On the Joseph Kent (Counter-terrorism bod) resignation:
Paul Mason @paulmasonnews · 8m 4/ though Kent's resignation has been slammed by Trump loyalists, the statement will have legal import for every Western democracy with a functioning attorney general system - the first insider testimony (not evidence) that there was no imminent threat.
Just spoke to @POTUS about our European allies’ unwillingness to provide assets to keep the Strait of Hormuz functioning, which benefits Europe far more than America. I have never heard him so angry in my life. I share that anger given what’s at stake.
The arrogance of our allies to suggest that Iran with a nuclear weapon is of little concern and that military action to stop the ayatollah from acquiring a nuclear bomb is our problem not theirs is beyond offensive. The European approach to containing the ayatollah’s nuclear ambitions have proven to be a miserable failure.
The repercussions of providing little assistance to keep the Strait of Hormuz functioning are going to be wide and deep for Europe and America.
I consider myself very forward-leaning on supporting alliances, however at a time of real testing like this, it makes me second guess the value of these alliances. I am certain I am not the only senator who feels this way.
They don't have any alliance that applies to Iran.🤦♂️
I say that too, not as a critic of the war. Indeed as one of the lone supporters of war with Iran and as someone who thinks that British forces should be used, in a ground invasion if required.
However I would support that because I think its the right thing to do, not out of respect for Trump (which is non-existent) and not due to any alliance obligations (which are also non-existent).
If Iran attacked America, on its soil, then we would be obliged under NATO to respond. They have not. We are under no obligations. Fighting in Hormuz is not covered by the NATO Treaty, thanks to choices America made when the Treaty was signed.
“ If Iran attacked America, on its soil, then we would be obliged under NATO to respond. They have not. We are under no obligations.”
That’s the most pathetic statement of the whole war.
No one on PB can support you saying that.
We have to wait till a nuke is used in a NATO country before we act. We can’t prevent a strike? We can’t act on intelligence of a threat?
But the US has made clear to us they were under imminent threat of the Ayatollah’s Nuclear bomb, Iran was just days away from achieving. I’ve seen it mentioned by US government, California was just two weeks away from being ready made film set for season 3 of Fall Out.
So you are wrong - if US and Israel intelligence felt California and Jerusalem were just days away from being radioactive waste, NATO has to respect that serious threat to the US - NATO member state - and Israel, doesn’t it?
It’s beyond doubt, where there is a mess now, Israel and US blame the mess squarely on failure of others preventing Iran’s nuclear programme - deals that allowed Iran to keep racing towards the goal, negotiations going on forever allowing Iran to keep racing towards the goal. Iran were brazen about it. Do you want weapons of mass destruction? Yes. Are you busy working towards possessing them? Yes.
So what gives you such knowledge to pontificate like you are doing? If it comes down to what Israeli and US Intelligence services knew, over what you knew - then you are going to lose aren’t you?
And that is what it does comes down to. All other avenues exhausted for preventing Iran’s weapons of mass destruction. Intelligence about how close and real the threat was.
"the US has made clear to us they were under imminent threat of the Ayatollah’s Nuclear bomb"
Utterly unsuppoted by evidence.
In the "I've made clear to pb.com that I am under imminent threat of being seduced by Margot Robbie" world of unsupported evidence.
Just spoke to @POTUS about our European allies’ unwillingness to provide assets to keep the Strait of Hormuz functioning, which benefits Europe far more than America. I have never heard him so angry in my life. I share that anger given what’s at stake.
The arrogance of our allies to suggest that Iran with a nuclear weapon is of little concern and that military action to stop the ayatollah from acquiring a nuclear bomb is our problem not theirs is beyond offensive. The European approach to containing the ayatollah’s nuclear ambitions have proven to be a miserable failure.
The repercussions of providing little assistance to keep the Strait of Hormuz functioning are going to be wide and deep for Europe and America.
I consider myself very forward-leaning on supporting alliances, however at a time of real testing like this, it makes me second guess the value of these alliances. I am certain I am not the only senator who feels this way.
They don't have any alliance that applies to Iran.🤦♂️
I say that too, not as a critic of the war. Indeed as one of the lone supporters of war with Iran and as someone who thinks that British forces should be used, in a ground invasion if required.
However I would support that because I think its the right thing to do, not out of respect for Trump (which is non-existent) and not due to any alliance obligations (which are also non-existent).
If Iran attacked America, on its soil, then we would be obliged under NATO to respond. They have not. We are under no obligations. Fighting in Hormuz is not covered by the NATO Treaty, thanks to choices America made when the Treaty was signed.
“ If Iran attacked America, on its soil, then we would be obliged under NATO to respond. They have not. We are under no obligations.”
That’s the most pathetic statement of the whole war.
No one on PB can support you saying that.
We have to wait till a nuke is used in a NATO country before we act. We can’t prevent a strike? We can’t act on intelligence of a threat?
But the US has made clear to us they were under imminent threat of the Ayatollah’s Nuclear bomb, Iran was just days away from achieving. I’ve seen it mentioned by US government, California was just two weeks away from being ready made film set for season 3 of Fall Out.
So you are wrong - if US and Israel intelligence felt California and Jerusalem were just days away from being radioactive waste, NATO has to respect that serious threat to the US - NATO member state - and Israel, doesn’t it?
It’s beyond doubt, where there is a mess now, Israel and US blame the mess squarely on failure of others preventing Iran’s nuclear programme - deals that allowed Iran to keep racing towards the goal, negotiations going on forever allowing Iran to keep racing towards the goal. Iran were brazen about it. Do you want weapons of mass destruction? Yes. Are you busy working towards possessing them? Yes.
So what gives you such knowledge to pontificate like you are doing? If it comes down to what Israeli and US Intelligence services knew, over what you knew - then you are going to lose aren’t you?
And that is what it does comes down to. All other avenues exhausted for preventing Iran’s weapons of mass destruction. Intelligence about how close and real the threat was.
No.
We have a right to act pre-emptively in self-defence, under international law, but are under no obligations to do so under Article 5 of NATO.
The wording in NATO Article 5 is quite explicit.
"The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such a armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area. Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security."
"such a armed attack" has not occurred.
Intelligence is always a matter of judgement. If Starmer wants to get Britain involved he can, if he does not, he is under no obligation to do so.
I think we should. But we should because we think its the right thing to do (IMHO) not because we're obliged to do so, which we're not.
Besides, again, Iran is outside of the territorial limits of NATO. Limits that are there on America's insistence.
Just spoke to @POTUS about our European allies’ unwillingness to provide assets to keep the Strait of Hormuz functioning, which benefits Europe far more than America. I have never heard him so angry in my life. I share that anger given what’s at stake.
The arrogance of our allies to suggest that Iran with a nuclear weapon is of little concern and that military action to stop the ayatollah from acquiring a nuclear bomb is our problem not theirs is beyond offensive. The European approach to containing the ayatollah’s nuclear ambitions have proven to be a miserable failure.
The repercussions of providing little assistance to keep the Strait of Hormuz functioning are going to be wide and deep for Europe and America.
I consider myself very forward-leaning on supporting alliances, however at a time of real testing like this, it makes me second guess the value of these alliances. I am certain I am not the only senator who feels this way.
They don't have any alliance that applies to Iran.🤦♂️
I say that too, not as a critic of the war. Indeed as one of the lone supporters of war with Iran and as someone who thinks that British forces should be used, in a ground invasion if required.
However I would support that because I think its the right thing to do, not out of respect for Trump (which is non-existent) and not due to any alliance obligations (which are also non-existent).
If Iran attacked America, on its soil, then we would be obliged under NATO to respond. They have not. We are under no obligations. Fighting in Hormuz is not covered by the NATO Treaty, thanks to choices America made when the Treaty was signed.
“ If Iran attacked America, on its soil, then we would be obliged under NATO to respond. They have not. We are under no obligations.”
That’s the most pathetic statement of the whole war.
No one on PB can support you saying that.
We have to wait till a nuke is used in a NATO country before we act. We can’t prevent a strike? We can’t act on intelligence of a threat?
But the US has made clear to us they were under imminent threat of the Ayatollah’s Nuclear bomb, Iran was just days away from achieving. I’ve seen it mentioned by US government, California was just two weeks away from being ready made film set for season 3 of Fall Out.
So you are wrong - if US and Israel intelligence felt California and Jerusalem were just days away from being radioactive waste, NATO has to respect that serious threat to the US - NATO member state - and Israel, doesn’t it?
It’s beyond doubt, where there is a mess now, Israel and US blame the mess squarely on failure of others preventing Iran’s nuclear programme - deals that allowed Iran to keep racing towards the goal, negotiations going on forever allowing Iran to keep racing towards the goal. Iran were brazen about it. Do you want weapons of mass destruction? Yes. Are you busy working towards possessing them? Yes.
So what gives you such knowledge to pontificate like you are doing? If it comes down to what Israeli and US Intelligence services knew, over what you knew - then you are going to lose aren’t you?
And that is what it does comes down to. All other avenues exhausted for preventing Iran’s weapons of mass destruction. Intelligence about how close and real the threat was.
For all I know, everything you say may be undeniably true. Even if that is the case, it demonstrates the extreme unwisdom of repudiating all your allies the way Mr Trump has been doing. When you need them, they aren't there. Why should they be?
Mike Johnson: "We all understood there was clearly an imminent threat that Iran was very close to the enrichment of nuclear capability ... I don't know where Joe Kent is getting his information ... the president felt he had to strike first to prevent mass casualties" https://x.com/atrupar/status/2033919110749253641
Which again doesn't really square with this.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/mar/17/uk-security-adviser-attended-us-iran-talks-and-judged-deal-was-within-reach ...Powell’s presence at the talks, and his close knowledge of how they were progressing, was confirmed by three sources. One source said he was in the building at Oman’s ambassadorial residence in Cologny acting as an adviser, reflecting widespread concern about the US expertise on the talks represented by Donald Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff, Trump’s special envoy on several issues.
Kushner and Witkoff had invited Rafael Grossi, the director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), to the Geneva talks, to provide technical expertise, though Kushner would later claim that he and Witkoff had “a pretty deep understanding of the issues that matter in this”. Nuclear experts would later say that Witkoff’s pronouncements on the Iran nuclear programme were riddled with basic errors.
