens are the only party where most of its voters say the UK should take no part in the conflict at all and not allow its bases to be used, so Polanski's position matches his voters there. The median LD and Tory voter though says the UK should allow its bases to be used for defensive operations only so Starmer is actually closer to LD and Tory voters than Davey's outright opposition to UK involvement in the conflict and Kemi's backing using the RAF to strike Iranian missile launchers is. So Starmer's poll bounce may continue if he can squeeze the LD and Conservative vote a bit further
You are a conservative and not once do you mention Kemi's poll bounce taking her ahead of all the four party leaders
I wonder why ?
Where is this poll bounce you speak of? The More in Common poll posted earlier in the thread has the Tories third on 19%, 3% behind Labour and 11% behind Reform
I simply cannot understand why you prevaricate
The approval bounce to best ratings of all the leaders is a prerequisite of any improvement in the conservative brand which your hero Johnson trashed
Nigel Farage interviewed by @freddiejh8 in Palm Beach this weekend. The Reform leader told the NS:
💥A written offer to help with Trump admin was made privately to Starmer in September - the PM ignored Farage 💥Iran poses a “potentially bigger” threat to UK than Russia 💥He is “reasonably optimistic” about the war 💥His back channel communications with Trump team are “not against the national interest”
Of course he was ignored. There's a clear and obvious conflict of interest.
I'm no longer on YG panel but the description of their rather unique methodology explained a few days ago almost certainly explains the difference. It's a shame we don't see their baseline figures which I suspect are much closer to MIC and others.
I think they are under scoring Reform and Labour to the benefit of Tory and Green in a vain attempt to try to assess a tactical voting scenario, that at this point of the electoral cycle isn't particularly relevsnt
I think
Reform 27 Labour 21 Tories 18 Green 16 LD 15
I think
Prog 52 Right 45 Other 3
Is about accurate and all well with MOE
Labour was 20 points ahead and got 35%. Reform are 7 point ahead.
To me that suggests their support is not strong enough to even win. Labour’s thought at least in theory is. If they can squeeze the Greens and get back to 30%. They’re home and dry.
You didnt used to be able to type the name of the actress who played the maid, Martine McCutcheon because Martin was verboden due to the actions of Mr Day. It would trip the spam filter
What did Martin Say do?
We never speak of that.
Something about the Lib Dem parliamentary party and a taxi I think…
I'm no longer on YG panel but the description of their rather unique methodology explained a few days ago almost certainly explains the difference. It's a shame we don't see their baseline figures which I suspect are much closer to MIC and others.
I think they are under scoring Reform and Labour to the benefit of Tory and Green in a vain attempt to try to assess a tactical voting scenario, that at this point of the electoral cycle isn't particularly relevsnt
I think
Reform 27 Labour 21 Tories 18 Green 16 LD 15
I think
Prog 52 Right 45 Other 3
Is about accurate and all well with MOE
Nobody else in the BPC but Find Out Now has ever had the Greens above 15 and nobody has had the LDs on 15 since early January. Your figures only allow 3% for SNP, PC and others
Ref, Lab, Con might be around where we are, 27, 20, 19 more likely imo
Edit - but until May gives a steer its all just guesswork
You didnt used to be able to type the name of the actress who played the maid, Martine McCutcheon because Martin was verboden due to the actions of Mr Day. It would trip the spam filter
What did Martin Say do?
We never speak of that.
Something about the Lib Dem parliamentary party and a taxi I think…
Nearly, one night, he got drunk, he was also long term unemployed, so he announced he wanted to shoot Lib Dems and immigrants.
Personally, I would say that Starmer has proven to be closer to my position on this than any of the leaders. If he wasn't so woolly, incoherent and inconsistent he might be doing even better.
He should take the flack from Trump and wear it with pride, it will do him more political good than anything else he or his government has done, well, ever actually.
My critique of Starmer and indeed the other European nations is that they have not gone far enough. They should have made it clear that there was no legal basis for this war, that it was and is a criminal act and that they disapprove of what both the US and Israel have done. After the Greenland fiasco Europe needs to stop aligning with the US by default. If they want a rules based system to survive they need to speak up for it. And that includes calling out your erstwhile friends when they act badly.
It is absolutely farcical to suggest there is no legal basis for war. Iran has been literally attacked Israel directly and indirectly and threatens their security, that is classic self-defence as has been the casus belli for plenty of wars over decades.
Some here have argued we should not join in as we are not Israel's ally, which I would dispute. But Israel absolutely has the right to fight Iran as part of its self-defence, and America is Israel's ally so has every right to assist them.
You need a proximate causi belli for it to classify as a just war.
Just stop trying to achieve from philosophical principles you don’t understand. We all get that you want to bash the baddies and that’s fine. Just don’t try to justify it.
Looks like the venerable and rightly respected David Davis may be about to get his break in the Letby case.
Police and CPS have confirmed that the Prosecution did not disclose that a key witness Professor Hindmarsh who worked at relevant Maternity Unit was himself under investigation for serious allegations of patient neglect and care from a period at Great Ormond Street Hospital.
This must raise ever further very serious doubts about the original conviction
Personally, I would say that Starmer has proven to be closer to my position on this than any of the leaders. If he wasn't so woolly, incoherent and inconsistent he might be doing even better.
He should take the flack from Trump and wear it with pride, it will do him more political good than anything else he or his government has done, well, ever actually.
My critique of Starmer and indeed the other European nations is that they have not gone far enough. They should have made it clear that there was no legal basis for this war, that it was and is a criminal act and that they disapprove of what both the US and Israel have done. After the Greenland fiasco Europe needs to stop aligning with the US by default. If they want a rules based system to survive they need to speak up for it. And that includes calling out your erstwhile friends when they act badly.
It is absolutely farcical to suggest there is no legal basis for war. Iran has been literally attacked Israel directly and indirectly and threatens their security, that is classic self-defence as has been the casus belli for plenty of wars over decades.
Some here have argued we should not join in as we are not Israel's ally, which I would dispute. But Israel absolutely has the right to fight Iran as part of its self-defence, and America is Israel's ally so has every right to assist them.
You need a proximate causi belli for it to classify as a just war.
Just stop trying to achieve from philosophical principles you don’t understand. We all get that you want to bash the baddies and that’s fine. Just don’t try to justify it.
There are multiple proximate casus bellis.
Iran attacking Israel via Hamas and Hezbollah. Iran developing nukes.
We'd probably end up with a better military by having a serious reform of the procurement processes, and spending 2% of GDP wisely, rather than spending 4% of GDP via the current processes.
Anybody who maintains that giving the MoD a lot more money will result in a significant output in military capability is just lying to themselves and everybody else. Giving them more is as close to a perfect waste of money as it's possible to imagine.
This is apparent by how much of the recent debate is driven by sentiment rather than a discussion about an appropriate response to an actual threat. We've seen people on here going on about "embarrassment", as if that's a reason to deploy a fucking warship. As long as defence is an emotion led business that leads to stupid decisions (like building ships in Belfast not Spain) we're going to get we always get because we're doing what we've always done.
I agree with everything you say, except I am inclear why ships should be built in Spain and what's wrong with Belfast.
To build the new Fleet Solid Support ships (transports and replenishes at sea condoms and baked beans for the carriers) the UK government awarded the contract to a consortium led by the Spanish shipbuilder Navantia. Rather than having them built as quickly and as cost-effectively as possible in Navantia's Spanish yard they got Navatia to buy the old H&W yard on Belfast for reasons of national pride. Strong Ajax energy.
So now they are trying to regenerate capability from scratch in a yard that has not built a warship for 40 years with all that implies for cost and schedule. What is worse, the UK will now have a third surface combatant yard that will have to be kept of life support no matter what for the reason that created it; national pride.
Having three prime surface builders is a lot and worse for national security than just having Govan and Rosyth because new acquisitions will be have be parcelled out to keep all three going, resulting in less warship per pound spent due lack of scale and a decrease in military output.
So, when it comes to value for money, and speed in building, decisions are absolutely clueless.
It points to, in all the calls for more spending urgently needed, exactly how to get VFM and how to build quicker is not mentioned often enough by media or politicians, because they don’t want either of those things, they actually want decisions to go down the sentimental and emotional route.
