Lots of noise in crude futures but since US/Israel attacks on Iran started they've trended higher by about $2/calendar day. That gets you to $150/barrel crude by mid-April, about 6 weeks after the conflict kicked off. The huge noise of the initial short squeeze and short-term swings obscure a lot.
This is the aspect that I'm finding confusing now.
We are told Hormuz is the "choke point" so if no or very little oil is going through we are either having to source our oil by other means or we are using up that which was already purchased and stored before the conflict began.
At some point, it seems, and even with the coming of warmer weather in the Northern Hemisphere reducing demand, we are going to get issues with supply as pre-existing stocks are used and cannot be replenished or at least to levels that are comfortable.
We use 100 million barrels a day (not the UK, the world). Releases of 400 million barrels sound a lot but it's four to five days supply and if you look at coverage in places like New Zealand, there's already talk of rationing and Air New Zealand have cancelled hundreds of internal flights to save the cost of fuel.
The logical endpoint is Trump getting bored of answering questions he doesn't like about this, so just declaring a win and giving up. At which point it starts to look churlish and will really piss off the rest of the region if the Iranians keep blocking Hormuz.
So end result: A lot of Iranian leaders killed, but replaced with similar ones. Iranian military infrastructure hit badly but not enough to stop them being a regional pain in the ass. Global economic instability, medium term lower confidence in trade. Russia extra $$$ thru oil spike. No-one talking about Epstein and claims from teenage girls.
No, when Trump get bored of Iran, we go back to talking about Epstein.
Polanski is a man whose ambitions exceed his talents.
He is a deeply unserious figure, and will eventually be tested and found wanting.
Being unserious hasn't inhibited other politicians. Which party leader is serious right now? Maybe Starmer somewhat. But only somewhat.
Having seen Badenoch yesterday I'd say Polanski is considerably more appealing. People like politicians who can think on their feet and who are articulate. He fits both she fits neither
I'm just worried that if I watch a PPB from him my man boobs will get even bigger.
His schtick is hypnosis. So you will only think they are bigger.
Lots of noise in crude futures but since US/Israel attacks on Iran started they've trended higher by about $2/calendar day. That gets you to $150/barrel crude by mid-April, about 6 weeks after the conflict kicked off. The huge noise of the initial short squeeze and short-term swings obscure a lot.
This is the aspect that I'm finding confusing now.
We are told Hormuz is the "choke point" so if no or very little oil is going through we are either having to source our oil by other means or we are using up that which was already purchased and stored before the conflict began.
At some point, it seems, and even with the coming of warmer weather in the Northern Hemisphere reducing demand, we are going to get issues with supply as pre-existing stocks are used and cannot be replenished or at least to levels that are comfortable.
We use 100 million barrels a day (not the UK, the world). Releases of 400 million barrels sound a lot but it's four to five days supply and if you look at coverage in places like New Zealand, there's already talk of rationing and Air New Zealand have cancelled hundreds of internal flights to save the cost of fuel.
The logical endpoint is Trump getting bored of answering questions he doesn't like about this, so just declaring a win and giving up. At which point it starts to look churlish and will really piss off the rest of the region if the Iranians keep blocking Hormuz.
So end result: A lot of Iranian leaders killed, but replaced with similar ones. Iranian military infrastructure hit badly but not enough to stop them being a regional pain in the ass. Global economic instability, medium term lower confidence in trade. Russia extra $$$ thru oil spike. No-one talking about Epstein and claims from teenage girls.
No, when Trump get bored of Iran, we go back to talking about Epstein.
OT, but a bit of sense finally in Holyrood as MSPs reject the Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adults (Scotland) Bill. Only one MSP abstained, the health secretary Neil Gray, while 57 voted for assisted dying and 69 voted against.
The Scottish Green and LD leaders voted for though
I had heard that the Scottish Health Secretary had "abstained" by reason of having been admitted to hospital two days ago. He was physically incapable of attending Holyrood - he wasn't trying to avoid the issue.
OT, but a bit of sense finally in Holyrood as MSPs reject the Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adults (Scotland) Bill. Only one MSP abstained, the health secretary Neil Gray, while 57 voted for assisted dying and 69 voted against.
The Scottish Green and LD leaders voted for though
I had heard that the Scottish Health Secretary had "abstained" by reason of having been admitted to hospital two days ago. He was physically incapable of attending Holyrood - he wasn't trying to avoid the issue.
The Reeves speech went under the radar because of other events but is the biggest move back towards the single market since the Brexit vote .
It's interesting that the government is finally getting round to doing stuff - and not getting much credit for it.
irrespective of whether you approve of any particular policies (and some will hate them) Starmer's biggest problem is that he spent a year and a half doing very little at all. They're now actually getting around to stuff (reform of nuclear regulation; planning reform; technology investment; renegotiation with the EU; policies on immigration) which will have significant effects.
Had they got around to that earlier, a lot more people might have given them the benefit of the doubt. They've lost that, and to change minds, they will have to show actual results - and that's a lot harder, and will take much longer.
They've now sorted the DVLA scam whereby driving instructors sold their login details to scammers who blocked booked driving tests and sold them on at inflated prices. From 12th of May, only learners will be able to book their own driving tests. Every little bit helps. They now need to tackle the HMRC digital reporting fiasco.
Lots of noise in crude futures but since US/Israel attacks on Iran started they've trended higher by about $2/calendar day. That gets you to $150/barrel crude by mid-April, about 6 weeks after the conflict kicked off. The huge noise of the initial short squeeze and short-term swings obscure a lot.
This is the aspect that I'm finding confusing now.
We are told Hormuz is the "choke point" so if no or very little oil is going through we are either having to source our oil by other means or we are using up that which was already purchased and stored before the conflict began.
At some point, it seems, and even with the coming of warmer weather in the Northern Hemisphere reducing demand, we are going to get issues with supply as pre-existing stocks are used and cannot be replenished or at least to levels that are comfortable.
We use 100 million barrels a day (not the UK, the world). Releases of 400 million barrels sound a lot but it's four to five days supply and if you look at coverage in places like New Zealand, there's already talk of rationing and Air New Zealand have cancelled hundreds of internal flights to save the cost of fuel.
The logical endpoint is Trump getting bored of answering questions he doesn't like about this, so just declaring a win and giving up. At which point it starts to look churlish and will really piss off the rest of the region if the Iranians keep blocking Hormuz.
So end result: A lot of Iranian leaders killed, but replaced with similar ones. Iranian military infrastructure hit badly but not enough to stop them being a regional pain in the ass. Global economic instability, medium term lower confidence in trade. Russia extra $$$ thru oil spike. No-one talking about Epstein and claims from teenage girls.
No, when Trump get bored of Iran, we go back to talking about Epstein.
That voter is smart and self-aware. We could do with more like them.
He has at least learned after the third mistake, unlike our Leon who proposes to follow up his votes for Brexit, Johnson and Starmer by proposing to be fooled for a fourth time.
8.27am
I’m fast asleep
You, however, are up and furiously posting and your first post is about ME. I’m not even on the site. Yet it’s the first thing on your mind. ME
As a narcissist who loves attention, I can only say Thanks
As an empathetic human, I honestly wonder if you should seek help
The Reeves speech went under the radar because of other events but is the biggest move back towards the single market since the Brexit vote .
It's interesting that the government is finally getting round to doing stuff - and not getting much credit for it.
irrespective of whether you approve of any particular policies (and some will hate them) Starmer's biggest problem is that he spent a year and a half doing very little at all. They're now actually getting around to stuff (reform of nuclear regulation; planning reform; technology investment; renegotiation with the EU; policies on immigration) which will have significant effects.
Had they got around to that earlier, a lot more people might have given them the benefit of the doubt. They've lost that, and to change minds, they will have to show actual results - and that's a lot harder, and will take much longer.
He spent 18 months listening only to Morgan McSweeney.
He's achieved more in 4 to 6 weeks than 18 wasted months.
He has to take the rap for it. On fairness to him he does take responsibility unlike some who are never wrong.
Had McSweeney gone even 6 months ago it may have been different.