Powell has long experience as a mediator, and one source said Powell brought an expert from the UK Cabinet Office with him. One western diplomat said: “Jonathan thought there was a deal to be done, but Iran were not quite there yet, especially on the issue of UN inspections of its nuclear sites.”
A former official who was briefed on the Geneva talks by some of the participants said: “Witkoff and Kushner did not bring a US technical team with them. They used Grossi as their technical expert, but that is not his job. So Jonathan Powell took his own team.
“The UK team were surprised by what the Iranians put on the table,” the former official added. “It was not a complete deal, but it was progress and was unlikely to be the Iranians’ final offer. The British team expected the next round of negotiations to go ahead on the basis of the progress in Geneva.”
That next round of talks was due to take place in Vienna on Monday 2 March, but never happened. The US and Israel had launched their all-out attack two days earlier...
What Powell thought is moot, since Starmer chose not to get involved in operations. If you don't get involved, your judgment is irrelevant.
All that matters is if America and Israel were satisfied with the Iranian offer. They clearly weren't.
Please for the love of God will you give this "If you don't get involved, your judgment is irrelevant" argument a rest ? It's truly the most pathetically weak argument I've heard on PB since at least last week.
If it's true that Trump has had a series of mini strokes, there has to be a chance with the pressure he is under on every front, the next one is going to be rather more troubling. And difficult to hide.
What pressure is he under?
He gets richer every day. Says insane shit and nobody cares. Can bomb anywhere he likes to steal even more. He doesn't need votes from anybody for anything.
Mike Johnson: "We all understood there was clearly an imminent threat that Iran was very close to the enrichment of nuclear capability ... I don't know where Joe Kent is getting his information ... the president felt he had to strike first to prevent mass casualties" https://x.com/atrupar/status/2033919110749253641
Which again doesn't really square with this.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/mar/17/uk-security-adviser-attended-us-iran-talks-and-judged-deal-was-within-reach ...Powell’s presence at the talks, and his close knowledge of how they were progressing, was confirmed by three sources. One source said he was in the building at Oman’s ambassadorial residence in Cologny acting as an adviser, reflecting widespread concern about the US expertise on the talks represented by Donald Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff, Trump’s special envoy on several issues.
Kushner and Witkoff had invited Rafael Grossi, the director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), to the Geneva talks, to provide technical expertise, though Kushner would later claim that he and Witkoff had “a pretty deep understanding of the issues that matter in this”. Nuclear experts would later say that Witkoff’s pronouncements on the Iran nuclear programme were riddled with basic errors.
Powell has long experience as a mediator, and one source said Powell brought an expert from the UK Cabinet Office with him. One western diplomat said: “Jonathan thought there was a deal to be done, but Iran were not quite there yet, especially on the issue of UN inspections of its nuclear sites.”
A former official who was briefed on the Geneva talks by some of the participants said: “Witkoff and Kushner did not bring a US technical team with them. They used Grossi as their technical expert, but that is not his job. So Jonathan Powell took his own team.
“The UK team were surprised by what the Iranians put on the table,” the former official added. “It was not a complete deal, but it was progress and was unlikely to be the Iranians’ final offer. The British team expected the next round of negotiations to go ahead on the basis of the progress in Geneva.”
That next round of talks was due to take place in Vienna on Monday 2 March, but never happened. The US and Israel had launched their all-out attack two days earlier...
What Powell thought is moot, since Starmer chose not to get involved in operations. If you don't get involved, your judgment is irrelevant.
All that matters is if America and Israel were satisfied with the Iranian offer. They clearly weren't.
Please for the love of God will you give this "If you don't get involved, your judgment is irrelevant" argument a rest ? It's truly the most pathetically weak argument I've heard on PB since at least last week.
No.
The judgment of any bystanders is irrelevant.
Powell can think whatever he wants. His opinion is no more relevant than yours or mine.
What matters is the opinions of any would-be decision makers. Since Starmer opted that we would not be making the decision, that is not Powell.
And this gamey character wants to be PM. Can't see it myself. I think we're better than that. We might not rule the waves anymore but we are better than that.
He doesn't though, does he. It would be a personal disaster to be elected PM. He'd actually have to do the job. His thing has always been the outsider shouting at the system. Someone said he was happy after Brexit - I'm not so sure. On the night of the vote he was steeled to fight on after losing. That's the game he wants.
We can't know without being inside his head (urgh) but I don't buy that. PM is the ultimate for a British politician, power, fame, place in history, opps for mega £££ if you're corrupt, and I think he wants it with every fibre.
I realise @FF43 "calls it for the Trump administration" is preposterous but it does feel like it's run out of road with nowhere to go. The Iranian regime may turn out the be changed less in the end.
Trump will now trash NATO and try and turn Americans against the alliance .
Even though it’s nothing to do with that . This really is a dark time and Europe needs to wake up.
Shortly to threaten pulling all support for Ukraine, I'd have thought.
What support for Ukraine?
Intelligence is what is left. I think that Ukraine probably is past the danger point, now. Russia has burned through its advantages, in terms of manpower and equipment, and seemingly cannot hold the entire frontline.
And this gamey character wants to be PM. Can't see it myself. I think we're better than that. We might not rule the waves anymore but we are better than that.
He doesn't though, does he. It would be a personal disaster to be elected PM. He'd actually have to do the job. His thing has always been the outsider shouting at the system. Someone said he was happy after Brexit - I'm not so sure. On the night of the vote he was steeled to fight on after losing. That's the game he wants.
We can't know without being inside his head (urgh) but I don't buy that. PM is the ultimate for a British politician, power, fame, place in history, opps for mega £££ if you're corrupt, and I think he wants it with every fibre.
Seems to me he's more likely to end up still the outsider & shouting at PM Rupert Lowe.
I realise @FF43 "calls it for the Trump administration" is preposterous but it does feel like it's run out of road with nowhere to go. The Iranian regime may turn out the be changed less in the end.
If I could get a 4/1 type price on him not going full term I'd open the jar.
I realise @FF43 "calls it for the Trump administration" is preposterous but it does feel like it's run out of road with nowhere to go. The Iranian regime may turn out the be changed less in the end.
How long do Iran keep lobbing bombs around if the US (and Israel) stop their campaign and declare victory? If that is unsustainable for Iran under pressure from its neighbours then the US can perhaps still salvage a small win by falsely declaring a big win.
I realise @FF43 "calls it for the Trump administration" is preposterous but it does feel like it's run out of road with nowhere to go. The Iranian regime may turn out the be changed less in the end.
There's a lot of wishful thinking there. The US is winning the war.
Long but interesting thread from someone who wargamed a US war with Iran:
Includes:
3. One surprising development: Iran is still moving oil through the Strait of Hormuz while disrupting everyone else. In most war games I participated in, we assumed Iran couldn’t close the Strait and still use it themselves. That would have made the move extremely self-defeating. But Iran appears capable of harassing global shipping while still pushing some of its own exports through. That changes the calculus.
Ilan Goldenberg @ilangoldenberg Three weeks into the war with Iran, a number of observations as someone who spent years war-gaming this scenario.
If it's true that Trump has had a series of mini strokes, there has to be a chance with the pressure he is under on every front, the next one is going to be rather more troubling. And difficult to hide.
What pressure is he under?
He gets richer every day. Says insane shit and nobody cares. Can bomb anywhere he likes to steal even more. He doesn't need votes from anybody for anything.
Yes, he's in now. 5/11 was all he needed. I don't think he's that bothered about approval ratings, midterms, etc. He's in and he's having a ball. Happy as larry. All together now - he likes it, he likes it, he likes it, he likes it, he li-i-i-likes it, li-i-i-likes, here he go-oes, shitting all over the world.
Mike Johnson: "We all understood there was clearly an imminent threat that Iran was very close to the enrichment of nuclear capability ... I don't know where Joe Kent is getting his information ... the president felt he had to strike first to prevent mass casualties" https://x.com/atrupar/status/2033919110749253641
Which again doesn't really square with this.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/mar/17/uk-security-adviser-attended-us-iran-talks-and-judged-deal-was-within-reach ...Powell’s presence at the talks, and his close knowledge of how they were progressing, was confirmed by three sources. One source said he was in the building at Oman’s ambassadorial residence in Cologny acting as an adviser, reflecting widespread concern about the US expertise on the talks represented by Donald Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff, Trump’s special envoy on several issues.
Kushner and Witkoff had invited Rafael Grossi, the director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), to the Geneva talks, to provide technical expertise, though Kushner would later claim that he and Witkoff had “a pretty deep understanding of the issues that matter in this”. Nuclear experts would later say that Witkoff’s pronouncements on the Iran nuclear programme were riddled with basic errors.
Powell has long experience as a mediator, and one source said Powell brought an expert from the UK Cabinet Office with him. One western diplomat said: “Jonathan thought there was a deal to be done, but Iran were not quite there yet, especially on the issue of UN inspections of its nuclear sites.”
A former official who was briefed on the Geneva talks by some of the participants said: “Witkoff and Kushner did not bring a US technical team with them. They used Grossi as their technical expert, but that is not his job. So Jonathan Powell took his own team.
“The UK team were surprised by what the Iranians put on the table,” the former official added. “It was not a complete deal, but it was progress and was unlikely to be the Iranians’ final offer. The British team expected the next round of negotiations to go ahead on the basis of the progress in Geneva.”
That next round of talks was due to take place in Vienna on Monday 2 March, but never happened. The US and Israel had launched their all-out attack two days earlier...
What Powell thought is moot, since Starmer chose not to get involved in operations. If you don't get involved, your judgment is irrelevant.
All that matters is if America and Israel were satisfied with the Iranian offer. They clearly weren't.
Please for the love of God will you give this "If you don't get involved, your judgment is irrelevant" argument a rest ? It's truly the most pathetically weak argument I've heard on PB since at least last week.
No.
The judgment of any bystanders is irrelevant.
Powell can think whatever he wants. His opinion is no more relevant than yours or mine.
What matters is the opinions of any would-be decision makers. Since Starmer opted that we would not be making the decision, that is not Powell.
It nevertheless lends credence to the widely held belief that Nehanyahu and Trump attacked Iran on a false premise and it was never about Iran's possession of a bomb. This will affect what people will sign up to now, given it's a huge mess.