Yesterday in the fish and chip shop I met the happiest man in the world, who despite his injured wife and his own cancer was high as a kite on getting the Cheltenham placepot up for a tenner.
Personally, I would say that Starmer has proven to be closer to my position on this than any of the leaders. If he wasn't so woolly, incoherent and inconsistent he might be doing even better.
He should take the flack from Trump and wear it with pride, it will do him more political good than anything else he or his government has done, well, ever actually.
My critique of Starmer and indeed the other European nations is that they have not gone far enough. They should have made it clear that there was no legal basis for this war, that it was and is a criminal act and that they disapprove of what both the US and Israel have done. After the Greenland fiasco Europe needs to stop aligning with the US by default. If they want a rules based system to survive they need to speak up for it. And that includes calling out your erstwhile friends when they act badly.
It is absolutely farcical to suggest there is no legal basis for war. Iran has been literally attacked Israel directly and indirectly and threatens their security, that is classic self-defence as has been the casus belli for plenty of wars over decades.
Some here have argued we should not join in as we are not Israel's ally, which I would dispute. But Israel absolutely has the right to fight Iran as part of its self-defence, and America is Israel's ally so has every right to assist them.
Has either Israel or the United States actually declared war? Odd that.
AFAIK America has never declared war since World War II so that is rather moot. Literally every single President since WWII has taken offensive actions abroad with their military, without seeking Congressional approval for doing so.
Similarly Iran and Israel have been fighting a shadow war since 1979 but formal declarations of war have fallen out of common practice globally post-WWII.
That's not true. There was a huge debate over the constitutional legality of Truman's actions in Korea, which was muddied by the US obtaining a UN resolution for the "police action". It wasn't satisfactorily resolved, since it was never adjudicated.
The brouhaha over the Pentagon Papers was because they revealed LBJ had consistently lied to both Congress and the American people about the escalation of US military action in Vietnam. The controversy led directly to Congress legislating to put explicit checks on Presidential war powers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Resolution
It's sleight of hand to claim that the ongoing debate over this means that Presidents have unchecked powers. They don't. A Congress less supine could decide to further limit them considerably.
I'm no longer on YG panel but the description of their rather unique methodology explained a few days ago almost certainly explains the difference. It's a shame we don't see their baseline figures which I suspect are much closer to MIC and others.
I think they are under scoring Reform and Labour to the benefit of Tory and Green in a vain attempt to try to assess a tactical voting scenario, that at this point of the electoral cycle isn't particularly relevsnt
I think
Reform 27 Labour 21 Tories 18 Green 16 LD 15
I think
Prog 52 Right 45 Other 3
Is about accurate and all well with MOE
Nobody else in the BPC but Find Out Now has ever had the Greens above 15 and nobody has had the LDs on 15 since early January. Your figures only allow 3% for SNP, PC and others
Ref, Lab, Con might be around where we are, 27, 20, 19 more likely imo
Edit - but until May gives a steer its all just guesswork
May will not give us a steer to GE at all.
Mid term Council elections are always time for protest votes
Expect
Greens Reform Independents To thrive
Labour Tories to lose significantly
Welsh Scottish Parliament elections will be more relevant
There's a bit of spinning going on by Luke Tryl in the header, and that's before we get to Stephen Bush.
63% of Brits support using our bases to conduct strikes (with only 37% opposing) and the flavour of defensive /offensive is really just political spin.
Strikes are strikes.
If Iran was articulated more as a direct threat to British interests and allies in the region (which I think it is) and less about Trump, I think those numbers would quickly convert if we needed to conduct our own defensive strikes.
Personally, I would say that Starmer has proven to be closer to my position on this than any of the leaders. If he wasn't so woolly, incoherent and inconsistent he might be doing even better.
He should take the flack from Trump and wear it with pride, it will do him more political good than anything else he or his government has done, well, ever actually.
My critique of Starmer and indeed the other European nations is that they have not gone far enough. They should have made it clear that there was no legal basis for this war, that it was and is a criminal act and that they disapprove of what both the US and Israel have done. After the Greenland fiasco Europe needs to stop aligning with the US by default. If they want a rules based system to survive they need to speak up for it. And that includes calling out your erstwhile friends when they act badly.
It is absolutely farcical to suggest there is no legal basis for war. Iran has been literally attacked Israel directly and indirectly and threatens their security, that is classic self-defence as has been the casus belli for plenty of wars over decades.
Some here have argued we should not join in as we are not Israel's ally, which I would dispute. But Israel absolutely has the right to fight Iran as part of its self-defence, and America is Israel's ally so has every right to assist them.
Has either Israel or the United States actually declared war? Odd that.
AFAIK America has never declared war since World War II so that is rather moot. Literally every single President since WWII has taken offensive actions abroad with their military, without seeking Congressional approval for doing so.
Similarly Iran and Israel have been fighting a shadow war since 1979 but formal declarations of war have fallen out of common practice globally post-WWII.
That's not true. There was a huge debate over the constitutional legality of Truman's actions in Korea, which was muddied by the US obtaining a UN resolution for the "police action". It wasn't satisfactorily resolved, since it was never adjudicated.
The brouhaha over the Pentagon Papers was because they revealed LBJ had consistently lied to both Congress and the American people about the escalation of US military action in Vietnam. The controversy led directly to Congress legislating to put explicit checks on Presidential war powers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Resolution
It's sleight of hand to claim that the ongoing debate over this means that Presidents have unchecked powers. They don't. A Congress less supine could decide to further limit them considerably.
It is true.
Yes, sometimes, Presidents have obtained Congressional approval, but not every time and 100% of POTUS's post-WWII have taken action without prior approval.
It is very easy to disprove that claim if you think it is false. I challenge you to name me one POTUS who never took action without prior approval, and I will either be able to say when they did or admit I was wrong.
There's a bit of spinning going on by Luke Tryl in the header, and that's before we get to Stephen Bush.
63% of Brits support using our bases to conduct strikes (with only 37% opposing) and the flavour of defensive /offensive is really just political spin.
Strikes are strikes.
If Iran was articulated more as a direct threat to British interests and allies in the region (which I think it is) and less about Trump, I think those numbers would quickly convert if we needed to conduct our own defensive strikes.
But what do Yorkie eating bisexuals who were privately educated and watch tennis think Mr Tryl?!
Looks like the venerable and rightly respected David Davis may be about to get his break in the Letby case.
Police and CPS have confirmed that the Prosecution did not disclose that a key witness Professor Hindmarsh who worked at relevant Maternity Unit was himself under investigation for serious allegations of patient neglect and care from a period at Great Ormond Street Hospital.
This must raise ever further very serious doubts about the original conviction
We'd probably end up with a better military by having a serious reform of the procurement processes, and spending 2% of GDP wisely, rather than spending 4% of GDP via the current processes.
Anybody who maintains that giving the MoD a lot more money will result in a significant output in military capability is just lying to themselves and everybody else. Giving them more is as close to a perfect waste of money as it's possible to imagine.
This is apparent by how much of the recent debate is driven by sentiment rather than a discussion about an appropriate response to an actual threat. We've seen people on here going on about "embarrassment", as if that's a reason to deploy a fucking warship. As long as defence is an emotion led business that leads to stupid decisions (like building ships in Belfast not Spain) we're going to get we always get because we're doing what we've always done.
I agree with everything you say, except I am inclear why ships should be built in Spain and what's wrong with Belfast.
To build the new Fleet Solid Support ships (transports and replenishes at sea condoms and baked beans for the carriers) the UK government awarded the contract to a consortium led by the Spanish shipbuilder Navantia. Rather than having them built as quickly and as cost-effectively as possible in Navantia's Spanish yard they got Navatia to buy the old H&W yard on Belfast for reasons of national pride. Strong Ajax energy.
So now they are trying to regenerate capability from scratch in a yard that has not built a warship for 40 years with all that implies for cost and schedule. What is worse, the UK will now have a third surface combatant yard that will have to be kept of life support no matter what for the reason that created it; national pride.
Having three prime surface builders is a lot and worse for national security than just having Govan and Rosyth because new acquisitions will be have be parcelled out to keep all three going, resulting in less warship per pound spent due lack of scale and a decrease in military output.
So, when it comes to value for money, and speed in building, decisions are absolutely clueless. It points to, in all the calls for more spending urgently needed, exactly how to get VFM and how to build quicker is not mentioned often enough by media or politicians, because they don’t want either of those things, they actually want decisions to go down the sentimental and emotional route.