The longer Starmer stays after May the more he takes the flak, disastrous results are factored in.
It's bad luck that Netanyahu and Trump try to start WW3 but he's far better to deal with it than any other Party Leader and that in itself buys him time.
Badenoch is very good at shouting her mouth off for 5 minutes of lies but very very poor under pressure and off script, often shouting back and losing her temper.
The more you see the worse it gets for the Tories.
She'll definitely be gone before Starmer, I think Starmer is safe until early 2027.
Polanski is a man whose ambitions exceed his talents.
He is a deeply unserious figure, and will eventually be tested and found wanting.
So he’s the Greens Ed Davey.
Hardly. Davey has years of ministerial experience under the coalition, and it is largely thanks to Davey's efforts in promoting the development of renewables that we aren't in deeper shit than we currently are with regard to our energy supplies. (Some may remember Boris Johnson's dismissals of wind power at the time.)
OT, but a bit of sense finally in Holyrood as MSPs reject the Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adults (Scotland) Bill. Only one MSP abstained, the health secretary Neil Gray, while 57 voted for assisted dying and 69 voted against.
The Scottish Green and LD leaders voted for though
I had heard that the Scottish Health Secretary had "abstained" by reason of having been admitted to hospital two days ago. He was physically incapable of attending Holyrood - he wasn't trying to avoid the issue.
Someone proxy voted on his behalf, I believe?
Is that so? I hadn't heard that - sorry if I have added to the confusion.
Polanski is a man whose ambitions exceed his talents.
He is a deeply unserious figure, and will eventually be tested and found wanting.
Being unserious hasn't inhibited other politicians. Which party leader is serious right now? Maybe Starmer somewhat. But only somewhat.
Having seen Badenoch yesterday I'd say Polanski is considerably more appealing. People like politicians who can think on their feet and who are articulate. He fits both she fits neither
On the other hand, he’s a geeky, quite ugly man; Badenoch is notably attractive
As a trivial lightweight person who spent a career in tampon advertising, you should know the importance of that
Rayner in a speech says '"the very survival of the Labour Party is at stake – as a party and a movement we cannot hide, we cannot go through the motions in the face of decline. We are running out of time."
She also said "the Labour Party is at its best when we are bold," a line reminiscent of a restless Gordon Brown in 2003, appealing to what he called Labour's "soul" and arguing the party was "best when we are boldest."
That's generally true of all parties. "Bold" or "radical" defines certain Governments - the three great reforming Governments of the 20th Century were those of Asquith, Attlee and Thatcher, all of which instigated profound changes to the country.
Other Governments have tried to do radical things (Heath 1970, Blair 1997, Johnson 2019) but have come unstuck.
Stamer came in with no radical ideas to speak of and in truth the "centre left" has had no new ideas since 2008. The "centre right" hasn't got anything to offer either and the populists are basically delusional.
No one has come up with a coherent method of promoting economic growth and prosperity against the background of demographic, technological and cultural changes. We are still trying to apply 20th Century solutions to 21st Century problems.
OT, but a bit of sense finally in Holyrood as MSPs reject the Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adults (Scotland) Bill. Only one MSP abstained, the health secretary Neil Gray, while 57 voted for assisted dying and 69 voted against.
The Scottish Green and LD leaders voted for though
I had heard that the Scottish Health Secretary had "abstained" by reason of having been admitted to hospital two days ago. He was physically incapable of attending Holyrood - he wasn't trying to avoid the issue.
Someone proxy voted on his behalf, I believe?
Is that so? I hadn't heard that - sorry if I have added to the confusion.
Even more confusingly the proxy vote seems to have been to abstain.
OT, but a bit of sense finally in Holyrood as MSPs reject the Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adults (Scotland) Bill. Only one MSP abstained, the health secretary Neil Gray, while 57 voted for assisted dying and 69 voted against.
The Scottish Green and LD leaders voted for though
I had heard that the Scottish Health Secretary had "abstained" by reason of having been admitted to hospital two days ago. He was physically incapable of attending Holyrood - he wasn't trying to avoid the issue.
Someone proxy voted on his behalf, I believe?
Is that so? I hadn't heard that - sorry if I have added to the confusion.
Even more confusingly the proxy vote seems to have been to abstain.
An alternate idea might be something along these lines. France had a production line for nuclear power stations, back in 1981.
Les ateliers de construction Framatome des cuves du Creusot au cœur de la période « faste » du programme #nucléaire français. Pour avoir une idée de son ampleur : En 1981, 26 réacteurs sont en cours de construction à différents stades d’avancement. https://x.com/Mangeon4/status/1632627857837924352
I love the French when it comes to the location of the Chooz nuclear power plant.
This suggests a plan to retake Calais..
Its a little known fact but Calais was not the last English possession in France.
Rather it was Dunkirk which was English territory between the Treaty of the Pyrenees in 1659 and its sale to France in 1662:
OT, but a bit of sense finally in Holyrood as MSPs reject the Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adults (Scotland) Bill. Only one MSP abstained, the health secretary Neil Gray, while 57 voted for assisted dying and 69 voted against.
The Scottish Green and LD leaders voted for though
I had heard that the Scottish Health Secretary had "abstained" by reason of having been admitted to hospital two days ago. He was physically incapable of attending Holyrood - he wasn't trying to avoid the issue.
Someone proxy voted on his behalf, I believe?
Is that so? I hadn't heard that - sorry if I have added to the confusion.
So, he did vote by proxy, but he voted to abstain! So, he went out of the way for his vote to be not counted deliberately rather than just be not counted because he was in hospital.
Polanski is a man whose ambitions exceed his talents.
He is a deeply unserious figure, and will eventually be tested and found wanting.
Being unserious hasn't inhibited other politicians. Which party leader is serious right now? Maybe Starmer somewhat. But only somewhat.
Having seen Badenoch yesterday I'd say Polanski is considerably more appealing. People like politicians who can think on their feet and who are articulate. He fits both she fits neither
On the other hand, he’s a geeky, quite ugly man; Badenoch is notably attractive
As a trivial lightweight person who spent a career in tampon advertising, you should know the importance of that
Notably is of course in the eye of the beholder but in any case polling doesn't seem to support the attractivness dividend. Farage increasingly resembles a scrotum with a 40 Kensitas Club a day habit but it doesn't seem to be the factor shrinking his lead.
The Reeves speech went under the radar because of other events but is the biggest move back towards the single market since the Brexit vote .
It's interesting that the government is finally getting round to doing stuff - and not getting much credit for it.
irrespective of whether you approve of any particular policies (and some will hate them) Starmer's biggest problem is that he spent a year and a half doing very little at all. They're now actually getting around to stuff (reform of nuclear regulation; planning reform; technology investment; renegotiation with the EU; policies on immigration) which will have significant effects.
Had they got around to that earlier, a lot more people might have given them the benefit of the doubt. They've lost that, and to change minds, they will have to show actual results - and that's a lot harder, and will take much longer.
He spent 18 months listening only to Morgan McSweeney.
He's achieved more in 4 to 6 weeks than 18 wasted months.
He has to take the rap for it. On fairness to him he does take responsibility unlike some who are never wrong.
Had McSweeney gone even 6 months ago it may have been different.
The longer Starmer stays after May the more he takes the flak, disastrous results are factored in.
It's bad luck that Netanyahu and Trump try to start WW3 but he's far better to deal with it than any other Party Leader and that in itself buys him time.
Badenoch is very good at shouting her mouth off for 5 minutes of lies but very very poor under pressure and off script, often shouting back and losing her temper.
The more you see the worse it gets for the Tories.
She'll definitely be gone before Starmer, I think Starmer is safe until early 2027.
Starmer's "Out in 26" odds are lengthening (slowly).
OT, but a bit of sense finally in Holyrood as MSPs reject the Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adults (Scotland) Bill. Only one MSP abstained, the health secretary Neil Gray, while 57 voted for assisted dying and 69 voted against.
The Scottish Green and LD leaders voted for though
I had heard that the Scottish Health Secretary had "abstained" by reason of having been admitted to hospital two days ago. He was physically incapable of attending Holyrood - he wasn't trying to avoid the issue.