A personal question that's slightly related to this - feel free to ignore if you wish. Do you still support the Iraq war, if you ever did? I'm curious if there's anyone apart from Tony Blair still supporting it, and if so why?
Hate to break it to you all but the country is not going to suddenly rally around Starmer. He will get a small pity bump in his ratings. Trump is criticising him for some of the very things he is unpopular with UK voters for.
Mike Johnson: "We all understood there was clearly an imminent threat that Iran was very close to the enrichment of nuclear capability ... I don't know where Joe Kent is getting his information ... the president felt he had to strike first to prevent mass casualties" https://x.com/atrupar/status/2033919110749253641
Which again doesn't really square with this.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/mar/17/uk-security-adviser-attended-us-iran-talks-and-judged-deal-was-within-reach ...Powell’s presence at the talks, and his close knowledge of how they were progressing, was confirmed by three sources. One source said he was in the building at Oman’s ambassadorial residence in Cologny acting as an adviser, reflecting widespread concern about the US expertise on the talks represented by Donald Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff, Trump’s special envoy on several issues.
Kushner and Witkoff had invited Rafael Grossi, the director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), to the Geneva talks, to provide technical expertise, though Kushner would later claim that he and Witkoff had “a pretty deep understanding of the issues that matter in this”. Nuclear experts would later say that Witkoff’s pronouncements on the Iran nuclear programme were riddled with basic errors.
Powell has long experience as a mediator, and one source said Powell brought an expert from the UK Cabinet Office with him. One western diplomat said: “Jonathan thought there was a deal to be done, but Iran were not quite there yet, especially on the issue of UN inspections of its nuclear sites.”
A former official who was briefed on the Geneva talks by some of the participants said: “Witkoff and Kushner did not bring a US technical team with them. They used Grossi as their technical expert, but that is not his job. So Jonathan Powell took his own team.
“The UK team were surprised by what the Iranians put on the table,” the former official added. “It was not a complete deal, but it was progress and was unlikely to be the Iranians’ final offer. The British team expected the next round of negotiations to go ahead on the basis of the progress in Geneva.”
That next round of talks was due to take place in Vienna on Monday 2 March, but never happened. The US and Israel had launched their all-out attack two days earlier...
What Powell thought is moot, since Starmer chose not to get involved in operations. If you don't get involved, your judgment is irrelevant.
All that matters is if America and Israel were satisfied with the Iranian offer. They clearly weren't.
Please for the love of God will you give this "If you don't get involved, your judgment is irrelevant" argument a rest ? It's truly the most pathetically weak argument I've heard on PB since at least last week.
No.
The judgment of any bystanders is irrelevant.
Powell can think whatever he wants. His opinion is no more relevant than yours or mine.
What matters is the opinions of any would-be decision makers. Since Starmer opted that we would not be making the decision, that is not Powell.
It nevertheless lends credence to the widely held belief that Nehanyahu and Trump attacked Iran on a false premise and it was never about Iran's possession of a bomb. This will affect what people will sign up to now, given it's a huge mess.
A personal question that's slightly related to this - feel free to ignore if you wish. Do you still support the Iraq war, if you ever did? I'm curious if there's anyone apart from Tony Blair still supporting it, and if so why?
Iraq certainly had more going for it than Afghanistan. Not that either should have happened, but I find it interesting that it's Iraq that got the juices flowing.
And this gamey character wants to be PM. Can't see it myself. I think we're better than that. We might not rule the waves anymore but we are better than that.
He doesn't though, does he. It would be a personal disaster to be elected PM. He'd actually have to do the job. His thing has always been the outsider shouting at the system. Someone said he was happy after Brexit - I'm not so sure. On the night of the vote he was steeled to fight on after losing. That's the game he wants.
We can't know without being inside his head (urgh) but I don't buy that. PM is the ultimate for a British politician, power, fame, place in history, opps for mega £££ if you're corrupt, and I think he wants it with every fibre.
Seems to me he's more likely to end up still the outsider & shouting at PM Rupert Lowe.
I think he'll fail too - but Rupert Lowe? God no. He only gets in if the country has a collective emotional collapse.
And this gamey character wants to be PM. Can't see it myself. I think we're better than that. We might not rule the waves anymore but we are better than that.
He doesn't though, does he. It would be a personal disaster to be elected PM. He'd actually have to do the job. His thing has always been the outsider shouting at the system. Someone said he was happy after Brexit - I'm not so sure. On the night of the vote he was steeled to fight on after losing. That's the game he wants.
We can't know without being inside his head (urgh) but I don't buy that. PM is the ultimate for a British politician, power, fame, place in history, opps for mega £££ if you're corrupt, and I think he wants it with every fibre.
Seems to me he's more likely to end up still the outsider & shouting at PM Rupert Lowe.
I think he'll fail too - but Rupert Lowe? God no. He only gets in if the country has a collective emotional collapse.
Lowe has no chance at all. Nick Griffin 2009 levels of support perhaps
Trouble is, I don't find Trump at all funny. He's an incoherent, mendacious, contradictory, unintelligent madman. He is not up for re-election so he has nothing to lose - he couldn't give a toss about the Republican Party. And, to cap it all, he has chosen to surround himself with warmongering lackeys who have no wisdom and no gravitas. He receives absolutely no sage advice internally, and won't listen to wiser leaders (Starmer, Macron for example) externally.
All things considered, I find it pretty scary rather than entertaining, and worry about the future for my kids and grandkids.
Hate to break it to you all but the country is not going to suddenly rally around Starmer. He will get a small pity bump in his ratings. Trump is criticising him for some of the very things he is unpopular with UK voters for.
He's certainly getting a bounce up and not a fall like Donald's foot soldiers Nigel and Kemi.
Hate to break it to you all but the country is not going to suddenly rally around Starmer. He will get a small pity bump in his ratings. Trump is criticising him for some of the very things he is unpopular with UK voters for.
The whole country, no, disaffected Labour types who’ve gone Green and LD, very possibly.
I realise @FF43 "calls it for the Trump administration" is preposterous but it does feel like it's run out of road with nowhere to go. The Iranian regime may turn out the be changed less in the end.
How long do Iran keep lobbing bombs around if the US (and Israel) stop their campaign and declare victory? If that is unsustainable for Iran under pressure from its neighbours then the US can perhaps still salvage a small win by falsely declaring a big win.
Yes, that's a possible way. Or some sort of deal that Trump can (falsely) say was only achieved due to Eric Fury.
And this gamey character wants to be PM. Can't see it myself. I think we're better than that. We might not rule the waves anymore but we are better than that.
He doesn't though, does he. It would be a personal disaster to be elected PM. He'd actually have to do the job. His thing has always been the outsider shouting at the system. Someone said he was happy after Brexit - I'm not so sure. On the night of the vote he was steeled to fight on after losing. That's the game he wants.
We can't know without being inside his head (urgh) but I don't buy that. PM is the ultimate for a British politician, power, fame, place in history, opps for mega £££ if you're corrupt, and I think he wants it with every fibre.
Seems to me he's more likely to end up still the outsider & shouting at PM Rupert Lowe.
I think he'll fail too - but Rupert Lowe? God no. He only gets in if the country has a collective emotional collapse.
If Lowe emerges as the challenger it is imperative Labour go for Louise Haigh as their next leader. After all when they go low, we go haigh.
I realise @FF43 "calls it for the Trump administration" is preposterous but it does feel like it's run out of road with nowhere to go. The Iranian regime may turn out the be changed less in the end.
How long do Iran keep lobbing bombs around if the US (and Israel) stop their campaign and declare victory? If that is unsustainable for Iran under pressure from its neighbours then the US can perhaps still salvage a small win by falsely declaring a big win.
Possible but I don't see how the US can declare victory unless there's an undertaking from Iran to allow free and safe passage through Hormuz. Also Gulf states probably don't appreciate the occasional drone sent their direction and will want their security to be included in the agreement.
I admit it's more a feeling of end of days for the regime (Trump regime). "There's a lot of ruin in a nation" as Adam Smith put. But surely not even America can tolerate this much ruin?
And this gamey character wants to be PM. Can't see it myself. I think we're better than that. We might not rule the waves anymore but we are better than that.
He doesn't though, does he. It would be a personal disaster to be elected PM. He'd actually have to do the job. His thing has always been the outsider shouting at the system. Someone said he was happy after Brexit - I'm not so sure. On the night of the vote he was steeled to fight on after losing. That's the game he wants.
We can't know without being inside his head (urgh) but I don't buy that. PM is the ultimate for a British politician, power, fame, place in history, opps for mega £££ if you're corrupt, and I think he wants it with every fibre.
Seems to me he's more likely to end up still the outsider & shouting at PM Rupert Lowe.
I think he'll fail too - but Rupert Lowe? God no. He only gets in if the country has a collective emotional collapse.
Or if we re-jig our electoral system so that Great Yarmouth counts as 326 seats.
Mike Johnson: "We all understood there was clearly an imminent threat that Iran was very close to the enrichment of nuclear capability ... I don't know where Joe Kent is getting his information ... the president felt he had to strike first to prevent mass casualties" https://x.com/atrupar/status/2033919110749253641
Which again doesn't really square with this.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/mar/17/uk-security-adviser-attended-us-iran-talks-and-judged-deal-was-within-reach ...Powell’s presence at the talks, and his close knowledge of how they were progressing, was confirmed by three sources. One source said he was in the building at Oman’s ambassadorial residence in Cologny acting as an adviser, reflecting widespread concern about the US expertise on the talks represented by Donald Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff, Trump’s special envoy on several issues.
Kushner and Witkoff had invited Rafael Grossi, the director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), to the Geneva talks, to provide technical expertise, though Kushner would later claim that he and Witkoff had “a pretty deep understanding of the issues that matter in this”. Nuclear experts would later say that Witkoff’s pronouncements on the Iran nuclear programme were riddled with basic errors.
Powell has long experience as a mediator, and one source said Powell brought an expert from the UK Cabinet Office with him. One western diplomat said: “Jonathan thought there was a deal to be done, but Iran were not quite there yet, especially on the issue of UN inspections of its nuclear sites.”
A former official who was briefed on the Geneva talks by some of the participants said: “Witkoff and Kushner did not bring a US technical team with them. They used Grossi as their technical expert, but that is not his job. So Jonathan Powell took his own team.