See, krolik luniy, now you understand how defence procurement and program management works in Britain.
What happened to the idea his being arrested would stop the clock on releases due to "not commenting on an ongoing investigation"?
These docs will be nothing to do with the investigation. Those docs, and others, will come later. Todays stuff will be the 'least damaging' so if there 8s any juice imagine whats left to emerge!
Looks like the venerable and rightly respected David Davis may be about to get his break in the Letby case.
Police and CPS have confirmed that the Prosecution did not disclose that a key witness Professor Hindmarsh who worked at relevant Maternity Unit was himself under investigation for serious allegations of patient neglect and care from a period at Great Ormond Street Hospital.
This must raise ever further very serious doubts about the original conviction
Big bit in Private Eye last week on this. Its potentially massive. And they are still running an inquiry based on how did we miss a murderer on the ward, when there is a chance that there was NO murderer, just poorly babies on an unsafe ward.
No-one has ever explained where the insulin came from.
Looks like the venerable and rightly respected David Davis may be about to get his break in the Letby case.
Police and CPS have confirmed that the Prosecution did not disclose that a key witness Professor Hindmarsh who worked at relevant Maternity Unit was himself under investigation for serious allegations of patient neglect and care from a period at Great Ormond Street Hospital.
This must raise ever further very serious doubts about the original conviction
What's venerable and rightly respected about him?
Well, he's been around for a fair time and, perhaps more importantly, he has repeatedly taken a principled stand on civil liberty issues even to the point of resigning his seat and fighting a by-election over one such. He's one of relatively few MPs who, when he stands up in the chamber, usually has something interesting to say, and doesn't just repeat the party line. The House of Commons would be improved if we had more members like him, regardless of whether you agree with him or not.
I'm no longer on YG panel but the description of their rather unique methodology explained a few days ago almost certainly explains the difference. It's a shame we don't see their baseline figures which I suspect are much closer to MIC and others.
I think they are under scoring Reform and Labour to the benefit of Tory and Green in a vain attempt to try to assess a tactical voting scenario, that at this point of the electoral cycle isn't particularly relevsnt
I think
Reform 27 Labour 21 Tories 18 Green 16 LD 15
I think
Prog 52 Right 45 Other 3
Is about accurate and all well with MOE
Nobody else in the BPC but Find Out Now has ever had the Greens above 15 and nobody has had the LDs on 15 since early January. Your figures only allow 3% for SNP, PC and others
Ref, Lab, Con might be around where we are, 27, 20, 19 more likely imo
Edit - but until May gives a steer its all just guesswork
May will not give us a steer to GE at all.
Mid term Council elections are always time for protest votes
Expect
Greens Reform Independents To thrive
Labour Tories to lose significantly
Welsh Scottish Parliament elections will be more relevant
Ridiculous by the electorate really, the competence of your local council probably has a more direct effect on your quality of life than central govt. Kicking out councillors who've maintained bin collections, roads, libraries and leisure centres reasonably competently for some inexperienced political extremists because you don't like the PM is self-harm.
Some results-based proof of the DoJ’s relentless pursuit of justice with regard to the Epstein Files.
The Alexander Brothers has a very different vibe in Scotland.
The “Alexander brothers” appeared in the Epstein files by first name, but I noticed DOJ redacted their last name in an FBI email contained in EFTA01660679. But @FBIDirectorKash said no evidence of sex trafficking in the files. npr.org/2026/03/10/g-s… justice.gov/epstein/files/…
Personally, I would say that Starmer has proven to be closer to my position on this than any of the leaders. If he wasn't so woolly, incoherent and inconsistent he might be doing even better.
He should take the flack from Trump and wear it with pride, it will do him more political good than anything else he or his government has done, well, ever actually.
My critique of Starmer and indeed the other European nations is that they have not gone far enough. They should have made it clear that there was no legal basis for this war, that it was and is a criminal act and that they disapprove of what both the US and Israel have done. After the Greenland fiasco Europe needs to stop aligning with the US by default. If they want a rules based system to survive they need to speak up for it. And that includes calling out your erstwhile friends when they act badly.
It is absolutely farcical to suggest there is no legal basis for war. Iran has been literally attacked Israel directly and indirectly and threatens their security, that is classic self-defence as has been the casus belli for plenty of wars over decades.
Some here have argued we should not join in as we are not Israel's ally, which I would dispute. But Israel absolutely has the right to fight Iran as part of its self-defence, and America is Israel's ally so has every right to assist them.
You need a proximate causi belli for it to classify as a just war.
Just stop trying to achieve from philosophical principles you don’t understand. We all get that you want to bash the baddies and that’s fine. Just don’t try to justify it.
There are multiple proximate casus bellis.
Iran attacking Israel via Hamas and Hezbollah. Iran developing nukes.
I can't remember the figures but hasn't Israel has 10s of thousands of rockets fired at it over the years, with the ultimate source being Iran?
The UK ending almost all jury trials is a genuine "moment". I feel a "Please pinch me - I want to wake up now." sensation. It's like we abolished the monarchy - & then some. We're led by people who have no interest in or respect for the assembled wisdom of centuries.
I do dislike glib interjections like this. For a long time there have been non-jury trials for criminal offences. Up to and including incarceration. I assume Mr Lilico is not in favour of putting every criminal case (including youth court) in front of a jury? So if you accept that some offences require a jury and others don’t then all you are is deciding where to draw the line.
What annoys me is that the current reduction of jury trials is that it is solely being driven by the problems of a justice system starved of resources, not neccessarily what is in the best interests of justice. Personally I do think there is room for greater uses of judges (and panels of judges) for criminal offences (e.g white collar crimes, etc). There is also a desperate need to speed up the time to court for victims of crime - even in a well funded justice system delays can be chronic and actually help no one (even the perpetrator).
Either way it is hardly the hyperbole Mr Lilico ascribes it.
Personally, I would say that Starmer has proven to be closer to my position on this than any of the leaders. If he wasn't so woolly, incoherent and inconsistent he might be doing even better.
He should take the flack from Trump and wear it with pride, it will do him more political good than anything else he or his government has done, well, ever actually.
My critique of Starmer and indeed the other European nations is that they have not gone far enough. They should have made it clear that there was no legal basis for this war, that it was and is a criminal act and that they disapprove of what both the US and Israel have done. After the Greenland fiasco Europe needs to stop aligning with the US by default. If they want a rules based system to survive they need to speak up for it. And that includes calling out your erstwhile friends when they act badly.
It is absolutely farcical to suggest there is no legal basis for war. Iran has been literally attacked Israel directly and indirectly and threatens their security, that is classic self-defence as has been the casus belli for plenty of wars over decades.
Some here have argued we should not join in as we are not Israel's ally, which I would dispute. But Israel absolutely has the right to fight Iran as part of its self-defence, and America is Israel's ally so has every right to assist them.
You need a proximate causi belli for it to classify as a just war.
Just stop trying to achieve from philosophical principles you don’t understand. We all get that you want to bash the baddies and that’s fine. Just don’t try to justify it.
Israel has had a casus belli since October 7th.
Much of the debate today seems to stem from a broader fatigue with conflict in the Middle East, and a desire by many not to ‘get involved.’ From that starting point, people often work backwards to justify non‑engagement.
I understand that sentiment, but I don’t share it. Whether we like it or not, we are already involved. Even if we’re not interested in Iran, Iran is interested in us and I think it poses an ongoing direct threat to our interests and our allies. And containment hasn't worked.
I'm no longer on YG panel but the description of their rather unique methodology explained a few days ago almost certainly explains the difference. It's a shame we don't see their baseline figures which I suspect are much closer to MIC and others.
I think they are under scoring Reform and Labour to the benefit of Tory and Green in a vain attempt to try to assess a tactical voting scenario, that at this point of the electoral cycle isn't particularly relevsnt
I think
Reform 27 Labour 21 Tories 18 Green 16 LD 15
I think
Prog 52 Right 45 Other 3
Is about accurate and all well with MOE
Nobody else in the BPC but Find Out Now has ever had the Greens above 15 and nobody has had the LDs on 15 since early January. Your figures only allow 3% for SNP, PC and others
Ref, Lab, Con might be around where we are, 27, 20, 19 more likely imo
Edit - but until May gives a steer its all just guesswork
May will not give us a steer to GE at all.