Someone proxy voted on his behalf, I believe?
Is that so? I hadn't heard that - sorry if I have added to the confusion.
Even more confusingly the proxy vote seems to have been to abstain.
That is, shall we say, ... a nuanced approach.
No real idea but I wonder if Gray as the minister theoretically in charge of the 2 doctors who would have signed off an assisted death felt he had to recuse himself.
Incidentally, it looks like Dubai got hit quite badly hit last night. It’s difficult to be sure with their brutal censorship but it looks like the biggest Iranian attack yet
I thought they were meant to be running out of missiles and drones? This has echoes of all the “Putin has no more ammunition” stories, from the PB Dads, back in 2024
I hope @Sandpit is OK. Perhaps he can give us an honest update
Interesting polling from JL Partners which suggests that British Muslims have a net positive view of Russia (+2%) compared with -52% among the general public.
The Reeves speech went under the radar because of other events but is the biggest move back towards the single market since the Brexit vote .
It's interesting that the government is finally getting round to doing stuff - and not getting much credit for it.
irrespective of whether you approve of any particular policies (and some will hate them) Starmer's biggest problem is that he spent a year and a half doing very little at all. They're now actually getting around to stuff (reform of nuclear regulation; planning reform; technology investment; renegotiation with the EU; policies on immigration) which will have significant effects.
Had they got around to that earlier, a lot more people might have given them the benefit of the doubt. They've lost that, and to change minds, they will have to show actual results - and that's a lot harder, and will take much longer.
He spent 18 months listening only to Morgan McSweeney.
He's achieved more in 4 to 6 weeks than 18 wasted months.
He has to take the rap for it. On fairness to him he does take responsibility unlike some who are never wrong.
Had McSweeney gone even 6 months ago it may have been different.
The longer Starmer stays after May the more he takes the flak, disastrous results are factored in.
It's bad luck that Netanyahu and Trump try to start WW3 but he's far better to deal with it than any other Party Leader and that in itself buys him time.
Badenoch is very good at shouting her mouth off for 5 minutes of lies but very very poor under pressure and off script, often shouting back and losing her temper.
The more you see the worse it gets for the Tories.
She'll definitely be gone before Starmer, I think Starmer is safe until early 2027.
Starmer's "Out in 26" odds are lengthening (slowly).
Now out to 1.51.
May elections are going to be extremely bad but I can’t really see the justification for a change from the perspective of the MPs. A replacement who can actually run is going to have all of the same problems surely?
If you think it’s purely a comms problem I suppose a better communicator might communicate the existing platform better but in that case is that what MPs would be wanting change for? Surely implicitly they will be calling for a change in policies.
Sorry but it's a fantasy to think that Europe can wash its hands of the crisis in Iran and the gulf.
It has the potential to wreck the global economy. Cause starvation among the world's poor. If our own economies could head south with Russia friendly politicians who want sanctions removed gaining ground. Meanwhile the main beneficiary of the war is Vladimir Putin who gets more money by the day to continue his war in Europe.
So pressure Trump to try and end the war ASAP whatever the conditions? Well do we want to be dealing with an Iranian leadership arguably even more fanatical and emboldened because they think they've seen off the great satan? That's doesn't look too inviting either.
Sorry but it's a fantasy to think that Europe can wash its hands of the crisis in Iran and the gulf.
It has the potential to wreck the global economy. Cause starvation among the world's poor. If our own economies could head south with Russia friendly politicians who want sanctions removed gaining ground. Meanwhile the main beneficiary of the war is Vladimir Putin who gets more money by the day to continue his war in Europe.
So pressure Trump to try and end the war ASAP whatever the conditions? Well do we want to be dealing with an Iranian leadership arguably even more fanatical and emboldened because they think they've seen off the great satan? That's doesn't look too inviting either.
If only we could identify the actors who got us into the no good options pickle.
Polanski is a man whose ambitions exceed his talents.
He is a deeply unserious figure, and will eventually be tested and found wanting.
Being unserious hasn't inhibited other politicians. Which party leader is serious right now? Maybe Starmer somewhat. But only somewhat.
Having seen Badenoch yesterday I'd say Polanski is considerably more appealing. People like politicians who can think on their feet and who are articulate. He fits both she fits neither
On the other hand, he’s a geeky, quite ugly man; Badenoch is notably attractive
As a trivial lightweight person who spent a career in tampon advertising, you should know the importance of that
Notably is of course in the eye of the beholder but in any case polling doesn't seem to support the attractivness dividend. Farage increasingly resembles a scrotum with a 40 Kensitas Club a day habit but it doesn't seem to be the factor shrinking his lead.
Ooh, back in the scissors drawer Mrs McSharp!
Farage doesn’t look that bad. Nor does he look that good. He’s getting on. The one leader who is going to seed is Starmer. He was a very handsome man into his 50s. Now he’s fat red and puffy
I also dispute the idea that attractiveness is irrelevant in politics. I’m fairly sure there’s polling to prove it does play a role, albeit not decisive. eg voters really don’t like bald male leaders
I think what we can say is that at least in recent events, Starmer’s judgment (presumably using his own head not somebody else’s) has been better than either Farage or Badenoch.
I think McSweeney is a supremely gifted election strategist bur Starmer should have chosen somebody else to run the government. It’s obvious McSweeney’s talents were not in this area.
I am detecting some small signs of improvement since McSweeney left.
Polanski is a man whose ambitions exceed his talents.
He is a deeply unserious figure, and will eventually be tested and found wanting.
Being unserious hasn't inhibited other politicians. Which party leader is serious right now? Maybe Starmer somewhat. But only somewhat.
Having seen Badenoch yesterday I'd say Polanski is considerably more appealing. People like politicians who can think on their feet and who are articulate. He fits both she fits neither
On the other hand, he’s a geeky, quite ugly man; Badenoch is notably attractive
As a trivial lightweight person who spent a career in tampon advertising, you should know the importance of that
Notably is of course in the eye of the beholder but in any case polling doesn't seem to support the attractivness dividend. Farage increasingly resembles a scrotum with a 40 Kensitas Club a day habit but it doesn't seem to be the factor shrinking his lead.
Ooh, back in the scissors drawer Mrs McSharp!
Farage doesn’t look that bad. Nor does he look that good. He’s getting on. The one leader who is going to seed is Starmer. He was a very handsome man into his 50s. Now he’s fat red and puffy
I also dispute the idea that attractiveness is irrelevant in politics. I’m fairly sure there’s polling to prove it does play a role, albeit not decisive. eg voters really don’t like bald male leaders
Pretty boys can make unwise decisions (see Paris/Alexandros from Troy/Ilion).
Sorry but it's a fantasy to think that Europe can wash its hands of the crisis in Iran and the gulf.
It has the potential to wreck the global economy. Cause starvation among the world's poor. If our own economies could head south with Russia friendly politicians who want sanctions removed gaining ground. Meanwhile the main beneficiary of the war is Vladimir Putin who gets more money by the day to continue his war in Europe.
So pressure Trump to try and end the war ASAP whatever the conditions? Well do we want to be dealing with an Iranian leadership arguably even more fanatical and emboldened because they think they've seen off the great satan? That's doesn't look too inviting either.
If only we could identify the actors who got us into the no good options pickle.
Polanski is a man whose ambitions exceed his talents.
He is a deeply unserious figure, and will eventually be tested and found wanting.
So he’s the Greens Ed Davey.
Hardly. Davey has years of ministerial experience under the coalition, and it is largely thanks to Davey's efforts in promoting the development of renewables that we aren't in deeper shit than we currently are with regard to our energy supplies. (Some may remember Boris Johnson's dismissals of wind power at the time.)
Davey is a deeply unserious figure. We should also remember the Lib Dem’s in the coalition prevented new Nuclear and on the day this doofus was dancing at the conference another wrongly convicted sub postmaster died never having received full justice.
Trying to predict future trends towards the next GE is not easy. One easy bit at the moment is that the future trend of Reform will be related to the fact that it is currently considered a candidate for government, but the future trend of Green will be related to the fact that they are not currently considered a candidate for government.