“The UK team were surprised by what the Iranians put on the table,” the former official added. “It was not a complete deal, but it was progress and was unlikely to be the Iranians’ final offer. The British team expected the next round of negotiations to go ahead on the basis of the progress in Geneva.”
That next round of talks was due to take place in Vienna on Monday 2 March, but never happened. The US and Israel had launched their all-out attack two days earlier...
What Powell thought is moot, since Starmer chose not to get involved in operations. If you don't get involved, your judgment is irrelevant.
All that matters is if America and Israel were satisfied with the Iranian offer. They clearly weren't.
Please for the love of God will you give this "If you don't get involved, your judgment is irrelevant" argument a rest ? It's truly the most pathetically weak argument I've heard on PB since at least last week.
No.
The judgment of any bystanders is irrelevant.
Powell can think whatever he wants. His opinion is no more relevant than yours or mine.
What matters is the opinions of any would-be decision makers. Since Starmer opted that we would not be making the decision, that is not Powell.
It nevertheless lends credence to the widely held belief that Nehanyahu and Trump attacked Iran on a false premise and it was never about Iran's possession of a bomb. This will affect what people will sign up to now, given it's a huge mess.
A personal question that's slightly related to this - feel free to ignore if you wish. Do you still support the Iraq war, if you ever did? I'm curious if there's anyone apart from Tony Blair still supporting it, and if so why?
Netanyahu unilaterally attacked, he put Trump on the spot, Trump blinked and followed.
I don’t know whether anyone else has noticed, but I have been watching President Trump’s statements carefully and I am not 100% sure he is the full shilling.
I realise @FF43 "calls it for the Trump administration" is preposterous but it does feel like it's run out of road with nowhere to go. The Iranian regime may turn out the be changed less in the end.
How long do Iran keep lobbing bombs around if the US (and Israel) stop their campaign and declare victory? If that is unsustainable for Iran under pressure from its neighbours then the US can perhaps still salvage a small win by falsely declaring a big win.
Possible but I don't see how the US can declare victory unless there's an undertaking from Iran to allow free and safe passage through Hormuz. Also Gulf states probably don't want the occasional drone sent their direction and will want that to be included in the agreement.
I admit it's more a feeling of end of days for the regime (Trump regime). "There's a lot of ruin in a nation" as Adam Smith put. But surely not even America can tolerate this much ruin?
Trump just declares victory and moves onto invading Mexico, Cuba or Canada instead. Probably about time to start imprisoning some judges and/or Democrat candidates too, just to keep the plates spinning. Facts don't matter, alternative ones are constantly available.
Peacock is launching “Your Bravoverse,” a vertical video experience guided by an AI-generated version of Andy Cohen built with @synthesiaio. Viewers pick the shows and moments they care about, and the app serves a personalized stream of clips with Andy narrating the journey across more than 600 billion possible variants.
Paul's Jihad is exterminating billions (61 billion, in fact) and extirpating forty major religions. Somehow, he's reconciled to Chani, so she will not, seemingly, become an antagonist after all. Alia is preaching to the Faithful. She is not God, but rather, God's Prophet. I'm not sure. I wonder if the blond-haired antagonist is Faraddn Corriono.
Hate to break it to you all but the country is not going to suddenly rally around Starmer. He will get a small pity bump in his ratings. Trump is criticising him for some of the very things he is unpopular with UK voters for.
He's certainly getting a bounce up and not a fall like Donald's foot soldiers Nigel and Kemi.
This poll seems relevant and goodness only knows what happens next
We can all be partisan but with a madman in the White House all bets are off
Hate to break it to you all but the country is not going to suddenly rally around Starmer. He will get a small pity bump in his ratings. Trump is criticising him for some of the very things he is unpopular with UK voters for.
The whole country, no, disaffected Labour types who’ve gone Green and LD, very possibly.
Maybe. But i dont see it. Hes damaged goods. And the war bounce argument doesn't imo apply when you're not actually at war. The country doesnt thing he is handling Iran well and thats eith him doing nothing. He just seems beyomf redemption in ratings
Trouble is, I don't find Trump at all funny. He's an incoherent, mendacious, contradictory, unintelligent madman. He is not up for re-election so he has nothing to lose - he couldn't give a toss about the Republican Party. And, to cap it all, he has chosen to surround himself with warmongering lackeys who have no wisdom and no gravitas. He receives absolutely no sage advice internally, and won't listen to wiser leaders (Starmer, Macron for example) externally.
All things considered, I find it pretty scary rather than entertaining, and worry about the future for my kids and grandkids.
He is funny until you remember he is in a position of power. He is Sasha Baron Cohen type parody character of a US president. Some of the lines he comes out with and the comic timing is top tier, would take writers room weeks to come with such scenes, but he ad libs them. 2016 version of Trump was much more on the ball with them. But he isn't a parody character in a tv show / movie that doesn't matter.
Trouble is, I don't find Trump at all funny. He's an incoherent, mendacious, contradictory, unintelligent madman. He is not up for re-election so he has nothing to lose - he couldn't give a toss about the Republican Party. And, to cap it all, he has chosen to surround himself with warmongering lackeys who have no wisdom and no gravitas. He receives absolutely no sage advice internally, and won't listen to wiser leaders (Starmer, Macron for example) externally.
All things considered, I find it pretty scary rather than entertaining, and worry about the future for my kids and grandkids.
He's as funny as dry rot. Any laughter is strictly of the gallows sort that you might do to cope with absurdly grim situations.
I don’t know whether anyone else has noticed, but I have been watching President Trump’s statements carefully and I am not 100% sure he is the full shilling.
I'm glad someone else has come to that conclusion. Had similar thoughts myself. Maybe it's just us?
Just spoke to @POTUS about our European allies’ unwillingness to provide assets to keep the Strait of Hormuz functioning, which benefits Europe far more than America. I have never heard him so angry in my life. I share that anger given what’s at stake.
The arrogance of our allies to suggest that Iran with a nuclear weapon is of little concern and that military action to stop the ayatollah from acquiring a nuclear bomb is our problem not theirs is beyond offensive. The European approach to containing the ayatollah’s nuclear ambitions have proven to be a miserable failure.
The repercussions of providing little assistance to keep the Strait of Hormuz functioning are going to be wide and deep for Europe and America.
I consider myself very forward-leaning on supporting alliances, however at a time of real testing like this, it makes me second guess the value of these alliances. I am certain I am not the only senator who feels this way.
They don't have any alliance that applies to Iran.🤦♂️
I say that too, not as a critic of the war. Indeed as one of the lone supporters of war with Iran and as someone who thinks that British forces should be used, in a ground invasion if required.
However I would support that because I think its the right thing to do, not out of respect for Trump (which is non-existent) and not due to any alliance obligations (which are also non-existent).
If Iran attacked America, on its soil, then we would be obliged under NATO to respond. They have not. We are under no obligations. Fighting in Hormuz is not covered by the NATO Treaty, thanks to choices America made when the Treaty was signed.
Whatever one thinks about the war in Iran - any of the previous ten presidents could have probably got European support of some sort for this adventure. But Trump has gone out of his way to antagonise the USA's allies, either by publicly belittling their past contributions, talking down the alliance itself, trash talking indivudual leaders, siding with the alliance's opponent, or actually threatening to invade allies. Oh, and tariffs, of course. Normal presidents don't do that sort of thing.
Completely agreed.
I think it is a disgrace we are not helping liberate Iran from the Mullahs and we should be doing so.
But I think it is good to see Trump hoist on his own petard.
It is not at all clear that President Trump is trying to free Iran from the Mullahs, even if we accept he might like it if things turn out that way. Much of Iran's opposition was unalived by the regime as Trump encouraged them to rise up but did nothing to help them.
And this gamey character wants to be PM. Can't see it myself. I think we're better than that. We might not rule the waves anymore but we are better than that.
He doesn't though, does he. It would be a personal disaster to be elected PM. He'd actually have to do the job. His thing has always been the outsider shouting at the system. Someone said he was happy after Brexit - I'm not so sure. On the night of the vote he was steeled to fight on after losing. That's the game he wants.
We can't know without being inside his head (urgh) but I don't buy that. PM is the ultimate for a British politician, power, fame, place in history, opps for mega £££ if you're corrupt, and I think he wants it with every fibre.
Seems to me he's more likely to end up still the outsider & shouting at PM Rupert Lowe.
I think he'll fail too - but Rupert Lowe? God no. He only gets in if the country has a collective emotional collapse.
Or if we re-jig our electoral system so that Great Yarmouth counts as 326 seats.
I shall be there over the weekend late April and shall investigate for signs of Restore activity
Hate to break it to you all but the country is not going to suddenly rally around Starmer. He will get a small pity bump in his ratings. Trump is criticising him for some of the very things he is unpopular with UK voters for.
He's certainly getting a bounce up and not a fall like Donald's foot soldiers Nigel and Kemi.
A minor bump in his personal ratings possibly. No bump in VI whatsoever as yet
I don’t know whether anyone else has noticed, but I have been watching President Trump’s statements carefully and I am not 100% sure he is the full shilling.
I'm glad someone else has come to that conclusion. Had similar thoughts myself. Maybe it's just us?
I'd been meaning to say something but you know how shy and wracked by self doubt we lawyers are, I just couldn't vocalise it.
Just spoke to @POTUS about our European allies’ unwillingness to provide assets to keep the Strait of Hormuz functioning, which benefits Europe far more than America. I have never heard him so angry in my life. I share that anger given what’s at stake.
The arrogance of our allies to suggest that Iran with a nuclear weapon is of little concern and that military action to stop the ayatollah from acquiring a nuclear bomb is our problem not theirs is beyond offensive. The European approach to containing the ayatollah’s nuclear ambitions have proven to be a miserable failure.
The repercussions of providing little assistance to keep the Strait of Hormuz functioning are going to be wide and deep for Europe and America.
I consider myself very forward-leaning on supporting alliances, however at a time of real testing like this, it makes me second guess the value of these alliances. I am certain I am not the only senator who feels this way.
They don't have any alliance that applies to Iran.🤦♂️
I say that too, not as a critic of the war. Indeed as one of the lone supporters of war with Iran and as someone who thinks that British forces should be used, in a ground invasion if required.