Mid term Council elections are always time for protest votes
Expect
Greens Reform Independents To thrive
Labour Tories to lose significantly
Welsh Scottish Parliament elections will be more relevant
Ridiculous by the electorate really, the competence of your local council probably has a more direct effect on your quality of life than central govt. Kicking out councillors who've maintained bin collections, roads, libraries and leisure centres reasonably competently for some inexperienced political extremists because you don't like the PM is self-harm.
Has always been the same.
We lost a good diligent hard working young Conservative Town Councillor last year to a 60 year old tattooed burberry wearing Reform candidate.
The seat is now up for re-election as he has beef forced to resign for not attending a single meeting.
The UK ending almost all jury trials is a genuine "moment". I feel a "Please pinch me - I want to wake up now." sensation. It's like we abolished the monarchy - & then some. We're led by people who have no interest in or respect for the assembled wisdom of centuries.
Looks like the venerable and rightly respected David Davis may be about to get his break in the Letby case.
Police and CPS have confirmed that the Prosecution did not disclose that a key witness Professor Hindmarsh who worked at relevant Maternity Unit was himself under investigation for serious allegations of patient neglect and care from a period at Great Ormond Street Hospital.
This must raise ever further very serious doubts about the original conviction
What's venerable and rightly respected about him?
Well, he's been around for a fair time and, perhaps more importantly, he has repeatedly taken a principled stand on civil liberty issues even to the point of resigning his seat and fighting a by-election over one such. He's one of relatively few MPs who, when he stands up in the chamber, usually has something interesting to say, and doesn't just repeat the party line. The House of Commons would be improved if we had more members like him, regardless of whether you agree with him or not.
I agree 100% with that.
If the House of Commons had a few hundred more like him it would be a far better place.
The UK ending almost all jury trials is a genuine "moment". I feel a "Please pinch me - I want to wake up now." sensation. It's like we abolished the monarchy - & then some. We're led by people who have no interest in or respect for the assembled wisdom of centuries.
I do dislike glib interjections like this. For a long time there have been non-jury trials for criminal offences. Up to and including incarceration. I assume Mr Lilico is not in favour of putting every criminal case (including youth court) in front of a jury? So if you accept that some offences require a jury and others don’t then all you are is deciding where to draw the line.
What annoys me is that the current reduction of jury trials is that it is solely being driven by the problems of a justice system starved of resources, not neccessarily what is in the best interests of justice. Personally I do think there is room for greater uses of judges (and panels of judges) for criminal offences (e.g white collar crimes, etc). There is also a desperate need to speed up the time to court for victims of crime - even in a well funded justice system delays can be chronic and actually help no one (even the perpetrator).
Either way it is hardly the hyperbole Mr Lilico ascribes it.
But without hyperbole there’s not an awful lot left to Lilico.
RefUK 23%(nc) CON 19%(+3) GRN 19%(-2) LAB 17%(+1) LDEM 14%(nc)
My sense is that there is still a lot of shaking out to do. And who knows how the shake-down will work out. The most significant fact, surely, is that there are THREE years to go. That's a lot of political water to flow under the bridge.
Looks like the venerable and rightly respected David Davis may be about to get his break in the Letby case.
Police and CPS have confirmed that the Prosecution did not disclose that a key witness Professor Hindmarsh who worked at relevant Maternity Unit was himself under investigation for serious allegations of patient neglect and care from a period at Great Ormond Street Hospital.
This must raise ever further very serious doubts about the original conviction
What's venerable and rightly respected about him?
Well, he's been around for a fair time and, perhaps more importantly, he has repeatedly taken a principled stand on civil liberty issues even to the point of resigning his seat and fighting a by-election over one such. He's one of relatively few MPs who, when he stands up in the chamber, usually has something interesting to say, and doesn't just repeat the party line. The House of Commons would be improved if we had more members like him, regardless of whether you agree with him or not.
I agree 100% with that.
If the House of Commons had a few hundred more like him it would be a far better place.
He transcends Party lines.
Bit of a twit in my view: made a complete idiot of himself during the Brexit negotiations then - as was utterly predictable - flounced off when it was clear he was out of his depth. A complete dud.
RefUK 23%(nc) CON 19%(+3) GRN 19%(-2) LAB 17%(+1) LDEM 14%(nc)
My sense is that there is still a lot of shaking out to do. And who knows how the shake-down will work out. The most significant fact, surely, is that there are THREE years to go. That's a lot of political water to flow under the bridge.
Yes it’s credible. There are other polls that are credible that say different. Note that most changes here are MOA.
Polling needs to recalibrate the new situation. May will help with that. For example - for both Greens and Reform we have little data on their ability to translate support into actual votes on the day, for a nationwide election.
The UK ending almost all jury trials is a genuine "moment". I feel a "Please pinch me - I want to wake up now." sensation. It's like we abolished the monarchy - & then some. We're led by people who have no interest in or respect for the assembled wisdom of centuries.
I'm no longer on YG panel but the description of their rather unique methodology explained a few days ago almost certainly explains the difference. It's a shame we don't see their baseline figures which I suspect are much closer to MIC and others.
I think they are under scoring Reform and Labour to the benefit of Tory and Green in a vain attempt to try to assess a tactical voting scenario, that at this point of the electoral cycle isn't particularly relevsnt
I think
Reform 27 Labour 21 Tories 18 Green 16 LD 15
I think
Prog 52 Right 45 Other 3
Is about accurate and all well with MOE
Labour was 20 points ahead and got 35%. Reform are 7 point ahead.
To me that suggests their support is not strong enough to even win. Labour’s thought at least in theory is. If they can squeeze the Greens and get back to 30%. They’re home and dry.
Doesn’t seem a tall task for one Andy Burnham
AB can fight the next election on a platform of political reform including PR and win thru with a progressive alliance. You heard it here first.
Looks like the venerable and rightly respected David Davis may be about to get his break in the Letby case.
Police and CPS have confirmed that the Prosecution did not disclose that a key witness Professor Hindmarsh who worked at relevant Maternity Unit was himself under investigation for serious allegations of patient neglect and care from a period at Great Ormond Street Hospital.
This must raise ever further very serious doubts about the original conviction
What's venerable and rightly respected about him?
Well, he's been around for a fair time and, perhaps more importantly, he has repeatedly taken a principled stand on civil liberty issues even to the point of resigning his seat and fighting a by-election over one such. He's one of relatively few MPs who, when he stands up in the chamber, usually has something interesting to say, and doesn't just repeat the party line. The House of Commons would be improved if we had more members like him, regardless of whether you agree with him or not.
I agree 100% with that.
If the House of Commons had a few hundred more like him it would be a far better place.
He transcends Party lines.
Yep. I would call him old school. Back in the pre-Blair era there were many MPs who you may disagree with politcially but who you could admire for their principled stands and their dedication to public service. From my right of centre perspective I would list Frank Field, Tony Benn, Dennis Skinner, Robin Cook and a host of others on the Labour benches. The notable figure on the Tory side was Carrington, pretty much the last minister to resign as a point of principle for having been the hand on the tiller when things went wrong.
There are still a few MPs on both sides who are able to hold the respect of opposing supporters but they seem few and far between these days.
Personally, I would say that Starmer has proven to be closer to my position on this than any of the leaders. If he wasn't so woolly, incoherent and inconsistent he might be doing even better.
He should take the flack from Trump and wear it with pride, it will do him more political good than anything else he or his government has done, well, ever actually.
My critique of Starmer and indeed the other European nations is that they have not gone far enough. They should have made it clear that there was no legal basis for this war, that it was and is a criminal act and that they disapprove of what both the US and Israel have done. After the Greenland fiasco Europe needs to stop aligning with the US by default. If they want a rules based system to survive they need to speak up for it. And that includes calling out your erstwhile friends when they act badly.
It is absolutely farcical to suggest there is no legal basis for war. Iran has been literally attacked Israel directly and indirectly and threatens their security, that is classic self-defence as has been the casus belli for plenty of wars over decades.
Some here have argued we should not join in as we are not Israel's ally, which I would dispute. But Israel absolutely has the right to fight Iran as part of its self-defence, and America is Israel's ally so has every right to assist them.