In the end most votes in England, outside the 100 max seats the LDs can win which are proxy Labour, go to outfits considered candidates for government.
If Greens, like Reform, start looking like a candidate for government more than 15% of voters are going to notice that the nation's finances would be in the hands of modern monetary theory, or the magic money tree.
As things stand, in the next election a significant majority of voters won't want a Reform government. A similar proportion won't want a Green one. It may be boring but this is good news of a sort for Labour. And would be good news for the One Nation Tories if such a party existed.
Tories have a stark choice
Change Leader to a more affable centrist option or die.
Labour have a tactical choice
When, not if is the best time to change Leader. With Starmer's best work being on the global stage, that may be later, rather than sooner.
Very interesting this morning that despite Rayners speech yesterday, Burnham has been very positive about the Reeves speech yesterday.
I don't think the Tories have that option. It's more die, or change leader, then die.
Kemi isn't the problem - the problem is their track record in government, where they mainly kicked the can down the road, rather than fixing anything, constantly talking right and acting left.
Now, no-one believes them, whatever they say.
The best thing Kemi could do would be to win the party up, and tell her MPs to join Reform or the Libdems as they preferred.
Polanski is a man whose ambitions exceed his talents.
He is a deeply unserious figure, and will eventually be tested and found wanting.
Being unserious hasn't inhibited other politicians. Which party leader is serious right now? Maybe Starmer somewhat. But only somewhat.
Having seen Badenoch yesterday I'd say Polanski is considerably more appealing. People like politicians who can think on their feet and who are articulate. He fits both she fits neither
On the other hand, he’s a geeky, quite ugly man; Badenoch is notably attractive
As a trivial lightweight person who spent a career in tampon advertising, you should know the importance of that
Notably is of course in the eye of the beholder but in any case polling doesn't seem to support the attractivness dividend. Farage increasingly resembles a scrotum with a 40 Kensitas Club a day habit but it doesn't seem to be the factor shrinking his lead.
Ooh, back in the scissors drawer Mrs McSharp!
Farage doesn’t look that bad. Nor does he look that good. He’s getting on. The one leader who is going to seed is Starmer. He was a very handsome man into his 50s. Now he’s fat red and puffy
I also dispute the idea that attractiveness is irrelevant in politics. I’m fairly sure there’s polling to prove it does play a role, albeit not decisive. eg voters really don’t like bald male leaders
Pretty boys can make unwise decisions (see Paris/Alexandros from Troy/Ilion).
Yes that’s maybe also true, paradoxically. Sometimes voters mistrust REALLY attractive people - perhaps. Tho it didn’t stop JFK winning election
Tony Blair was a handsome young leader. Now he looks like a disinterred Peter Stringfellow
Incidentally, it looks like Dubai got hit quite badly hit last night. It’s difficult to be sure with their brutal censorship but it looks like the biggest Iranian attack yet
I thought they were meant to be running out of missiles and drones? This has echoes of all the “Putin has no more ammunition” stories, from the PB Dads, back in 2024
I hope @Sandpit is OK. Perhaps he can give us an honest update
Graphs of missiles and drone attacks on UAE, Bahrain and Saudi Arabia here:
Polanski is a man whose ambitions exceed his talents.
He is a deeply unserious figure, and will eventually be tested and found wanting.
Being unserious hasn't inhibited other politicians. Which party leader is serious right now? Maybe Starmer somewhat. But only somewhat.
Having seen Badenoch yesterday I'd say Polanski is considerably more appealing. People like politicians who can think on their feet and who are articulate. He fits both she fits neither
On the other hand, he’s a geeky, quite ugly man; Badenoch is notably attractive
As a trivial lightweight person who spent a career in tampon advertising, you should know the importance of that
Notably is of course in the eye of the beholder but in any case polling doesn't seem to support the attractivness dividend. Farage increasingly resembles a scrotum with a 40 Kensitas Club a day habit but it doesn't seem to be the factor shrinking his lead.
Ooh, back in the scissors drawer Mrs McSharp!
Farage doesn’t look that bad. Nor does he look that good. He’s getting on. The one leader who is going to seed is Starmer. He was a very handsome man into his 50s. Now he’s fat red and puffy
I also dispute the idea that attractiveness is irrelevant in politics. I’m fairly sure there’s polling to prove it does play a role, albeit not decisive. eg voters really don’t like bald male leaders
It's not irrelevant but also not decisive, Trump looks like a decaying corpse but that doesn't put the faithful off. In fact I wonder if in some cases the more physically unappealing a leader, the more cultish suspension of belief feeds into their followers' loyalty.
Rayner in a speech says '"the very survival of the Labour Party is at stake – as a party and a movement we cannot hide, we cannot go through the motions in the face of decline. We are running out of time."
She also said "the Labour Party is at its best when we are bold," a line reminiscent of a restless Gordon Brown in 2003, appealing to what he called Labour's "soul" and arguing the party was "best when we are boldest."
The Labour Party does best when it is a pale imitation of the Conservatives, as it was for Blair's first two terms. In fact, its major blunder during those years, the Iraq War, was a bit of uncharacteristic boldness from Blair.
It does terribly when it is bold, basically because its ideology doesn't work so its boldness always blows up in its face in one way or another. Corbyn was the boldest recent Labour leader, and lost both times. Most obvious more recent examples are the Winter Fuel Allowance, Rayner's labour market reforms and raising the minimum wage, which have increased unemployment amongst those they were supposed to help, or energy market reforms which have increased the price of energy not reduced it.
I'd wish that Labour were always that bold but unfortunately when it is it tends to take the country down with it.
Polanski is a man whose ambitions exceed his talents.
He is a deeply unserious figure, and will eventually be tested and found wanting.
So he’s the Greens Ed Davey.
Hardly. Davey has years of ministerial experience under the coalition, and it is largely thanks to Davey's efforts in promoting the development of renewables that we aren't in deeper shit than we currently are with regard to our energy supplies. (Some may remember Boris Johnson's dismissals of wind power at the time.)
Davey is a deeply unserious figure. We should also remember the Lib Dem’s in the coalition prevented new Nuclear and on the day this doofus was dancing at the conference another wrongly convicted sub postmaster died never having received full justice.
You seem very misinformed. Ed Davey approved the construction of Hinkley Point C and, while it's true that he, like others, didn't investigate the details of the Horizon scandal, he was the only post office minister to meet Alan Bates.
Polanski is a man whose ambitions exceed his talents.
He is a deeply unserious figure, and will eventually be tested and found wanting.
Being unserious hasn't inhibited other politicians. Which party leader is serious right now? Maybe Starmer somewhat. But only somewhat.
Having seen Badenoch yesterday I'd say Polanski is considerably more appealing. People like politicians who can think on their feet and who are articulate. He fits both she fits neither
On the other hand, he’s a geeky, quite ugly man; Badenoch is notably attractive
As a trivial lightweight person who spent a career in tampon advertising, you should know the importance of that
Notably is of course in the eye of the beholder but in any case polling doesn't seem to support the attractivness dividend. Farage increasingly resembles a scrotum with a 40 Kensitas Club a day habit but it doesn't seem to be the factor shrinking his lead.
Ooh, back in the scissors drawer Mrs McSharp!
Farage doesn’t look that bad. Nor does he look that good. He’s getting on. The one leader who is going to seed is Starmer. He was a very handsome man into his 50s. Now he’s fat red and puffy
I also dispute the idea that attractiveness is irrelevant in politics. I’m fairly sure there’s polling to prove it does play a role, albeit not decisive. eg voters really don’t like bald male leaders
It is a truth universally acknowledged. Leaders of parties we agree with are handsome/pretty. Leaders of parties we dislike are ugly.
Rayner in a speech says '"the very survival of the Labour Party is at stake – as a party and a movement we cannot hide, we cannot go through the motions in the face of decline. We are running out of time."
She also said "the Labour Party is at its best when we are bold," a line reminiscent of a restless Gordon Brown in 2003, appealing to what he called Labour's "soul" and arguing the party was "best when we are boldest."