However I would support that because I think its the right thing to do, not out of respect for Trump (which is non-existent) and not due to any alliance obligations (which are also non-existent).
If Iran attacked America, on its soil, then we would be obliged under NATO to respond. They have not. We are under no obligations. Fighting in Hormuz is not covered by the NATO Treaty, thanks to choices America made when the Treaty was signed.
Whatever one thinks about the war in Iran - any of the previous ten presidents could have probably got European support of some sort for this adventure. But Trump has gone out of his way to antagonise the USA's allies, either by publicly belittling their past contributions, talking down the alliance itself, trash talking indivudual leaders, siding with the alliance's opponent, or actually threatening to invade allies. Oh, and tariffs, of course. Normal presidents don't do that sort of thing.
Completely agreed.
I think it is a disgrace we are not helping liberate Iran from the Mullahs and we should be doing so.
But I think it is good to see Trump hoist on his own petard.
It is not at all clear that President Trump is trying to free Iran from the Mullahs, even if we accept he might like it if things turn out that way. Much of Iran's opposition was unalived by the regime as Trump encouraged them to rise up but did nothing to help them.
One of the few things he is consistent about is a clearly preference for autocracy to democracy. He wants a different autocrat in charge, not democrats. The key criteria are fealty, flattery and bribery.
Hate to break it to you all but the country is not going to suddenly rally around Starmer. He will get a small pity bump in his ratings. Trump is criticising him for some of the very things he is unpopular with UK voters for.
The whole country, no, disaffected Labour types who’ve gone Green and LD, very possibly.
Maybe. But i dont see it. Hes damaged goods. And the war bounce argument doesn't imo apply when you're not actually at war. The country doesnt thing he is handling Iran well and thats eith him doing nothing. He just seems beyomf redemption in ratings
Redemption in his ratings is irrelevant as he won’t be running for election again.
Paul's Jihad is exterminating billions (61 billion, in fact) and extirpating forty major religions. Somehow, he's reconciled to Chani, so she will not, seemingly, become an antagonist after all. Alia is preaching to the Faithful. She is not God, but rather, God's Prophet. I'm not sure. I wonder if the blond-haired antagonist is Faraddn Corriono.
I don’t know whether anyone else has noticed, but I have been watching President Trump’s statements carefully and I am not 100% sure he is the full shilling.
I'm glad someone else has come to that conclusion. Had similar thoughts myself. Maybe it's just us?
I'd been meaning to say something but you know how shy and wracked by self doubt we lawyers are, I just couldn't vocalise it.
Mike Johnson: "We all understood there was clearly an imminent threat that Iran was very close to the enrichment of nuclear capability ... I don't know where Joe Kent is getting his information ... the president felt he had to strike first to prevent mass casualties" https://x.com/atrupar/status/2033919110749253641
Which again doesn't really square with this.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/mar/17/uk-security-adviser-attended-us-iran-talks-and-judged-deal-was-within-reach ...Powell’s presence at the talks, and his close knowledge of how they were progressing, was confirmed by three sources. One source said he was in the building at Oman’s ambassadorial residence in Cologny acting as an adviser, reflecting widespread concern about the US expertise on the talks represented by Donald Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff, Trump’s special envoy on several issues.
Kushner and Witkoff had invited Rafael Grossi, the director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), to the Geneva talks, to provide technical expertise, though Kushner would later claim that he and Witkoff had “a pretty deep understanding of the issues that matter in this”. Nuclear experts would later say that Witkoff’s pronouncements on the Iran nuclear programme were riddled with basic errors.
Powell has long experience as a mediator, and one source said Powell brought an expert from the UK Cabinet Office with him. One western diplomat said: “Jonathan thought there was a deal to be done, but Iran were not quite there yet, especially on the issue of UN inspections of its nuclear sites.”
A former official who was briefed on the Geneva talks by some of the participants said: “Witkoff and Kushner did not bring a US technical team with them. They used Grossi as their technical expert, but that is not his job. So Jonathan Powell took his own team.
“The UK team were surprised by what the Iranians put on the table,” the former official added. “It was not a complete deal, but it was progress and was unlikely to be the Iranians’ final offer. The British team expected the next round of negotiations to go ahead on the basis of the progress in Geneva.”
That next round of talks was due to take place in Vienna on Monday 2 March, but never happened. The US and Israel had launched their all-out attack two days earlier...
What Powell thought is moot, since Starmer chose not to get involved in operations. If you don't get involved, your judgment is irrelevant.
All that matters is if America and Israel were satisfied with the Iranian offer. They clearly weren't.
Please for the love of God will you give this "If you don't get involved, your judgment is irrelevant" argument a rest ? It's truly the most pathetically weak argument I've heard on PB since at least last week.
No.
The judgment of any bystanders is irrelevant.
Powell can think whatever he wants. His opinion is no more relevant than yours or mine.
What matters is the opinions of any would-be decision makers. Since Starmer opted that we would not be making the decision, that is not Powell.
It nevertheless lends credence to the widely held belief that Nehanyahu and Trump attacked Iran on a false premise and it was never about Iran's possession of a bomb. This will affect what people will sign up to now, given it's a huge mess.
A personal question that's slightly related to this - feel free to ignore if you wish. Do you still support the Iraq war, if you ever did? I'm curious if there's anyone apart from Tony Blair still supporting it, and if so why?
Iraq certainly had more going for it than Afghanistan. Not that either should have happened, but I find it interesting that it's Iraq that got the juices flowing.
Because of what it led to and the 'false prospectus and illegal' point. Course it's rather out of fashion now, that latter consideration.
Hate to break it to you all but the country is not going to suddenly rally around Starmer. He will get a small pity bump in his ratings. Trump is criticising him for some of the very things he is unpopular with UK voters for.
Nobody thinks the country is going to rally round Starmer. But he doesn't need it to. Given the current state of play in the polls, he only needs around 1 in 10 voters to see him in a more favourable light and choose to stick with the devil they know.
While Kemi major weakness is always going two footed into every challenge without any thought, I think it worth remembering most people have massively short memories and people move on e.g. if Starmer had been in charge during COVID, we might just now be coming out of lockdown.....most of his calls were totally wrong, we would have had just as much COVID fraud / money pissed up the wall (remember their dossier of all these companies should be given contracts and it was basically all chancers and fraudsters) and some right bonkers suggestions, but nobody really remembers or cares. Or look at the platform he stood on to become Labour leader and early couple of years, none of that is what he stood on at the GE, again nobody really cares.
Kemi's problem isn't going away, too rash, too quick to do the attack dog mode, too online, and not very smart. Plus super weak team around her.
And this gamey character wants to be PM. Can't see it myself. I think we're better than that. We might not rule the waves anymore but we are better than that.
He doesn't though, does he. It would be a personal disaster to be elected PM. He'd actually have to do the job. His thing has always been the outsider shouting at the system. Someone said he was happy after Brexit - I'm not so sure. On the night of the vote he was steeled to fight on after losing. That's the game he wants.
We can't know without being inside his head (urgh) but I don't buy that. PM is the ultimate for a British politician, power, fame, place in history, opps for mega £££ if you're corrupt, and I think he wants it with every fibre.
Seems to me he's more likely to end up still the outsider & shouting at PM Rupert Lowe.
I think he'll fail too - but Rupert Lowe? God no. He only gets in if the country has a collective emotional collapse.
Or if we re-jig our electoral system so that Great Yarmouth counts as 326 seats.
I shall be there over the weekend late April and shall investigate for signs of Restore activity
I was there recently - well, Gorleston, which I think is in his seat. The promenade was absolutely festooned with flags, none of which were for Pride.
Hate to break it to you all but the country is not going to suddenly rally around Starmer. He will get a small pity bump in his ratings. Trump is criticising him for some of the very things he is unpopular with UK voters for.
The whole country, no, disaffected Labour types who’ve gone Green and LD, very possibly.
Maybe. But i dont see it. Hes damaged goods. And the war bounce argument doesn't imo apply when you're not actually at war. The country doesnt thing he is handling Iran well and thats eith him doing nothing. He just seems beyomf redemption in ratings
Well, you're talking to at least one. I'm not "rallying round" him but I am actively considering voting Labour again off the back of this.
I hope at least one European politician - ideally Starmer, but face it that’s not going to happen - will say what they really think about Trump’s ludicrous entitlement, and the huge betrayal his administration have presided over, pulling support from Ukraine when Europe is under attack.
It’s we who should be angry with him. And it’s about time Americans heard it.
I hope at least one European politician - ideally Starmer, but face it that’s not going to happen - will say what they really think about Trump’s ludicrous entitlement, and the huge betrayal his administration have presided over, pulling support from Ukraine when Europe is under attack.
It’s we who should be angry with him. And it’s about time Americans heard it.
I realise @FF43 "calls it for the Trump administration" is preposterous but it does feel like it's run out of road with nowhere to go. The Iranian regime may turn out the be changed less in the end.
How long do Iran keep lobbing bombs around if the US (and Israel) stop their campaign and declare victory? If that is unsustainable for Iran under pressure from its neighbours then the US can perhaps still salvage a small win by falsely declaring a big win.
Yes, that's a possible way. Or some sort of deal that Trump can (falsely) say was only achieved due to Eric Fury.
We could do here, could we not, with someone who had some means of making their minds work like the Iranian authorities. Who was the chap who recommended trying to put yourself in your enemies shoes? Can we assume that Iranian government doesn't want the war to continue, if Powell is to be believed, so what would cause them to shot down activity now? Trouble, it would appear that Trump will settle for nothing less than complete surrender, which is what was wanted in Afghanistan, with results that all know.
And this gamey character wants to be PM. Can't see it myself. I think we're better than that. We might not rule the waves anymore but we are better than that.
He doesn't though, does he. It would be a personal disaster to be elected PM. He'd actually have to do the job. His thing has always been the outsider shouting at the system. Someone said he was happy after Brexit - I'm not so sure. On the night of the vote he was steeled to fight on after losing. That's the game he wants.
We can't know without being inside his head (urgh) but I don't buy that. PM is the ultimate for a British politician, power, fame, place in history, opps for mega £££ if you're corrupt, and I think he wants it with every fibre.
Seems to me he's more likely to end up still the outsider & shouting at PM Rupert Lowe.
I think he'll fail too - but Rupert Lowe? God no. He only gets in if the country has a collective emotional collapse.