You need a proximate causi belli for it to classify as a just war.
Just stop trying to achieve from philosophical principles you don’t understand. We all get that you want to bash the baddies and that’s fine. Just don’t try to justify it.
There are multiple proximate casus bellis.
Iran attacking Israel via Hamas and Hezbollah. Iran developing nukes.
I can't remember the figures but hasn't Israel has 10s of thousands of rockets fired at it over the years, with the ultimate source being Iran?
Iran does not directly control Hamas or Hezbollah, but it does support them and it works closely with Hezbollah. That makes the case for a casus belli a bit more complicated.
Iran developing nuclear weapons does not create a casus belli for Israel under international law, AIUI. (Israel developed nuclear weapons: does that mean every neighbour of Israel has a casus belli against Israel?)
Personally, I would say that Starmer has proven to be closer to my position on this than any of the leaders. If he wasn't so woolly, incoherent and inconsistent he might be doing even better.
He should take the flack from Trump and wear it with pride, it will do him more political good than anything else he or his government has done, well, ever actually.
My critique of Starmer and indeed the other European nations is that they have not gone far enough. They should have made it clear that there was no legal basis for this war, that it was and is a criminal act and that they disapprove of what both the US and Israel have done. After the Greenland fiasco Europe needs to stop aligning with the US by default. If they want a rules based system to survive they need to speak up for it. And that includes calling out your erstwhile friends when they act badly.
It is absolutely farcical to suggest there is no legal basis for war. Iran has been literally attacked Israel directly and indirectly and threatens their security, that is classic self-defence as has been the casus belli for plenty of wars over decades.
Some here have argued we should not join in as we are not Israel's ally, which I would dispute. But Israel absolutely has the right to fight Iran as part of its self-defence, and America is Israel's ally so has every right to assist them.
You need a proximate causi belli for it to classify as a just war.
Just stop trying to achieve from philosophical principles you don’t understand. We all get that you want to bash the baddies and that’s fine. Just don’t try to justify it.
There has been a low intensity war between Iran, the USA, and Israel, and their proxies, since 1979. For either side to find a casus belli is not difficult.
The situation is rather like that of the UK vs Libya from the 1970's through to 2012.
Public International Law has its uses, in terms of the enforcement of treaties, and setting standards for ius in bello, but as a means of determining ius ad bellum, it does not count for much.
I think Kemi Badenoch is most likely to be next PM after the next election, not Farage.
So she has to navigate a number of May elections without being ejected; then win a GE against a strong Reform base; and then have the confidence of other parties since it is likely to be a hung parliament - all for 6/1 a long time off.
What happened to the idea his being arrested would stop the clock on releases due to "not commenting on an ongoing investigation"?
Another opportunity for the Tories to salivate and masturbate over a topic that 99 98% of the population have absolutely no interest in.
Focusing on a verb here, a noun there and days of pointless twaddle.
He's a wrongun, he's gone, the CPS. Police and Judiciary possibly, will decide his fate.
Mandelson is one of the political topics that the non-political raise in conversation.
The news story about the release will kick that back on again.
Indeed it is. Its one man who encapsulates the stench and rot at the heart of Labour. Their kryptonite.
I do not understand why Darren Jones is giving a statement immediately after PMQs [as Starmer scurries away] and then they will be released
They should have been released before the statement and then the government response
What released to the media before the Parliamentary statement? Surely that undermines the supremacy of Parliament? But seriously, they all play these games. The Government want it out after PMQs - so they are going to stick to protocol: “you asked for this via humble address and here it is.” Of course all Governments play these games and arrange the order paper and realease of documents to serve their interests - and all oppositions clutch pearls when they do this. Same as it ever was.
Looks like the venerable and rightly respected David Davis may be about to get his break in the Letby case.
Police and CPS have confirmed that the Prosecution did not disclose that a key witness Professor Hindmarsh who worked at relevant Maternity Unit was himself under investigation for serious allegations of patient neglect and care from a period at Great Ormond Street Hospital.
This must raise ever further very serious doubts about the original conviction
Big bit in Private Eye last week on this. Its potentially massive. And they are still running an inquiry based on how did we miss a murderer on the ward, when there is a chance that there was NO murderer, just poorly babies on an unsafe ward.
No-one has ever explained where the insulin came from.
The inquiry is due to report soon.
The new news is second order stuff. It’s not directly about the evidence against Letby. This doesn’t change the witness evidence about Letby’s behaviour, that Letby stole medical records, the notes Letby wrote to herself, or the other expert witnesses’ statements.it doesn’t change that the babies died when Letby was on duty and not when she wasn’t.
I don’t find the idea that the babies all died because it was an unsafe ward plausible. The deaths were unexpected, not of the illest babies, which is who you would you’d expect to be affected if this was just poor care. The defence at trial accepted that some of the babies must have been killed.
Why is the source of the insulin some big mystery?
Personally, I would say that Starmer has proven to be closer to my position on this than any of the leaders. If he wasn't so woolly, incoherent and inconsistent he might be doing even better.
He should take the flack from Trump and wear it with pride, it will do him more political good than anything else he or his government has done, well, ever actually.
My critique of Starmer and indeed the other European nations is that they have not gone far enough. They should have made it clear that there was no legal basis for this war, that it was and is a criminal act and that they disapprove of what both the US and Israel have done. After the Greenland fiasco Europe needs to stop aligning with the US by default. If they want a rules based system to survive they need to speak up for it. And that includes calling out your erstwhile friends when they act badly.
It is absolutely farcical to suggest there is no legal basis for war. Iran has been literally attacked Israel directly and indirectly and threatens their security, that is classic self-defence as has been the casus belli for plenty of wars over decades.
Some here have argued we should not join in as we are not Israel's ally, which I would dispute. But Israel absolutely has the right to fight Iran as part of its self-defence, and America is Israel's ally so has every right to assist them.
You need a proximate causi belli for it to classify as a just war.
Just stop trying to achieve from philosophical principles you don’t understand. We all get that you want to bash the baddies and that’s fine. Just don’t try to justify it.
There are multiple proximate casus bellis.
Iran attacking Israel via Hamas and Hezbollah. Iran developing nukes.
I can't remember the figures but hasn't Israel has 10s of thousands of rockets fired at it over the years, with the ultimate source being Iran?
Iran does not directly control Hamas or Hezbollah, but it does support them and it works closely with Hezbollah. That makes the case for a casus belli a bit more complicated.
Iran developing nuclear weapons does not create a casus belli for Israel under international law, AIUI. (Israel developed nuclear weapons: does that mean every neighbour of Israel has a casus belli against Israel?)
At the time that Israel developed nuclear weapons, nearly every neighbour had declared permanent war on them (some in a performative manner).
Since then, nearly all signed peace treaties with Israel
The UK ending almost all jury trials is a genuine "moment". I feel a "Please pinch me - I want to wake up now." sensation. It's like we abolished the monarchy - & then some. We're led by people who have no interest in or respect for the assembled wisdom of centuries.
Personally, I would say that Starmer has proven to be closer to my position on this than any of the leaders. If he wasn't so woolly, incoherent and inconsistent he might be doing even better.
He should take the flack from Trump and wear it with pride, it will do him more political good than anything else he or his government has done, well, ever actually.
My critique of Starmer and indeed the other European nations is that they have not gone far enough. They should have made it clear that there was no legal basis for this war, that it was and is a criminal act and that they disapprove of what both the US and Israel have done. After the Greenland fiasco Europe needs to stop aligning with the US by default. If they want a rules based system to survive they need to speak up for it. And that includes calling out your erstwhile friends when they act badly.
It is absolutely farcical to suggest there is no legal basis for war. Iran has been literally attacked Israel directly and indirectly and threatens their security, that is classic self-defence as has been the casus belli for plenty of wars over decades.
Some here have argued we should not join in as we are not Israel's ally, which I would dispute. But Israel absolutely has the right to fight Iran as part of its self-defence, and America is Israel's ally so has every right to assist them.
Has either Israel or the United States actually declared war? Odd that.
AFAIK America has never declared war since World War II so that is rather moot. Literally every single President since WWII has taken offensive actions abroad with their military, without seeking Congressional approval for doing so.