The Labour Party does best when it is a pale imitation of the Conservatives, as it was for Blair's first two terms. In fact, its major blunder during those years, the Iraq War, was a bit of uncharacteristic boldness from Blair.
It does terribly when it is bold, basically because its ideology doesn't work so its boldness always blows up in its face in one way or another. Corbyn was the boldest recent Labour leader, and lost both times. Most obvious more recent examples are the Winter Fuel Allowance, Rayner's labour market reforms and raising the minimum wage, which have increased unemployment amongst those they were supposed to help, or energy market reforms which have increased the price of energy not reduced it.
I'd wish that Labour were always that bold but unfortunately when it is it tends to take the country down with it.
Ok - what do you think the Tories have done to the country over the years? Would be good to get your thoughts…
Polanski is a man whose ambitions exceed his talents.
He is a deeply unserious figure, and will eventually be tested and found wanting.
Being unserious hasn't inhibited other politicians. Which party leader is serious right now? Maybe Starmer somewhat. But only somewhat.
Having seen Badenoch yesterday I'd say Polanski is considerably more appealing. People like politicians who can think on their feet and who are articulate. He fits both she fits neither
On the other hand, he’s a geeky, quite ugly man; Badenoch is notably attractive
As a trivial lightweight person who spent a career in tampon advertising, you should know the importance of that
Notably is of course in the eye of the beholder but in any case polling doesn't seem to support the attractivness dividend. Farage increasingly resembles a scrotum with a 40 Kensitas Club a day habit but it doesn't seem to be the factor shrinking his lead.
Ooh, back in the scissors drawer Mrs McSharp!
Farage doesn’t look that bad. Nor does he look that good. He’s getting on. The one leader who is going to seed is Starmer. He was a very handsome man into his 50s. Now he’s fat red and puffy
I also dispute the idea that attractiveness is irrelevant in politics. I’m fairly sure there’s polling to prove it does play a role, albeit not decisive. eg voters really don’t like bald male leaders
Pretty boys can make unwise decisions (see Paris/Alexandros from Troy/Ilion).
Yes that’s maybe also true, paradoxically. Sometimes voters mistrust REALLY attractive people - perhaps. Tho it didn’t stop JFK winning election
Tony Blair was a handsome young leader. Now he looks like a disinterred Peter Stringfellow
Sic transit….
Mrs Thatcher supposedly had a soft spot for handsome fellows, hence the presence in her cabinet (if not for long) of the likes of Cecil Parkinson, John Moore, Humphrey Atkins et al.
She was a bit more pragmatic in her choice of spouse though.
Polanski is a man whose ambitions exceed his talents.
He is a deeply unserious figure, and will eventually be tested and found wanting.
Being unserious hasn't inhibited other politicians. Which party leader is serious right now? Maybe Starmer somewhat. But only somewhat.
Having seen Badenoch yesterday I'd say Polanski is considerably more appealing. People like politicians who can think on their feet and who are articulate. He fits both she fits neither
On the other hand, he’s a geeky, quite ugly man; Badenoch is notably attractive
As a trivial lightweight person who spent a career in tampon advertising, you should know the importance of that
Notably is of course in the eye of the beholder but in any case polling doesn't seem to support the attractivness dividend. Farage increasingly resembles a scrotum with a 40 Kensitas Club a day habit but it doesn't seem to be the factor shrinking his lead.
Ooh, back in the scissors drawer Mrs McSharp!
Farage doesn’t look that bad. Nor does he look that good. He’s getting on. The one leader who is going to seed is Starmer. He was a very handsome man into his 50s. Now he’s fat red and puffy
I also dispute the idea that attractiveness is irrelevant in politics. I’m fairly sure there’s polling to prove it does play a role, albeit not decisive. eg voters really don’t like bald male leaders
It is a truth universally acknowledged. Leaders of parties we agree with are handsome/pretty. Leaders of parties we dislike are ugly.
In one Greek (I think Athenian) court case, the defence lawyer literally disrobed his stunningly beautiful client and asked how could someone who is so clearly the handmaiden of Aphrodite be guilty? She was found innocent, and the prosecuting lawyer resigned from the profession in disgust.
Here, a few years ago, a beautiful blonde woman who was a medical undergraduate attacked her boyfriend with a knife and was not sent to prison by the judge as it might 'harm her career'.
The Reeves speech went under the radar because of other events but is the biggest move back towards the single market since the Brexit vote .
It's interesting that the government is finally getting round to doing stuff - and not getting much credit for it.
irrespective of whether you approve of any particular policies (and some will hate them) Starmer's biggest problem is that he spent a year and a half doing very little at all. They're now actually getting around to stuff (reform of nuclear regulation; planning reform; technology investment; renegotiation with the EU; policies on immigration) which will have significant effects.
Had they got around to that earlier, a lot more people might have given them the benefit of the doubt. They've lost that, and to change minds, they will have to show actual results - and that's a lot harder, and will take much longer.
Even then it could be too late. Major's government lost the voters and so when the economy improved they didn't get any credit for it. Voters are capable of thinking that things have improved despite the government, rather than because of it, if they've formed a settled opinion.
It could be that the best Labour can hope for is that the voters decide they at least aren't actively making things worse, and that the status quo is not so desperately bad that they're willing to try anything.
The longer the Iran War goes on the harder that will be.
Polanski is a man whose ambitions exceed his talents.
He is a deeply unserious figure, and will eventually be tested and found wanting.
Being unserious hasn't inhibited other politicians. Which party leader is serious right now? Maybe Starmer somewhat. But only somewhat.
Having seen Badenoch yesterday I'd say Polanski is considerably more appealing. People like politicians who can think on their feet and who are articulate. He fits both she fits neither
On the other hand, he’s a geeky, quite ugly man; Badenoch is notably attractive
As a trivial lightweight person who spent a career in tampon advertising, you should know the importance of that
Notably is of course in the eye of the beholder but in any case polling doesn't seem to support the attractivness dividend. Farage increasingly resembles a scrotum with a 40 Kensitas Club a day habit but it doesn't seem to be the factor shrinking his lead.
Ooh, back in the scissors drawer Mrs McSharp!
Farage doesn’t look that bad. Nor does he look that good. He’s getting on. The one leader who is going to seed is Starmer. He was a very handsome man into his 50s. Now he’s fat red and puffy
I also dispute the idea that attractiveness is irrelevant in politics. I’m fairly sure there’s polling to prove it does play a role, albeit not decisive. eg voters really don’t like bald male leaders
It is a truth universally acknowledged. Leaders of parties we agree with are handsome/pretty. Leaders of parties we dislike are ugly.
In one Greek (I think Athenian) court case, the defence lawyer literally disrobed his stunningly beautiful client and asked how could someone who is so clearly the handmaiden of Aphrodite be guilty? She was found innocent, and the prosecuting lawyer resigned from the profession in disgust.
Here, a few years ago, a beautiful blonde woman who was a medical undergraduate attacked her boyfriend with a knife and was not sent to prison by the judge as it might 'harm her career'.
Yes. It’s been proven that attractive defendants are more likely to be acquitted for serious crimes, compared to ugly defendants. All I can say is thank God I was quite dashing back in the 1980s
Polanski is a man whose ambitions exceed his talents.
He is a deeply unserious figure, and will eventually be tested and found wanting.
So he’s the Greens Ed Davey.
Hardly. Davey has years of ministerial experience under the coalition, and it is largely thanks to Davey's efforts in promoting the development of renewables that we aren't in deeper shit than we currently are with regard to our energy supplies. (Some may remember Boris Johnson's dismissals of wind power at the time.)
Davey is a deeply unserious figure. We should also remember the Lib Dem’s in the coalition prevented new Nuclear and on the day this doofus was dancing at the conference another wrongly convicted sub postmaster died never having received full justice.
You seem very misinformed. Ed Davey approved the construction of Hinkley Point C and, while it's true that he, like others, didn't investigate the details of the Horizon scandal, he was the only post office minister to meet Alan Bates.
He was also responsible for many of the measures which have reduced average energy consumption by UK households (and therefore energy bills over the alternative) by around 20%. Scottish get in by the lead set and going "We are BETTER than the English". I'm not sure about NI.