Or if we re-jig our electoral system so that Great Yarmouth counts as 326 seats.
I shall be there over the weekend late April and shall investigate for signs of Restore activity
I was there recently - well, Gorleston, which I think is in his seat. The promenade was absolutely festooned with flags, none of which were for Pride.
I love Gorleston used to sail my model Yacht on the little lake.
Once got completely stuck on the beach after my back seized up Mrs BJ had to seek help to get me upright
Wallasey Rd where Gt Yarmouth and now Gorleston too play has one of the most iconic stands in Non League
I hope at least one European politician - ideally Starmer, but face it that’s not going to happen - will say what they really think about Trump’s ludicrous entitlement, and the huge betrayal his administration have presided over, pulling support from Ukraine when Europe is under attack.
It’s we who should be angry with him. And it’s about time Americans heard it.
Biden also redirected arms earmarked for Ukraine to Israel.
While Kemi major weakness is always going two footed into every challenge without any thought, I think it worth remembering most people have massively short memories and people move on e.g. if Starmer had been in charge during COVID, we might just now be coming out of lockdown.....most of his calls were totally wrong, we would have had just as much COVID fraud / money pissed up the wall (remember their dossier of all these companies should be given contracts and it was basically all chancers and fraudsters) and some right bonkers suggestions, but nobody really remembers or cares. Or look at the platform he stood on to become Labour leader and early couple of years, none of that is what he stood on at the GE, again nobody really cares.
Kemi's problem isn't going away, too rash, too quick to do the attack dog mode, too online, and not very smart. Plus super weak team around her.
Starmer played Covid well politically as LOTO. Recognised that the public didn't really want to hear from Labour on it, so didn't try to muscle in that much. Broadly supportive of the government, pitched himself just to the prudent side of where they were. It was a win v flat position in betting parlance.
Kemi is going to pulverise Starmer at PMQs this week.
Iran’s illegal closing, mining and shelling of the Straits of Hormuz is currently wrecking the British Economy, and fence sitting Starmer is doing nothing. Nothing to get oil flowing through the Straits to Britain again, as it should be.
It’s not just another crisis hurtling towards UK food shop and energy bills, but this is likely to be bigger than the last one Labour haven’t even recovered us from yet. The Straits can remain closed for months and years by the Iranians, unless someone acts.
And what is Starmer and his government actually doing about it?
advantage Kemi, Starmer is always just too slow to act, too slow to help the British people, just like he was far too slow to defend Cyprus and British bases. The Falklands were invaded, and within just 3 days the Conservative Government dispatched an Armada of over 120 vessels - Labour took 3 weeks to send just 1 boat on its way to Cyprus.
When it comes to standing up for Britain and its natural allies in this world, protect the UK economy, protect the British peoples food shop and bills, Starmer’s Labour Government has neither the will nor the ability to act upon the route cause of all this pain, to help reopen the strait of Hormuz. To fight back against Iran’s terrorism on the British economy.
And why won’t he? this plays to Kemi’s big advantage she can smash Starmer with - Kemi hasn’t fallen out with any allies in a childish game of slagging each other off, like Starmer is doing with the US President.
I don’t know whether anyone else has noticed, but I have been watching President Trump’s statements carefully and I am not 100% sure he is the full shilling.
Just spoke to @POTUS about our European allies’ unwillingness to provide assets to keep the Strait of Hormuz functioning, which benefits Europe far more than America. I have never heard him so angry in my life. I share that anger given what’s at stake.
The arrogance of our allies to suggest that Iran with a nuclear weapon is of little concern and that military action to stop the ayatollah from acquiring a nuclear bomb is our problem not theirs is beyond offensive. The European approach to containing the ayatollah’s nuclear ambitions have proven to be a miserable failure.
The repercussions of providing little assistance to keep the Strait of Hormuz functioning are going to be wide and deep for Europe and America.
I consider myself very forward-leaning on supporting alliances, however at a time of real testing like this, it makes me second guess the value of these alliances. I am certain I am not the only senator who feels this way.
They don't have any alliance that applies to Iran.🤦♂️
I say that too, not as a critic of the war. Indeed as one of the lone supporters of war with Iran and as someone who thinks that British forces should be used, in a ground invasion if required.
However I would support that because I think its the right thing to do, not out of respect for Trump (which is non-existent) and not due to any alliance obligations (which are also non-existent).
If Iran attacked America, on its soil, then we would be obliged under NATO to respond. They have not. We are under no obligations. Fighting in Hormuz is not covered by the NATO Treaty, thanks to choices America made when the Treaty was signed.
“ If Iran attacked America, on its soil, then we would be obliged under NATO to respond. They have not. We are under no obligations.”
That’s the most pathetic statement of the whole war.
No one on PB can support you saying that.
We have to wait till a nuke is used in a NATO country before we act. We can’t prevent a strike? We can’t act on intelligence of a threat?
But the US has made clear to us they were under imminent threat of the Ayatollah’s Nuclear bomb, Iran was just days away from achieving. I’ve seen it mentioned by US government, California was just two weeks away from being ready made film set for season 3 of Fall Out.
So you are wrong - if US and Israel intelligence felt California and Jerusalem were just days away from being radioactive waste, NATO has to respect that serious threat to the US - NATO member state - and Israel, doesn’t it?
It’s beyond doubt, where there is a mess now, Israel and US blame the mess squarely on failure of others preventing Iran’s nuclear programme - deals that allowed Iran to keep racing towards the goal, negotiations going on forever allowing Iran to keep racing towards the goal. Iran were brazen about it. Do you want weapons of mass destruction? Yes. Are you busy working towards possessing them? Yes.
So what gives you such knowledge to pontificate like you are doing? If it comes down to what Israeli and US Intelligence services knew, over what you knew - then you are going to lose aren’t you?
And that is what it does comes down to. All other avenues exhausted for preventing Iran’s weapons of mass destruction. Intelligence about how close and real the threat was.
"the US has made clear to us they were under imminent threat of the Ayatollah’s Nuclear bomb"
Utterly unsuppoted by evidence.
In the "I've made clear to pb.com that I am under imminent threat of being seduced by Margot Robbie" world of unsupported evidence.
The US and Israel said they had obliterated Iran's nuclear programme a few months ago. Now they say an attack was imminent. One of these statements has to be wrong, probably both.
Mike Johnson: "We all understood there was clearly an imminent threat that Iran was very close to the enrichment of nuclear capability ... I don't know where Joe Kent is getting his information ... the president felt he had to strike first to prevent mass casualties" https://x.com/atrupar/status/2033919110749253641
Which again doesn't really square with this.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/mar/17/uk-security-adviser-attended-us-iran-talks-and-judged-deal-was-within-reach ...Powell’s presence at the talks, and his close knowledge of how they were progressing, was confirmed by three sources. One source said he was in the building at Oman’s ambassadorial residence in Cologny acting as an adviser, reflecting widespread concern about the US expertise on the talks represented by Donald Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff, Trump’s special envoy on several issues.
Kushner and Witkoff had invited Rafael Grossi, the director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), to the Geneva talks, to provide technical expertise, though Kushner would later claim that he and Witkoff had “a pretty deep understanding of the issues that matter in this”. Nuclear experts would later say that Witkoff’s pronouncements on the Iran nuclear programme were riddled with basic errors.
Powell has long experience as a mediator, and one source said Powell brought an expert from the UK Cabinet Office with him. One western diplomat said: “Jonathan thought there was a deal to be done, but Iran were not quite there yet, especially on the issue of UN inspections of its nuclear sites.”
A former official who was briefed on the Geneva talks by some of the participants said: “Witkoff and Kushner did not bring a US technical team with them. They used Grossi as their technical expert, but that is not his job. So Jonathan Powell took his own team.
“The UK team were surprised by what the Iranians put on the table,” the former official added. “It was not a complete deal, but it was progress and was unlikely to be the Iranians’ final offer. The British team expected the next round of negotiations to go ahead on the basis of the progress in Geneva.”
That next round of talks was due to take place in Vienna on Monday 2 March, but never happened. The US and Israel had launched their all-out attack two days earlier...
What Powell thought is moot, since Starmer chose not to get involved in operations. If you don't get involved, your judgment is irrelevant.
All that matters is if America and Israel were satisfied with the Iranian offer. They clearly weren't.
Please for the love of God will you give this "If you don't get involved, your judgment is irrelevant" argument a rest ? It's truly the most pathetically weak argument I've heard on PB since at least last week.
No.
The judgment of any bystanders is irrelevant.
Powell can think whatever he wants. His opinion is no more relevant than yours or mine.
What matters is the opinions of any would-be decision makers. Since Starmer opted that we would not be making the decision, that is not Powell.
It nevertheless lends credence to the widely held belief that Nehanyahu and Trump attacked Iran on a false premise and it was never about Iran's possession of a bomb. This will affect what people will sign up to now, given it's a huge mess.
A personal question that's slightly related to this - feel free to ignore if you wish. Do you still support the Iraq war, if you ever did? I'm curious if there's anyone apart from Tony Blair still supporting it, and if so why?
Yes, I do. We got rid of Saddam, good riddance.
Iraq today is a far better place than Iran today. That was not the case 24 years ago.
How long must we wait until Donald Trump receives the care he needs?
A relevant point is that if he stands down after January (I think), then Vance gets potenitally 8 years PLUS whatever is left of Trump's term. I imagine the thought has crossed Vance's mind.
Kemi is going to pulverise Starmer at PMQs this week.
Iran’s illegal closing, mining and shelling of the Straits of Hormuz is currently wrecking the British Economy, and fence sitting Starmer is doing nothing. Nothing to get oil flowing through the Straits to Britain again, as it should be.
It’s not just another crisis hurtling towards UK food shop and energy bills, but this is likely to be bigger than the last one Labour haven’t even recovered us from yet. The Straits can remain closed for months and years by the Iranians, unless someone acts.
And what is Starmer and his government actually doing about it?
advantage Kemi, Starmer is always just too slow to act, too slow to help the British people, just like he was far too slow to defend Cyprus and British bases. The Falklands were invaded, and within just 3 days the Conservative Government dispatched an Armada of over 120 vessels - Labour took 3 weeks to send just 1 boat on its way to Cyprus.