Similarly Iran and Israel have been fighting a shadow war since 1979 but formal declarations of war have fallen out of common practice globally post-WWII.
That's not true. There was a huge debate over the constitutional legality of Truman's actions in Korea, which was muddied by the US obtaining a UN resolution for the "police action". It wasn't satisfactorily resolved, since it was never adjudicated.
The brouhaha over the Pentagon Papers was because they revealed LBJ had consistently lied to both Congress and the American people about the escalation of US military action in Vietnam. The controversy led directly to Congress legislating to put explicit checks on Presidential war powers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Resolution
It's sleight of hand to claim that the ongoing debate over this means that Presidents have unchecked powers. They don't. A Congress less supine could decide to further limit them considerably.
It is true.
Yes, sometimes, Presidents have obtained Congressional approval, but not every time and 100% of POTUS's post-WWII have taken action without prior approval.
It is very easy to disprove that claim if you think it is false. I challenge you to name me one POTUS who never took action without prior approval, and I will either be able to say when they did or admit I was wrong.
William Henry Harrison.
He was President for three weeks in 1841 before catching pneumonia and dying.
He spent pretty much his whole Presidency surrounded by, and dealing with, office seekers, so didn't really have time to order military action, with or without Congressional approval.
We'd probably end up with a better military by having a serious reform of the procurement processes, and spending 2% of GDP wisely, rather than spending 4% of GDP via the current processes.
Anybody who maintains that giving the MoD a lot more money will result in a significant output in military capability is just lying to themselves and everybody else. Giving them more is as close to a perfect waste of money as it's possible to imagine.
This is apparent by how much of the recent debate is driven by sentiment rather than a discussion about an appropriate response to an actual threat. We've seen people on here going on about "embarrassment", as if that's a reason to deploy a fucking warship. As long as defence is an emotion led business that leads to stupid decisions (like building ships in Belfast not Spain) we're going to get we always get because we're doing what we've always done.
No, you say this because you want us weak and unable to face our enemies - who you support.
Sorry but Dura Ace is correct - the MoD continually fights the last war (or ideally the one before that).
What we need to build are cheap drones and munitions - neither of which have the hefty profit margins that BAE and others love..
Nonsense, and no he isn't.
I've worked on more defence projects than Dura has recently, including BAE.
Ajax?
Nope, it's live but I can't discuss due to OSA and SC restrictions.
Urrrrrrrh. PB thought it had found a Ajax scapegoat 🤭
Clearly this Iran conflict has boosted Starmer somewhat, Labour is up in the polls a bit and Reform stagnating and the Tories and LDs generally slightly down and any Green surge contained and a plurality of voters thinking he is opposing them for moral reasons will boost his position. Starmer's position of allowing UK bases to be used for defensive operations only is also the position of the median Labour and UK voter overall based on the More in Common poll.
By contrast I don't think Farage's support for the War damaged him at all, given the median Reform voter wants the UK to allow its bases to be used for both defensive and offensive operations by the US and most Reform voters agree with Trump that Starmer is 'no Winston Churchill' if anything Farage showing reservations about UK involvement in the conflict is moving him away from his more hawklike voters. Although he can also say only a quarter of Reform voters want the UK RAF to take part in the strikes themselves.
The Greens are the only party where most of its voters say the UK should take no part in the conflict at all and not allow its bases to be used, so Polanski's position matches his voters there. The median LD and Tory voter though says the UK should allow its bases to be used for defensive operations only so Starmer is actually closer to LD and Tory voters than Davey's outright opposition to UK involvement in the conflict and Kemi's backing using the RAF to strike Iranian missile launchers is. So Starmer's poll bounce may continue if he can squeeze the LD and Conservative vote a bit further
You are a conservative and not once do you mention Kemi's poll bounce taking her ahead of all the four party leaders
I wonder why ?
Where is this poll bounce you speak of? The More in Common poll posted earlier in the thread has the Tories third on 19%, 3% behind Labour and 11% behind Reform
I simply cannot understand why you prevaricate
The approval bounce to best ratings of all the leaders is a prerequisite of any improvement in the conservative brand which your hero Johnson trashed
Johnson even when he resigned left the Conservatives with a higher voteshare in the polls then when he took over in summer 2019 and a voteshare over 10% higher than the current Conservative voteshare
What happened to the idea his being arrested would stop the clock on releases due to "not commenting on an ongoing investigation"?
Another opportunity for the Tories to salivate and masturbate over a topic that 99 98% of the population have absolutely no interest in.
Focusing on a verb here, a noun there and days of pointless twaddle.
He's a wrongun, he's gone, the CPS. Police and Judiciary possibly, will decide his fate.
Mandelson is one of the political topics that the non-political raise in conversation.
The news story about the release will kick that back on again.
Indeed it is. Its one man who encapsulates the stench and rot at the heart of Labour. Their kryptonite.
I do not understand why Darren Jones is giving a statement immediately after PMQs [as Starmer scurries away] and then they will be released
They should have been released before the statement and then the government response
What released to the media before the Parliamentary statement? Surely that undermines the supremacy of Parliament? But seriously, they all play these games. The Government want it out after PMQs - so they are going to stick to protocol: “you asked for this via humble address and here it is.” Of course all Governments play these games and arrange the order paper and realease of documents to serve their interests - and all oppositions clutch pearls when they do this. Same as it ever was.
It depends on whether they are released to opposition politicians so they can respond
Clearly this Iran conflict has boosted Starmer somewhat, Labour is up in the polls a bit and Reform stagnating and the Tories and LDs generally slightly down and any Green surge contained and a plurality of voters thinking he is opposing them for moral reasons will boost his position. Starmer's position of allowing UK bases to be used for defensive operations only is also the position of the median Labour and UK voter overall based on the More in Common poll.
By contrast I don't think Farage's support for the War damaged him at all, given the median Reform voter wants the UK to allow its bases to be used for both defensive and offensive operations by the US and most Reform voters agree with Trump that Starmer is 'no Winston Churchill' if anything Farage showing reservations about UK involvement in the conflict is moving him away from his more hawklike voters. Although he can also say only a quarter of Reform voters want the UK RAF to take part in the strikes themselves.
The Greens are the only party where most of its voters say the UK should take no part in the conflict at all and not allow its bases to be used, so Polanski's position matches his voters there. The median LD and Tory voter though says the UK should allow its bases to be used for defensive operations only so Starmer is actually closer to LD and Tory voters than Davey's outright opposition to UK involvement in the conflict and Kemi's backing using the RAF to strike Iranian missile launchers is. So Starmer's poll bounce may continue if he can squeeze the LD and Conservative vote a bit further
You are a conservative and not once do you mention Kemi's poll bounce taking her ahead of all the four party leaders
I wonder why ?
Where is this poll bounce you speak of? The More in Common poll posted earlier in the thread has the Tories third on 19%, 3% behind Labour and 11% behind Reform
I simply cannot understand why you prevaricate
The approval bounce to best ratings of all the leaders is a prerequisite of any improvement in the conservative brand which your hero Johnson trashed
Johnson even when he resigned left the Conservatives with a higher voteshare in the polls then when he took over in summer 2019 and a voteshare over 10% higher than the current Conservative voteshare
At what point do even the PB Centrist Dads admit that maybe we have a tiny bit of a problem
"Pupils' drawings could be blasphemous under Islamic law, Labour councils tell schools - while music and dance classes may go against the teachings of Islam"
The UK ending almost all jury trials is a genuine "moment". I feel a "Please pinch me - I want to wake up now." sensation. It's like we abolished the monarchy - & then some. We're led by people who have no interest in or respect for the assembled wisdom of centuries.
I do dislike glib interjections like this. For a long time there have been non-jury trials for criminal offences. Up to and including incarceration. I assume Mr Lilico is not in favour of putting every criminal case (including youth court) in front of a jury? So if you accept that some offences require a jury and others don’t then all you are is deciding where to draw the line.
What annoys me is that the current reduction of jury trials is that it is solely being driven by the problems of a justice system starved of resources, not neccessarily what is in the best interests of justice. Personally I do think there is room for greater uses of judges (and panels of judges) for criminal offences (e.g white collar crimes, etc). There is also a desperate need to speed up the time to court for victims of crime - even in a well funded justice system delays can be chronic and actually help no one (even the perpetrator).