Rayner in a speech says '"the very survival of the Labour Party is at stake – as a party and a movement we cannot hide, we cannot go through the motions in the face of decline. We are running out of time."
She also said "the Labour Party is at its best when we are bold," a line reminiscent of a restless Gordon Brown in 2003, appealing to what he called Labour's "soul" and arguing the party was "best when we are boldest."
The Labour Party does best when it is a pale imitation of the Conservatives, as it was for Blair's first two terms. In fact, its major blunder during those years, the Iraq War, was a bit of uncharacteristic boldness from Blair.
It does terribly when it is bold, basically because its ideology doesn't work so its boldness always blows up in its face in one way or another. Corbyn was the boldest recent Labour leader, and lost both times. Most obvious more recent examples are the Winter Fuel Allowance, Rayner's labour market reforms and raising the minimum wage, which have increased unemployment amongst those they were supposed to help, or energy market reforms which have increased the price of energy not reduced it.
I'd wish that Labour were always that bold but unfortunately when it is it tends to take the country down with it.
It's always hard to separate leadership from results. I'd argue that 2015 showed that Corbynite policites can work with much of the electorate, and given more time would have gained a majority, but 2017 results reflected the focus of the media on Corbyn's weak spots. The point, though, is that Labour support isn't just about winning - if we win with a centre-right manifesto or (perhaps worse) no real programme at all, then the point of having a Labour Party largely disappears. As a Tory you won't sign up to that, as Labour is most acceptable to you when it doesn't stand for anything in particular - I feel the same about the Tories. But without a pledge of significant rebalancing of income and power, there isn't much point to Labour, and many of us will drift off to the Greens.
Rayner in a speech says '"the very survival of the Labour Party is at stake – as a party and a movement we cannot hide, we cannot go through the motions in the face of decline. We are running out of time."
She also said "the Labour Party is at its best when we are bold," a line reminiscent of a restless Gordon Brown in 2003, appealing to what he called Labour's "soul" and arguing the party was "best when we are boldest."
The Labour Party does best when it is a pale imitation of the Conservatives, as it was for Blair's first two terms. In fact, its major blunder during those years, the Iraq War, was a bit of uncharacteristic boldness from Blair.
It does terribly when it is bold, basically because its ideology doesn't work so its boldness always blows up in its face in one way or another. Corbyn was the boldest recent Labour leader, and lost both times. Most obvious more recent examples are the Winter Fuel Allowance, Rayner's labour market reforms and raising the minimum wage, which have increased unemployment amongst those they were supposed to help, or energy market reforms which have increased the price of energy not reduced it.
I'd wish that Labour were always that bold but unfortunately when it is it tends to take the country down with it.
"The Labour Party does best when it is a pale imitation of the Conservatives, as it was for Blair's first two terms."
No, not really, it does best when it has focus, and you know what it stands for. Clem Attlee's government (1945-51) was hardly a pale imitation of the Conservatives and it set the tone until Mrs T in 1979.
Other than the comical absurdity of the breast enlargement issue, it does play in to a popular criticism of politicians. That they make fantastical promises that they can't deliver.
There are 2 reasons why I'd stick with Labour over Green: Polanski seems like a shallow chancer to me. Their economics are fantastical. But if we are to succumb to populism and the choice is them or Reform I'd vote for them and it wouldn't be a tough decision.
Polanski is a man whose ambitions exceed his talents.
He is a deeply unserious figure, and will eventually be tested and found wanting.
Being unserious hasn't inhibited other politicians. Which party leader is serious right now? Maybe Starmer somewhat. But only somewhat.
Having seen Badenoch yesterday I'd say Polanski is considerably more appealing. People like politicians who can think on their feet and who are articulate. He fits both she fits neither
On the other hand, he’s a geeky, quite ugly man; Badenoch is notably attractive
As a trivial lightweight person who spent a career in tampon advertising, you should know the importance of that
Notably is of course in the eye of the beholder but in any case polling doesn't seem to support the attractivness dividend. Farage increasingly resembles a scrotum with a 40 Kensitas Club a day habit but it doesn't seem to be the factor shrinking his lead.
Ooh, back in the scissors drawer Mrs McSharp!
Farage doesn’t look that bad. Nor does he look that good. He’s getting on. The one leader who is going to seed is Starmer. He was a very handsome man into his 50s. Now he’s fat red and puffy
I also dispute the idea that attractiveness is irrelevant in politics. I’m fairly sure there’s polling to prove it does play a role, albeit not decisive. eg voters really don’t like bald male leaders
It is a truth universally acknowledged. Leaders of parties we agree with are handsome/pretty. Leaders of parties we dislike are ugly.
In one Greek (I think Athenian) court case, the defence lawyer literally disrobed his stunningly beautiful client and asked how could someone who is so clearly the handmaiden of Aphrodite be guilty? She was found innocent, and the prosecuting lawyer resigned from the profession in disgust.
Here, a few years ago, a beautiful blonde woman who was a medical undergraduate attacked her boyfriend with a knife and was not sent to prison by the judge as it might 'harm her career'.
Yes. It’s been proven that attractive defendants are more likely to be acquitted for serious crimes, compared to ugly defendants. All I can say is thank God I was quite dashing back in the 1980s
Yep. Attractiveness, sex, wealth, and skin colour all play a role.
A beautiful rich white woman has to work bloody hard to go to prison.
An ugly homeless black guy is going to have a rather tougher time avoiding it.
Incidentally, it looks like Dubai got hit quite badly hit last night. It’s difficult to be sure with their brutal censorship but it looks like the biggest Iranian attack yet
I thought they were meant to be running out of missiles and drones? This has echoes of all the “Putin has no more ammunition” stories, from the PB Dads, back in 2024
I hope Sandpit is OK. Perhaps he can give us an honest update
I hope he doesn't - wouldn't want him to end up on the wrong side of the law.
The Reeves speech went under the radar because of other events but is the biggest move back towards the single market since the Brexit vote .
It's interesting that the government is finally getting round to doing stuff - and not getting much credit for it.
irrespective of whether you approve of any particular policies (and some will hate them) Starmer's biggest problem is that he spent a year and a half doing very little at all. They're now actually getting around to stuff (reform of nuclear regulation; planning reform; technology investment; renegotiation with the EU; policies on immigration) which will have significant effects.
Had they got around to that earlier, a lot more people might have given them the benefit of the doubt. They've lost that, and to change minds, they will have to show actual results - and that's a lot harder, and will take much longer.
Even then it could be too late. Major's government lost the voters and so when the economy improved they didn't get any credit for it. Voters are capable of thinking that things have improved despite the government, rather than because of it, if they've formed a settled opinion.
It could be that the best Labour can hope for is that the voters decide they at least aren't actively making things worse, and that the status quo is not so desperately bad that they're willing to try anything.
The longer the Iran War goes on the harder that will be.
To be fair the economic improvement between 1993 and 1997 was despite the government's initial strategy.
Major had been willing to trash the economy in order to remain in his beloved ERM.
Sorry but it's a fantasy to think that Europe can wash its hands of the crisis in Iran and the gulf.
It has the potential to wreck the global economy. Cause starvation among the world's poor. If our own economies could head south with Russia friendly politicians who want sanctions removed gaining ground. Meanwhile the main beneficiary of the war is Vladimir Putin who gets more money by the day to continue his war in Europe.
So pressure Trump to try and end the war ASAP whatever the conditions? Well do we want to be dealing with an Iranian leadership arguably even more fanatical and emboldened because they think they've seen off the great satan? That's doesn't look too inviting either.
The USA has dropped us in the shit & we get to live with the consequences whether we like it or not.
As with the war in Ukraine or the COVID pandemic sometimes there are no good options, only a menu of bad to worse ones.
In the short term it seems that Iran is permitting ships to transit Hormuz to states which are not taking part in the conflict, which lessons the international economic impact considerably. It seems likely that a full ground invasion of Iran would extract a terrible cost in blood & $ on all sides. A negotiated truce with an extremely aggravated Iran that will bear a grudge against the US for another generation is likely to be the best possible outcome available.