When it comes to standing up for Britain and its natural allies in this world, protect the UK economy, protect the British peoples food shop and bills, Starmer’s Labour Government has neither the will nor the ability to act upon the route cause of all this pain, to help reopen the strait of Hormuz!
And why won’t he? this plays to Kemi’s big advantage she can smash Starmer with - Kemi hasn’t fallen out with any allies in a childish game of slagging each other off, like Starmer is doing with the US President.
And this gamey character wants to be PM. Can't see it myself. I think we're better than that. We might not rule the waves anymore but we are better than that.
He doesn't though, does he. It would be a personal disaster to be elected PM. He'd actually have to do the job. His thing has always been the outsider shouting at the system. Someone said he was happy after Brexit - I'm not so sure. On the night of the vote he was steeled to fight on after losing. That's the game he wants.
We can't know without being inside his head (urgh) but I don't buy that. PM is the ultimate for a British politician, power, fame, place in history, opps for mega £££ if you're corrupt, and I think he wants it with every fibre.
Seems to me he's more likely to end up still the outsider & shouting at PM Rupert Lowe.
I think he'll fail too - but Rupert Lowe? God no. He only gets in if the country has a collective emotional collapse.
Or if we re-jig our electoral system so that Great Yarmouth counts as 326 seats.
I shall be there over the weekend late April and shall investigate for signs of Restore activity
I was there recently - well, Gorleston, which I think is in his seat. The promenade was absolutely festooned with flags, none of which were for Pride.
Gorleston is indeed in GY. I'd expect it to be fairly hardcore Reform/Restore territory.
A remarkable conversation about economic policy (responding to the Rachel Reeves lecture this week) on today's Daily T podcast between Tim Stanley, Camilla Tominey and Alistair Heath.
While Kemi major weakness is always going two footed into every challenge without any thought, I think it worth remembering most people have massively short memories and people move on e.g. if Starmer had been in charge during COVID, we might just now be coming out of lockdown.....most of his calls were totally wrong, we would have had just as much COVID fraud / money pissed up the wall (remember their dossier of all these companies should be given contracts and it was basically all chancers and fraudsters) and some right bonkers suggestions, but nobody really remembers or cares. Or look at the platform he stood on to become Labour leader and early couple of years, none of that is what he stood on at the GE, again nobody really cares.
Kemi's problem isn't going away, too rash, too quick to do the attack dog mode, too online, and not very smart. Plus super weak team around her.
Starmer played Covid well politically as LOTO. Recognised that the public didn't really want to hear from Labour on it, so didn't try to muscle in that much. Broadly supportive of the government, pitched himself just to the prudent side of where they were. It was a win v flat position in betting parlance.
That is some serious rewriting of history. By the time we got past the inital phase, he was classic of well you should go further and faster about every decision. Lockdown sooner, locker, harder, longer. Even post vaccination, he was very keen on zero covid BS. His calls for test every time you leave the house for any reason was particually nuts call, especially as we already had a problem with people overusing home testing kits multiple times a day. More money should be thrown at everything. And as soon as government messed anything up, well I wouldn't have done that.
Hate to break it to you all but the country is not going to suddenly rally around Starmer. He will get a small pity bump in his ratings. Trump is criticising him for some of the very things he is unpopular with UK voters for.
Apart from the rallying round populist leaders, rallying round isn't the fashion. And it isn't what is going to count when it comes to voting for the next government. Which won't be Reform (too many people will vote to stop them) and won't be Green (not enough Marxists to go round, not enough young people who can be bothered to vote). So it will, by elimination, be a party marked by the unenthusiasm of their non rallying round voters.
While Kemi major weakness is always going two footed into every challenge without any thought, I think it worth remembering most people have massively short memories and people move on e.g. if Starmer had been in charge during COVID, we might just now be coming out of lockdown.....most of his calls were totally wrong, we would have had just as much COVID fraud / money pissed up the wall (remember their dossier of all these companies should be given contracts and it was basically all chancers and fraudsters) and some right bonkers suggestions, but nobody really remembers or cares. Or look at the platform he stood on to become Labour leader and early couple of years, none of that is what he stood on at the GE, again nobody really cares.
Kemi's problem isn't going away, too rash, too quick to do the attack dog mode, too online, and not very smart. Plus super weak team around her.
Starmer played Covid well politically as LOTO. Recognised that the public didn't really want to hear from Labour on it, so didn't try to muscle in that much. Broadly supportive of the government, pitched himself just to the prudent side of where they were. It was a win v flat position in betting parlance.
That is some serious rewriting of history. By the time we got past the inital phase, he was classic of well you should go further and faster about every decision. Lockdown sooner, locker, harder, longer. Even post vaccination, he was very keen on zero covid. His calls for test every time you leave the house for any reason was practically nuts. More money should be thrown at everything. And as soon as government messed anything up, well I wouldn't have done that.
And have a curry party after work to celebrate your hardline
A remarkable conversation about economic policy (responding to the Rachel Reeves lecture this week) on today's Daily T podcast between Tim Stanley, Camilla Tominey and Alistair Heath.
A remarkable conversation about economic policy (responding to the Rachel Reeves lecture this week) on today's Daily T podcast between Tim Stanley, Camilla Tominey and Alistair Heath.
And this gamey character wants to be PM. Can't see it myself. I think we're better than that. We might not rule the waves anymore but we are better than that.
He doesn't though, does he. It would be a personal disaster to be elected PM. He'd actually have to do the job. His thing has always been the outsider shouting at the system. Someone said he was happy after Brexit - I'm not so sure. On the night of the vote he was steeled to fight on after losing. That's the game he wants.
We can't know without being inside his head (urgh) but I don't buy that. PM is the ultimate for a British politician, power, fame, place in history, opps for mega £££ if you're corrupt, and I think he wants it with every fibre.
Seems to me he's more likely to end up still the outsider & shouting at PM Rupert Lowe.
I think he'll fail too - but Rupert Lowe? God no. He only gets in if the country has a collective emotional collapse.
Or if we re-jig our electoral system so that Great Yarmouth counts as 326 seats.
I shall be there over the weekend late April and shall investigate for signs of Restore activity
I was there recently - well, Gorleston, which I think is in his seat. The promenade was absolutely festooned with flags, none of which were for Pride.
Gorleston is indeed in GY. I'd expect it to be fairly hardcore Reform/Restore territory.
While Kemi major weakness is always going two footed into every challenge without any thought, I think it worth remembering most people have massively short memories and people move on e.g. if Starmer had been in charge during COVID, we might just now be coming out of lockdown.....most of his calls were totally wrong, we would have had just as much COVID fraud / money pissed up the wall (remember their dossier of all these companies should be given contracts and it was basically all chancers and fraudsters) and some right bonkers suggestions, but nobody really remembers or cares. Or look at the platform he stood on to become Labour leader and early couple of years, none of that is what he stood on at the GE, again nobody really cares.
Kemi's problem isn't going away, too rash, too quick to do the attack dog mode, too online, and not very smart. Plus super weak team around her.
Just spoke to @POTUS about our European allies’ unwillingness to provide assets to keep the Strait of Hormuz functioning, which benefits Europe far more than America. I have never heard him so angry in my life. I share that anger given what’s at stake.
The arrogance of our allies to suggest that Iran with a nuclear weapon is of little concern and that military action to stop the ayatollah from acquiring a nuclear bomb is our problem not theirs is beyond offensive. The European approach to containing the ayatollah’s nuclear ambitions have proven to be a miserable failure.
The repercussions of providing little assistance to keep the Strait of Hormuz functioning are going to be wide and deep for Europe and America.
I consider myself very forward-leaning on supporting alliances, however at a time of real testing like this, it makes me second guess the value of these alliances. I am certain I am not the only senator who feels this way.
They don't have any alliance that applies to Iran.🤦♂️
I say that too, not as a critic of the war. Indeed as one of the lone supporters of war with Iran and as someone who thinks that British forces should be used, in a ground invasion if required.
However I would support that because I think its the right thing to do, not out of respect for Trump (which is non-existent) and not due to any alliance obligations (which are also non-existent).
If Iran attacked America, on its soil, then we would be obliged under NATO to respond. They have not. We are under no obligations. Fighting in Hormuz is not covered by the NATO Treaty, thanks to choices America made when the Treaty was signed.
Whatever one thinks about the war in Iran - any of the previous ten presidents could have probably got European support of some sort for this adventure. But Trump has gone out of his way to antagonise the USA's allies, either by publicly belittling their past contributions, talking down the alliance itself, trash talking indivudual leaders, siding with the alliance's opponent, or actually threatening to invade allies. Oh, and tariffs, of course. Normal presidents don't do that sort of thing.
Completely agreed.
I think it is a disgrace we are not helping liberate Iran from the Mullahs and we should be doing so.
But I think it is good to see Trump hoist on his own petard.
It is not at all clear that President Trump is trying to free Iran from the Mullahs, even if we accept he might like it if things turn out that way. Much of Iran's opposition was unalived by the regime as Trump encouraged them to rise up but did nothing to help them.
Agreed.
I don't trust Trump or his motivation at all.
We should be fighting for regime change in Iran though.
If I were PM I would make that a condition of offering support. We will help so long as you confirm regime change as an objective.
78 brand new grounds this season out of a target of 90
That’s devotion.
Where to tonight ?
Did you see Sophy Ridge bemoaning the punishment beating given to your lot, happened to us a few seasons back too, compared to Chelsea getting a soft sentence.
Hate to break it to you all but the country is not going to suddenly rally around Starmer. He will get a small pity bump in his ratings. Trump is criticising him for some of the very things he is unpopular with UK voters for.
Apart from the rallying round populist leaders, rallying round isn't the fashion. And it isn't what is going to count when it comes to voting for the next government. Which won't be Reform (too many people will vote to stop them) and won't be Green (not enough Marxists to go round, not enough young people who can be bothered to vote). So it will, by elimination, be a party marked by the unenthusiasm of their non rallying round voters.
Get Labour Out's relative strength compared to 2024s GTTO will prove crucial to who forms a likely minority admin
While Kemi major weakness is always going two footed into every challenge without any thought, I think it worth remembering most people have massively short memories and people move on e.g. if Starmer had been in charge during COVID, we might just now be coming out of lockdown.....most of his calls were totally wrong, we would have had just as much COVID fraud / money pissed up the wall (remember their dossier of all these companies should be given contracts and it was basically all chancers and fraudsters) and some right bonkers suggestions, but nobody really remembers or cares. Or look at the platform he stood on to become Labour leader and early couple of years, none of that is what he stood on at the GE, again nobody really cares.