Either way it is hardly the hyperbole Mr Lilico ascribes it.
Nail on head.
This whole argument has been very dishonestly framed as juries vs no juries. Even though that isn’t what we already have.
Nobody is arguing for MORE juries, only to keep it as now. Therefore implicitly everyone supports not having juries in one case.
Therefore the argument is really about what should we have juries for and what we shouldn’t. But that’s boring hence people framing it as something else.
I do enjoy people that say that Labour has no ideas and yet when they present one as a means to resolve a problem, it’s immediately shouted down. How do the opposition propose to reduce the backlog? After all it is entirely their fault (including members of Reform UK who defected)? The members of the last government have their fingers entirely on this one.
Why are the twatty Bishops still in the HoL? Disestablish, now
Absolutely not, we have an established church and the Bishops should be there, they are less than 5% of the fully appointed unelected Lords anyway though a few more leaders from other faiths should be appointed as well. We should have kept the hereditaries too.
Disestablishment also removes the automatic right to a wedding or funeral in your local C of E Parish church
Disagree with your final statement. The Church in Wales is disestablished and we can still do the things you mention.
The Church in Wales is tiny and now significantly smaller than the Roman Catholic church in Wales. Of course it is now possible for Church in Wales vicars to refuse weddings or funerals to local Parishioners unless they attend church each week which they couldn't before when they were established.
Certainly I would expect conservative evangelical Vicars to start refusing local people weddings, funerals or baptisms in their church unless they attended each week if the C of E was disestablished. You also can't get married in the RC church unless a baptised RC who is expected to attend church regularly in the run up to marriage
Personally, I would say that Starmer has proven to be closer to my position on this than any of the leaders. If he wasn't so woolly, incoherent and inconsistent he might be doing even better.
He should take the flack from Trump and wear it with pride, it will do him more political good than anything else he or his government has done, well, ever actually.
My critique of Starmer and indeed the other European nations is that they have not gone far enough. They should have made it clear that there was no legal basis for this war, that it was and is a criminal act and that they disapprove of what both the US and Israel have done. After the Greenland fiasco Europe needs to stop aligning with the US by default. If they want a rules based system to survive they need to speak up for it. And that includes calling out your erstwhile friends when they act badly.
It is absolutely farcical to suggest there is no legal basis for war. Iran has been literally attacked Israel directly and indirectly and threatens their security, that is classic self-defence as has been the casus belli for plenty of wars over decades.
Some here have argued we should not join in as we are not Israel's ally, which I would dispute. But Israel absolutely has the right to fight Iran as part of its self-defence, and America is Israel's ally so has every right to assist them.
Well it's you versus pretty much everybody with expertise in the matter.
Law - what is it good for? Deciding what is legal. Which this isn't.
Would you say that His Honour Jeff Blackett OBE, the Judge Advocate General of the Armed Forces between 2004 and 2020, has expertise in this matter?
Trigger warning for those who despise the Spectator, but he is not a Spectator hack, is an expert, and is quite adamant that it is legal, on multiple grounds.
As too did Carney, initially, until he realised it was unpopular and reverse ferreted which is politics not law.
Carney - who didn't opine on the legality (it was politics as you say) - and the Spectator.
We're as we were, I think.
Carney did opine on the legality, but then reverse ferreted.
Ignore the fact that it is the Spectator, it was not an article by the Spectator, it is an article within it, by someone who was for nearly two decades the Judge Advocate General of the Armed Forces.
Do you deny that the former Judge Advocate General of the Armed Forces who served for nearly two decades, was appointed under a Labour Prime Minister and served under 5 different Prime Ministers might just have some expertise in this matter?
The UK ending almost all jury trials is a genuine "moment". I feel a "Please pinch me - I want to wake up now." sensation. It's like we abolished the monarchy - & then some. We're led by people who have no interest in or respect for the assembled wisdom of centuries.
Personally, I would say that Starmer has proven to be closer to my position on this than any of the leaders. If he wasn't so woolly, incoherent and inconsistent he might be doing even better.
He should take the flack from Trump and wear it with pride, it will do him more political good than anything else he or his government has done, well, ever actually.
My critique of Starmer and indeed the other European nations is that they have not gone far enough. They should have made it clear that there was no legal basis for this war, that it was and is a criminal act and that they disapprove of what both the US and Israel have done. After the Greenland fiasco Europe needs to stop aligning with the US by default. If they want a rules based system to survive they need to speak up for it. And that includes calling out your erstwhile friends when they act badly.
It is absolutely farcical to suggest there is no legal basis for war. Iran has been literally attacked Israel directly and indirectly and threatens their security, that is classic self-defence as has been the casus belli for plenty of wars over decades.
Some here have argued we should not join in as we are not Israel's ally, which I would dispute. But Israel absolutely has the right to fight Iran as part of its self-defence, and America is Israel's ally so has every right to assist them.
Has either Israel or the United States actually declared war? Odd that.
AFAIK America has never declared war since World War II so that is rather moot. Literally every single President since WWII has taken offensive actions abroad with their military, without seeking Congressional approval for doing so.
Similarly Iran and Israel have been fighting a shadow war since 1979 but formal declarations of war have fallen out of common practice globally post-WWII.
Comments
13:20 No Drama This End
14:00 Kaid D'Authie
14:40 Storm Heart
Then consider the chances of Rayner, Jones, Davey, Polanski........
Similarly Iran and Israel have been fighting a shadow war since 1979 but formal declarations of war have fallen out of common practice globally post-WWII.
We're as we were, I think.
39 - 38 or 52 - 30
He had unfortunate mental health problems.
I hope he recovered and was able to rebuild his life.
I'm really not sure what the significance of a formal declaration of war would be, and why one is no longer made.
Ignore the fact that it is the Spectator, it was not an article by the Spectator, it is an article within it, by someone who was for nearly two decades the Judge Advocate General of the Armed Forces.
Do you deny that the former Judge Advocate General of the Armed Forces who served for nearly two decades, was appointed under a Labour Prime Minister and served under 5 different Prime Ministers might just have some expertise in this matter?
Day 2 - and the Fez keeps coming at you
It’s going to be an amazing afternoon of TV Sport, because this card is so mixed up - the cross country, the bumper, and I can barely pick a winner from seven wide open races I ain’t daring to NAP one.
All I can say is, whatever you are on, best of luck. 🙋♀️
Wednesday
13:20 - Taurus Bay {long shot rabbit from the hat}
14:00 - Wendigo
14:40 - The Yellow Clay
15:20 - Stumptown
16:00 - L'Eau Du Sud
16:40 - Be Aware
17:20 - Love Sign d'Aunou
Even the Falklands War was, as the blesed one told us, a conflict
Andrew Lilico
@andrew_lilico
The UK ending almost all jury trials is a genuine "moment". I feel a "Please pinch me - I want to wake up now." sensation. It's like we abolished the monarchy - & then some. We're led by people who have no interest in or respect for the assembled wisdom of centuries.
https://x.com/andrew_lilico/status/2031663580580397142
I never said no President has sought Congressional approval before, that is not correct. Sometimes they have.
But literally every single US President since WWII has taken military action without Congressional approval, which you then acknowledge, so I was correct.
Yes, sometimes, they have sought approval. But literally every single President (not just Trump) since WWII has taken military action without prior approval.
Multiple practical reasons why formal declarations are no longer made. On a practical basis, because of modern technology giving a heads up to your enemy is a bad idea, a first strike without warning gives an opportunity to inflict great damage.
A very rabbit-holey point from the other day is that Ian Huntley probably has the right to be buried in his village churchyard (subject to exceptions), but does not have a right to have his ashes scattered there.
I think they are under scoring Reform and Labour to the benefit of Tory and Green in a vain attempt to try to assess a tactical voting scenario, that at this point of the electoral cycle isn't particularly relevsnt
I think
Reform 27
Labour 21
Tories 18
Green 16
LD 15
I think
Prog 52
Right 45
Other 3
Is about accurate and all well with MOE
See Russia vs Ukraine.
You can argue about who falls in which category on occasion, but the difference between offence and defence is a very clear one indeed.
The approval bounce to best ratings of all the leaders is a prerequisite of any improvement in the conservative brand which your hero Johnson trashed
To me that suggests their support is not strong enough to even win. Labour’s thought at least in theory is. If they can squeeze the Greens and get back to 30%. They’re home and dry.