Incidentally, it looks like Dubai got hit quite badly hit last night. It’s difficult to be sure with their brutal censorship but it looks like the biggest Iranian attack yet
I thought they were meant to be running out of missiles and drones? This has echoes of all the “Putin has no more ammunition” stories, from the PB Dads, back in 2024
I hope @Sandpit is OK. Perhaps he can give us an honest update
Graphs of missiles and drone attacks on UAE, Bahrain and Saudi Arabia here:
Iran's military capabilities have been greatly reduced - just as Russia's have been.
Have you seen who they're citing for the number of Iranian missiles and drones launched.... the Saudi, Emirati and Kuwaiti gov twitter accounts. Also the 'reported and confirmed' US/Israeli strikes has no non governmental source. I don't think you can trust any gov in this war to tell the truth and relying on Arab governments in an absurdity.
Sorry but it's a fantasy to think that Europe can wash its hands of the crisis in Iran and the gulf.
It has the potential to wreck the global economy. Cause starvation among the world's poor. If our own economies could head south with Russia friendly politicians who want sanctions removed gaining ground. Meanwhile the main beneficiary of the war is Vladimir Putin who gets more money by the day to continue his war in Europe.
So pressure Trump to try and end the war ASAP whatever the conditions? Well do we want to be dealing with an Iranian leadership arguably even more fanatical and emboldened because they think they've seen off the great satan? That's doesn't look too inviting either.
In the short term it seems that Iran is permitting ships to transit Hormuz to states which are not taking part in the conflict, which lessons the international economic impact considerably.
That is Iranian oil not the oil of all the other Gulf countries?
Incidentally, it looks like Dubai got hit quite badly hit last night. It’s difficult to be sure with their brutal censorship but it looks like the biggest Iranian attack yet
I thought they were meant to be running out of missiles and drones? This has echoes of all the “Putin has no more ammunition” stories, from the PB Dads, back in 2024
I hope @Sandpit is OK. Perhaps he can give us an honest update
Good afternoon from the pub!
A few alerts overnight last night, and some interception noises heard this morning, but we’re all okay here. Those who are paid to keep us safe appear to be doing a rather good job of it.
Eid holiday starts tomorrow, celebrating the end of Ramadan, so hoping for a quiet few days.
Incidentally, it looks like Dubai got hit quite badly hit last night. It’s difficult to be sure with their brutal censorship but it looks like the biggest Iranian attack yet
I thought they were meant to be running out of missiles and drones? This has echoes of all the “Putin has no more ammunition” stories, from the PB Dads, back in 2024
I hope @Sandpit is OK. Perhaps he can give us an honest update
Graphs of missiles and drone attacks on UAE, Bahrain and Saudi Arabia here:
Iran's military capabilities have been greatly reduced - just as Russia's have been.
Have you seen who they're citing for the number of Iranian missiles and drones launched.... the Saudi, Emirati and Kuwaiti gov twitter accounts. Also the 'reported and confirmed' US/Israeli strikes has no non governmental source. I don't think you can trust any gov in this war to tell the truth and relying on Arab governments in an absurdity.
This is a more accepted tracier on Iranian launch numbers, he collates from more sources not just GCC governments.
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.
Yoire effectively arguinf the US and Israel can skip what they like, and can't be challenged. That is a deeply stupid and immoral position to take.
No, I am arguing that every independent, sovereign country has the right to make whatever decisions it chooses. Especially, democratic countries, have the right to have decisions made by their democratically-elected leaders.
The USA and Israel have neither elected Starmer, nor Powell. Just because Powell thought that progress was acceptable, does not mean either of those nations democratically-elected leaders are obliged to agree with them.
If Badenoch was our PM, then we might be making different choices to what Starmer and Powell are making, so why can't they?
That is democracy in action. It is profoundly illiberal and undemocratic to deny sovereign countries the right to make their own independent decisions.
The morality of the decisions is an entirely separate debate to the ability of independent, sovereign countries to make their own choices.
The Greens are a party of protest under Polanski growing by winning over Corbynites from Labour disillusioned with Starmer. However, as the poll shows voters also have reservations about their management of defence, immigration and the national finances as they did with Corbyn which will likely see swing voters still not vote for them
Corbyn needed to get 35% or so to be in with a hot at Downing Street. The Greens only need to get 20% to get lots of seats and aplace at the government table, especially with no other party doing much better. I think (regrettably) that you're right about how most voters will see the Greens if the media swing the spotlight on them. But not more than 75-80%.
Sorry but it's a fantasy to think that Europe can wash its hands of the crisis in Iran and the gulf.
It has the potential to wreck the global economy. Cause starvation among the world's poor. If our own economies could head south with Russia friendly politicians who want sanctions removed gaining ground. Meanwhile the main beneficiary of the war is Vladimir Putin who gets more money by the day to continue his war in Europe.
So pressure Trump to try and end the war ASAP whatever the conditions? Well do we want to be dealing with an Iranian leadership arguably even more fanatical and emboldened because they think they've seen off the great satan? That's doesn't look too inviting either.
In the short term it seems that Iran is permitting ships to transit Hormuz to states which are not taking part in the conflict, which lessons the international economic impact considerably.
That is Iranian oil not the oil of all the other Gulf countries?
The Greens are a party of protest under Polanski growing by winning over Corbynites from Labour disillusioned with Starmer. However, as the poll shows voters also have reservations about their management of defence, immigration and the national finances as they did with Corbyn which will likely see swing voters still not vote for them
Corbyn needed to get 35% or so to be in with a hot at Downing Street. The Greens only need to get 20% to get lots of seats and aplace at the government table, especially with no other party doing much better. I think (regrettably) that you're right about how most voters will see the Greens if the media swing the spotlight on them. But not more than 75-80%.
Are the Greens ready for prime time?
Because if they are polling near 20% a year out from GE the media focus is going to be utterly relentless.
Incidentally, it looks like Dubai got hit quite badly hit last night. It’s difficult to be sure with their brutal censorship but it looks like the biggest Iranian attack yet
I thought they were meant to be running out of missiles and drones? This has echoes of all the “Putin has no more ammunition” stories, from the PB Dads, back in 2024
I hope Sandpit is OK. Perhaps he can give us an honest update
I hope he doesn't - wouldn't want him to end up on the wrong side of the law.
I can be honest. Those finding themselves in trouble are either posting fake news or taking photographs of military activity.
One example from yesterday, someone posting a six-year-old video of a marketplace fire in the city of Ajman, but saying that it was a current event in Dubai caused by a missile attack.
Trump does not think strategically, historically, geographically, or even rationally. He does not connect actions he takes on one day to events that occur weeks later. Allied leaders know that if they help him in the Gulf, he won't be grateful, or even remember
The Greens are a party of protest under Polanski growing by winning over Corbynites from Labour disillusioned with Starmer. However, as the poll shows voters also have reservations about their management of defence, immigration and the national finances as they did with Corbyn which will likely see swing voters still not vote for them
Corbyn needed to get 35% or so to be in with a hot at Downing Street. The Greens only need to get 20% to get lots of seats and aplace at the government table, especially with no other party doing much better. I think (regrettably) that you're right about how most voters will see the Greens if the media swing the spotlight on them. But not more than 75-80%.
'Only need to get to 20%' That might prove problematic in an actual general election
Truly depressing thread on the insane Afghan relocation scheme
"The National Audit Office has released a report into the Afghan resettlement scheme, the findings are grim.
37,950 Afghans have already been resettled in the UK and the Government expects a further 8,632 - 9,741 to be resettled by 2030, bringing the total to 46,582 - 47,691."
"The Government have already spent £3.1bn on the relocation schemes and expect to spend a total of £5.7bn by 2032-33.
By the time this scheme is finished, it works out to around £120,000~ per Afghan relocated to the UK."