Kemi's problem isn't going away, too rash, too quick to do the attack dog mode, too online, and not very smart. Plus super weak team around her.
The Archie Gemmell of Parliamentary Politics !
Are you suggesting that Archie Gemmill wasn't very good?
And this gamey character wants to be PM. Can't see it myself. I think we're better than that. We might not rule the waves anymore but we are better than that.
He doesn't though, does he. It would be a personal disaster to be elected PM. He'd actually have to do the job. His thing has always been the outsider shouting at the system. Someone said he was happy after Brexit - I'm not so sure. On the night of the vote he was steeled to fight on after losing. That's the game he wants.
We can't know without being inside his head (urgh) but I don't buy that. PM is the ultimate for a British politician, power, fame, place in history, opps for mega £££ if you're corrupt, and I think he wants it with every fibre.
Seems to me he's more likely to end up still the outsider & shouting at PM Rupert Lowe.
I think he'll fail too - but Rupert Lowe? God no. He only gets in if the country has a collective emotional collapse.
Or if we re-jig our electoral system so that Great Yarmouth counts as 326 seats.
I shall be there over the weekend late April and shall investigate for signs of Restore activity
I was there recently - well, Gorleston, which I think is in his seat. The promenade was absolutely festooned with flags, none of which were for Pride.
Gorleston is indeed in GY. I'd expect it to be fairly hardcore Reform/Restore territory.
Gammonsville
No, just typical faded seaside Britain. Blackpool, Yarmouth, Clacton, Skeggy etc
I don’t know whether anyone else has noticed, but I have been watching President Trump’s statements carefully and I am not 100% sure he is the full shilling.
'The full shilling', now there is a phrase. A great friend, the last I knew who used it entirely kindly and without affect died a few years ago at the age of 96.
I am put in mind of the late great Bernard Levin, whose expression with the same meaning was 'not quite sixteen annas to the rupee'.
I don’t know whether anyone else has noticed, but I have been watching President Trump’s statements carefully and I am not 100% sure he is the full shilling.
'The full shilling', now there is a phrase. A great friend, the last I knew who used it entirely kindly and without affect died a few years ago at the age of 96.
I am put in mind of the late great Bernard Levin, whose expression with the same meaning was 'not quite sixteen annas to the rupee'.
Kemi is going to pulverise Starmer at PMQs this week.
Iran’s illegal closing, mining and shelling of the Straits of Hormuz is currently wrecking the British Economy, and fence sitting Starmer is doing nothing. Nothing to get oil flowing through the Straits to Britain again, as it should be.
It’s not just another crisis hurtling towards UK food shop and energy bills, but this is likely to be bigger than the last one Labour haven’t even recovered us from yet. The Straits can remain closed for months and years by the Iranians, unless someone acts.
And what is Starmer and his government actually doing about it?
advantage Kemi, Starmer is always just too slow to act, too slow to help the British people, just like he was far too slow to defend Cyprus and British bases. The Falklands were invaded, and within just 3 days the Conservative Government dispatched an Armada of over 120 vessels - Labour took 3 weeks to send just 1 boat on its way to Cyprus.
When it comes to standing up for Britain and its natural allies in this world, protect the UK economy, protect the British peoples food shop and bills, Starmer’s Labour Government has neither the will nor the ability to act upon the route cause of all this pain, to help reopen the strait of Hormuz. To fight back against Iran’s terrorism on the British economy.
And why won’t he? this plays to Kemi’s big advantage she can smash Starmer with - Kemi hasn’t fallen out with any allies in a childish game of slagging each other off, like Starmer is doing with the US President.
What is the government actually doing about the cost of living? For all we know, they're actively working on bringing in rationing.
While Kemi major weakness is always going two footed into every challenge without any thought, I think it worth remembering most people have massively short memories and people move on e.g. if Starmer had been in charge during COVID, we might just now be coming out of lockdown.....most of his calls were totally wrong, we would have had just as much COVID fraud / money pissed up the wall (remember their dossier of all these companies should be given contracts and it was basically all chancers and fraudsters) and some right bonkers suggestions, but nobody really remembers or cares. Or look at the platform he stood on to become Labour leader and early couple of years, none of that is what he stood on at the GE, again nobody really cares.
Kemi's problem isn't going away, too rash, too quick to do the attack dog mode, too online, and not very smart. Plus super weak team around her.
The Archie Gemmell of Parliamentary Politics !
Are you suggesting that Archie Gemmill wasn't very good?
Scored one of the great World Cup goals.
Saw his legs go, literally within about 2 months at Birmingham, when paired with the excellent Alan Curbishley and underrated Kevin Dillon.
Comments
Utterly unsuppoted by evidence.
In the "I've made clear to pb.com that I am under imminent threat of being seduced by Margot Robbie" world of unsupported evidence.
We have a right to act pre-emptively in self-defence, under international law, but are under no obligations to do so under Article 5 of NATO.
The wording in NATO Article 5 is quite explicit.
"The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such a armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security."
"such a armed attack" has not occurred.
Intelligence is always a matter of judgement. If Starmer wants to get Britain involved he can, if he does not, he is under no obligation to do so.
I think we should. But we should because we think its the right thing to do (IMHO) not because we're obliged to do so, which we're not.
Besides, again, Iran is outside of the territorial limits of NATO. Limits that are there on America's insistence.
BREAKING: Donald Trump says the UK-US relationship was "always the best" until "Keir came along"
"I like him... but he doesn't produce"
He gets richer every day. Says insane shit and nobody cares. Can bomb anywhere he likes to steal even more. He doesn't need votes from anybody for anything.
The judgment of any bystanders is irrelevant.
Powell can think whatever he wants. His opinion is no more relevant than yours or mine.
What matters is the opinions of any would-be decision makers. Since Starmer opted that we would not be making the decision, that is not Powell.
Lab will still lose over 1000 Councillors
Green wave in London methinks
Keir increases in popularity with your every jibe.
Kemi and Nigel closer to their political graves for their unequivocal support of your war.
A personal question that's slightly related to this - feel free to ignore if you wish. Do you still support the Iraq war, if you ever did? I'm curious if there's anyone apart from Tony Blair still supporting it, and if so why?
All things considered, I find it pretty scary rather than entertaining, and worry about the future for my kids and grandkids.
I admit it's more a feeling of end of days for the regime (Trump regime). "There's a lot of ruin in a nation" as Adam Smith put. But surely not even America can tolerate this much ruin?
Netanyahu could not have a US and Iran deal.
Netanyahu needs war, any war.
Thats what makes him so dangerous.
He has to be eradicated for any chance of peace.
Hung by her own opportunism and stupidity.
Paul's Jihad is exterminating billions (61 billion, in fact) and extirpating forty major religions. Somehow, he's reconciled to Chani, so she will not, seemingly, become an antagonist after all. Alia is preaching to the Faithful. She is not God, but rather, God's Prophet. I'm not sure. I wonder if the blond-haired antagonist is Faraddn Corriono.
We can all be partisan but with a madman in the White House all bets are off
https://news.sky.com/story/voters-split-over-whether-starmer-is-handling-iran-war-well-13520603
The country doesnt thing he is handling Iran well and thats eith him doing nothing.
He just seems beyomf redemption in ratings
I am pretty sure he is the full Shekel
Kemi's problem isn't going away, too rash, too quick to do the attack dog mode, too online, and not very smart. Plus super weak team around her.
130th game of the season at 98 different grounds
78 brand new grounds this season out of a target of 90
It’s we who should be angry with him. And it’s about time Americans heard it.
Can we assume that Iranian government doesn't want the war to continue, if Powell is to be believed, so what would cause them to shot down activity now?
Trouble, it would appear that Trump will settle for nothing less than complete surrender, which is what was wanted in Afghanistan, with results that all know.
Once got completely stuck on the beach after my back seized up Mrs BJ had to seek help to get me upright
Wallasey Rd where Gt Yarmouth and now Gorleston too play has one of the most iconic stands in Non League
Iran’s illegal closing, mining and shelling of the Straits of Hormuz is currently wrecking the British Economy, and fence sitting Starmer is doing nothing. Nothing to get oil flowing through the Straits to Britain again, as it should be.
It’s not just another crisis hurtling towards UK food shop and energy bills, but this is likely to be bigger than the last one Labour haven’t even recovered us from yet. The Straits can remain closed for months and years by the Iranians, unless someone acts.
And what is Starmer and his government actually doing about it?
advantage Kemi, Starmer is always just too slow to act, too slow to help the British people, just like he was far too slow to defend Cyprus and British bases. The Falklands were invaded, and within just 3 days the Conservative Government dispatched an Armada of over 120 vessels - Labour took 3 weeks to send just 1 boat on its way to Cyprus.
When it comes to standing up for Britain and its natural allies in this world, protect the UK economy, protect the British peoples food shop and bills, Starmer’s Labour Government has neither the will nor the ability to act upon the route cause of all this pain, to help reopen the strait of Hormuz. To fight back against Iran’s terrorism on the British economy.
And why won’t he? this plays to Kemi’s big advantage she can smash Starmer with - Kemi hasn’t fallen out with any allies in a childish game of slagging each other off, like Starmer is doing with the US President.
Iraq today is a far better place than Iran today. That was not the case 24 years ago.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQ3pyKzjwhI
I don't trust Trump or his motivation at all.
We should be fighting for regime change in Iran though.
If I were PM I would make that a condition of offering support. We will help so long as you confirm regime change as an objective.
Where to tonight ?
Did you see Sophy Ridge bemoaning the punishment beating given to your lot, happened to us a few seasons back too, compared to Chelsea getting a soft sentence.
I am put in mind of the late great Bernard Levin, whose expression with the same meaning was 'not quite sixteen annas to the rupee'.
One side has Nigel calling out people simpering for “AOC’s big naturals” and the other has Zack’s hypnotism effort to make more of them.’
https://x.com/undersneege/status/2033934098771697838?s=61
Saw his legs go, literally within about 2 months at Birmingham, when paired with the excellent Alan Curbishley and underrated Kevin Dillon.