Doesn’t seem a tall task for one Andy Burnham
Ref, Lab, Con might be around where we are, 27, 20, 19 more likely imo
Edit - but until May gives a steer its all just guesswork
Just stop trying to achieve from philosophical principles you don’t understand. We all get that you want to bash the baddies and that’s fine. Just don’t try to justify it.
Police and CPS have confirmed that the Prosecution did not disclose that a key witness Professor Hindmarsh who worked at relevant Maternity Unit was himself under investigation for serious allegations of patient neglect and care from a period at Great Ormond Street Hospital.
This must raise ever further very serious doubts about the original conviction
Iran attacking Israel via Hamas and Hezbollah.
Iran developing nukes.
It points to, in all the calls for more spending urgently needed, exactly how to get VFM and how to build quicker is not mentioned often enough by media or politicians, because they don’t want either of those things, they actually want decisions to go down the sentimental and emotional route.
Keir Hardie
Ed Doolan
Have more chance
Yesterday in the fish and chip shop I met the happiest man in the world, who despite his injured wife and his own cancer was high as a kite on getting the Cheltenham placepot up for a tenner.
Apology long overdue.
There was a huge debate over the constitutional legality of Truman's actions in Korea, which was muddied by the US obtaining a UN resolution for the "police action".
It wasn't satisfactorily resolved, since it was never adjudicated.
The US did not conduct offensive operations in Vietnam until after Congress passed the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution in 1964.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_Resolution
The brouhaha over the Pentagon Papers was because they revealed LBJ had consistently lied to both Congress and the American people about the escalation of US military action in Vietnam.
The controversy led directly to Congress legislating to put explicit checks on Presidential war powers:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Resolution
It's sleight of hand to claim that the ongoing debate over this means that Presidents have unchecked powers.
They don't.
A Congress less supine could decide to further limit them considerably.
Mid term Council elections are always time for protest votes
Expect
Greens
Reform
Independents
To thrive
Labour
Tories
to lose significantly
Welsh
Scottish
Parliament elections will be more relevant
63% of Brits support using our bases to conduct strikes (with only 37% opposing) and the flavour of defensive /offensive is really just political spin.
Strikes are strikes.
If Iran was articulated more as a direct threat to British interests and allies in the region (which I think it is) and less about Trump, I think those numbers would quickly convert if we needed to conduct our own defensive strikes.
Yes, sometimes, Presidents have obtained Congressional approval, but not every time and 100% of POTUS's post-WWII have taken action without prior approval.
It is very easy to disprove that claim if you think it is false. I challenge you to name me one POTUS who never took action without prior approval, and I will either be able to say when they did or admit I was wrong.
I would consider voting for her party.
Todays stuff will be the 'least damaging' so if there 8s any juice imagine whats left to emerge!
No-one has ever explained where the insulin came from.
Kicking out councillors who've maintained bin collections, roads, libraries and leisure centres reasonably competently for some inexperienced political extremists because you don't like the PM is self-harm.
The Alexander Brothers has a very different vibe in Scotland.
The “Alexander brothers” appeared in the Epstein files by first name, but I noticed DOJ redacted their last name in an FBI email contained in EFTA01660679.
But @FBIDirectorKash said no evidence of sex trafficking in the files.
npr.org/2026/03/10/g-s…
justice.gov/epstein/files/…
https://x.com/repthomasmassie/status/2031401864399401103?s=61&t=LYVEHh2mqFy1oUJAdCfe-Q
What annoys me is that the current reduction of jury trials is that it is solely being driven by the problems of a justice system starved of resources, not neccessarily what is in the best interests of justice. Personally I do think there is room for greater uses of judges (and panels of judges) for criminal offences (e.g white collar crimes, etc). There is also a desperate need to speed up the time to court for victims of crime - even in a well funded justice system delays can be chronic and actually help no one (even the perpetrator).
Either way it is hardly the hyperbole Mr Lilico ascribes it.
Much of the debate today seems to stem from a broader fatigue with conflict in the Middle East, and a desire by many not to ‘get involved.’ From that starting point, people often work backwards to justify non‑engagement.
I understand that sentiment, but I don’t share it. Whether we like it or not, we are already involved. Even if we’re not interested in Iran, Iran is interested in us and I think it poses an ongoing direct threat to our interests and our allies. And containment hasn't worked.
I believe the response now needs to be decisive.
We lost a good diligent hard working young Conservative Town Councillor last year to a 60 year old tattooed burberry wearing Reform candidate.
The seat is now up for re-election as he has beef forced to resign for not attending a single meeting.
If the House of Commons had a few hundred more like him it would be a far better place.
He transcends Party lines.
YouGov / Sky News / Times voting intention
RefUK 23%(nc)
CON 19%(+3)
GRN 19%(-2)
LAB 17%(+1)
LDEM 14%(nc)
My sense is that there is still a lot of shaking out to do. And who knows how the shake-down will work out. The most significant fact, surely, is that there are THREE years to go. That's a lot of political water to flow under the bridge.
Focusing on a verb here, a noun there and days of pointless twaddle.
He's a wrongun, he's gone, the CPS. Police and Judiciary possibly, will decide his fate.
Polling needs to recalibrate the new situation. May will help with that. For example - for both Greens and Reform we have little data on their ability to translate support into actual votes on the day, for a nationwide election.
The news story about the release will kick that back on again.
Has he never heard of Diplock courts?
There are still a few MPs on both sides who are able to hold the respect of opposing supporters but they seem few and far between these days.
Apologies for sounding old.
They should have been released before the statement and then the government response
Iran developing nuclear weapons does not create a casus belli for Israel under international law, AIUI. (Israel developed nuclear weapons: does that mean every neighbour of Israel has a casus belli against Israel?)
The situation is rather like that of the UK vs Libya from the 1970's through to 2012.
Public International Law has its uses, in terms of the enforcement of treaties, and setting standards for ius in bello, but as a means of determining ius ad bellum, it does not count for much.
I'll hold onto my money thanks.
The new news is second order stuff. It’s not directly about the evidence against Letby. This doesn’t change the witness evidence about Letby’s behaviour, that Letby stole medical records, the notes Letby wrote to herself, or the other expert witnesses’ statements.it doesn’t change that the babies died when Letby was on duty and not when she wasn’t.
I don’t find the idea that the babies all died because it was an unsafe ward plausible. The deaths were unexpected, not of the illest babies, which is who you would you’d expect to be affected if this was just poor care. The defence at trial accepted that some of the babies must have been killed.
Why is the source of the insulin some big mystery?
In a surprise move for a local authority, the Greater Lincolnshire Mayor can’t rule out UK boots on the ground in Iran.
https://x.com/gregbagwell/status/2031431108034703454
Since then, nearly all signed peace treaties with Israel
https://x.com/saintjavelin/status/2031667395740258384?s=61&t=LYVEHh2mqFy1oUJAdCfe-Q
He was President for three weeks in 1841 before catching pneumonia and dying.
He spent pretty much his whole Presidency surrounded by, and dealing with, office seekers, so didn't really have time to order military action, with or without Congressional approval.
Boriswave
"Pupils' drawings could be blasphemous under Islamic law, Labour councils tell schools - while music and dance classes may go against the teachings of Islam"
https://x.com/DailyMail/status/2031550657958678909?s=20
Transparent wrongery
This whole argument has been very dishonestly framed as juries vs no juries. Even though that isn’t what we already have.
Nobody is arguing for MORE juries, only to keep it as now. Therefore implicitly everyone supports not having juries in one case.
Therefore the argument is really about what should we have juries for and what we shouldn’t. But that’s boring hence people framing it as something else.
I do enjoy people that say that Labour has no ideas and yet when they present one as a means to resolve a problem, it’s immediately shouted down. How do the opposition propose to reduce the backlog? After all it is entirely their fault (including members of Reform UK who defected)? The members of the last government have their fingers entirely on this one.
Certainly I would expect conservative evangelical Vicars to start refusing local people weddings, funerals or baptisms in their church unless they attended each week if the C of E was disestablished. You also can't get married in the RC church unless a baptised RC who is expected to attend church regularly in the run up to marriage
“In June 1971, President Nixon declared a “war on drugs.”“ says https://drugpolicy.org/drug-war-history/