80-90% live in social housing. Half can't speak English, and won't learn, so they will never pay taxes via work. Many will strive to bring wider families, one guy brought 22 relatives. Yes. 22. Local authorities are being "incentivised" to house them, all over the country
We will end up spending many many billions of YOUR tax money on this insane virtue signalling, which endangers us all, especially women. meanwhile our taxes go up and our borrowing goes up to make the Afghans happy
And yes, Robert Jenrick is implicated in this disaster, up to his eyeballs
Trump does not think strategically, historically, geographically, or even rationally. He does not connect actions he takes on one day to events that occur weeks later. Allied leaders know that if they help him in the Gulf, he won't be grateful, or even remember
Andrew Lilico @andrew_lilico · 1h It seems very clear that the rise of the Greens in recent months could have been the rise of the Corbyn party had it not been for the chaos associated with that party's formation. Indeed, Corbyn's party might have done even better.
EDIT: and this follow up comment is worth mulling over:
theimperiumdidnothingwrong @imperimnowtwrng · 1h There is some interesting research to be done into why the Green Party factions can unite despite being fundamentally at odds about almost everything while Your Party's factions which agree about almost everything can't.
Polanski is a man whose ambitions exceed his talents.
He is a deeply unserious figure, and will eventually be tested and found wanting.
Being unserious hasn't inhibited other politicians. Which party leader is serious right now? Maybe Starmer somewhat. But only somewhat.
Having seen Badenoch yesterday I'd say Polanski is considerably more appealing. People like politicians who can think on their feet and who are articulate. He fits both she fits neither
On the other hand, he’s a geeky, quite ugly man; Badenoch is notably attractive
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.
Yoire effectively arguinf the US and Israel can skip what they like, and can't be challenged. That is a deeply stupid and immoral position to take.
No, I am arguing that every independent, sovereign country has the right to make whatever decisions it chooses. Especially, democratic countries, have the right to have decisions made by their democratically-elected leaders.
The USA and Israel have neither elected Starmer, nor Powell. Just because Powell thought that progress was acceptable, does not mean either of those nations democratically-elected leaders are obliged to agree with them.
If Badenoch was our PM, then we might be making different choices to what Starmer and Powell are making, so why can't they?
That is democracy in action. It is profoundly illiberal and undemocratic to deny sovereign countries the right to make their own independent decisions.
The morality of the decisions is an entirely separate debate to the ability of independent, sovereign countries to make their own choices.
Do not use the word morality in any comment linked to the current Israel, it's Government or Leader
The current incumbent is immoral to his fucking core.
Incidentally, it looks like Dubai got hit quite badly hit last night. It’s difficult to be sure with their brutal censorship but it looks like the biggest Iranian attack yet
I thought they were meant to be running out of missiles and drones? This has echoes of all the “Putin has no more ammunition” stories, from the PB Dads, back in 2024
I hope Sandpit is OK. Perhaps he can give us an honest update
I hope he doesn't - wouldn't want him to end up on the wrong side of the law.
I can be honest. Those finding themselves in trouble are either posting fake news or taking photographs of military activity.
One example from yesterday, someone posting a six-year-old video of a marketplace fire in the city of Ajman, but saying that it was a current event in Dubai caused by a missile attack.
There is a verified video from Al Jazeera of drones (I think) being intercepted right over Dubai. People forget that interceptions don't take away the entire problem, the intercepted drone falls to the ground
I experienced exactly this in Odessa. I was strolling back to my hotel and I heard - honestly - the loudest, most frightening noise I have ever heard in my life. Everyone on the street reflexively ducked (never a good sign in Odessa, where they shrug off air sirens)
We turned around and saw a puff of smoke and a lot of crushed metal. It was an intercepted drone and it had fallen on to a kid's playground, obliterating the swings - happily the playground was empty at the time (there aren't many small children left in Odessa). The metal smouldered and did not burn. We all got on with the day, I immediately went into the next shop and bought a load of jamon iberica de bellota, having been reminded that life is short
However, I really would not like to live in a city where "interceptions" like this happen all the time. Once, is an anecdote, twice or thrice and it's a sign to get the fuck out
Israel says it killed Esmaeil Khatib, Iran’s Minister of Intelligence, in an overnight airstrike.
They seem to be having a bit more success offing senior Iranian players in the past couple of days. Perhaps they are having to surface to co-ordinte their response to the bombing activity/Straits of Hormuz?
Polanski is a man whose ambitions exceed his talents.
He is a deeply unserious figure, and will eventually be tested and found wanting.
Being unserious hasn't inhibited other politicians. Which party leader is serious right now? Maybe Starmer somewhat. But only somewhat.
Having seen Badenoch yesterday I'd say Polanski is considerably more appealing. People like politicians who can think on their feet and who are articulate. He fits both she fits neither
On the other hand, he’s a geeky, quite ugly man; Badenoch is notably attractive
As a trivial lightweight person who spent a career in tampon advertising, you should know the importance of that
Notably is of course in the eye of the beholder but in any case polling doesn't seem to support the attractivness dividend. Farage increasingly resembles a scrotum with a 40 Kensitas Club a day habit but it doesn't seem to be the factor shrinking his lead.
Ooh, back in the scissors drawer Mrs McSharp!
Farage doesn’t look that bad. Nor does he look that good. He’s getting on. The one leader who is going to seed is Starmer. He was a very handsome man into his 50s. Now he’s fat red and puffy
I also dispute the idea that attractiveness is irrelevant in politics. I’m fairly sure there’s polling to prove it does play a role, albeit not decisive. eg voters really don’t like bald male leaders
It is a truth universally acknowledged. Leaders of parties we agree with are handsome/pretty. Leaders of parties we dislike are ugly.
In one Greek (I think Athenian) court case, the defence lawyer literally disrobed his stunningly beautiful client and asked how could someone who is so clearly the handmaiden of Aphrodite be guilty? She was found innocent, and the prosecuting lawyer resigned from the profession in disgust.
Here, a few years ago, a beautiful blonde woman who was a medical undergraduate attacked her boyfriend with a knife and was not sent to prison by the judge as it might 'harm her career'.
Yes. It’s been proven that attractive defendants are more likely to be acquitted for serious crimes, compared to ugly defendants. All I can say is thank God I was quite dashing back in the 1980s
Yep. Attractiveness, sex, wealth, and skin colour all play a role.
A beautiful rich white woman has to work bloody hard to go to prison.
An ugly homeless black guy is going to have a rather tougher time avoiding it.
A beautiful woman is going to have to torture puppies or kittens to get sent to prison. I'm always amused by claims that "too many" women get sent to prison when it is in fact, incredibly difficult for a woman to get a gaol term.
My favourite case is that of Henriette Caillaux, married to a former Prime Minister of France, whose husband was subjected to a sustained campaign by Le Figaro. Worried that her husband would feel obliged to fight a duel to clear his name, she did what any good wife would do, and shot the editor dead. At trial, her counsel argued that women were fundamentally irrational and emotional, and could not really be held criminally responsible for their actions, and she was acquitted.
Polanski is a man whose ambitions exceed his talents.
He is a deeply unserious figure, and will eventually be tested and found wanting.
Being unserious hasn't inhibited other politicians. Which party leader is serious right now? Maybe Starmer somewhat. But only somewhat.
Having seen Badenoch yesterday I'd say Polanski is considerably more appealing. People like politicians who can think on their feet and who are articulate. He fits both she fits neither
On the other hand, he’s a geeky, quite ugly man; Badenoch is notably attractive
As a trivial lightweight person who spent a career in tampon advertising, you should know the importance of that
Notably is of course in the eye of the beholder but in any case polling doesn't seem to support the attractivness dividend. Farage increasingly resembles a scrotum with a 40 Kensitas Club a day habit but it doesn't seem to be the factor shrinking his lead.
Ooh, back in the scissors drawer Mrs McSharp!
Farage doesn’t look that bad. Nor does he look that good. He’s getting on. The one leader who is going to seed is Starmer. He was a very handsome man into his 50s. Now he’s fat red and puffy
I also dispute the idea that attractiveness is irrelevant in politics. I’m fairly sure there’s polling to prove it does play a role, albeit not decisive. eg voters really don’t like bald male leaders
It is a truth universally acknowledged. Leaders of parties we agree with are handsome/pretty. Leaders of parties we dislike are ugly.
In one Greek (I think Athenian) court case, the defence lawyer literally disrobed his stunningly beautiful client and asked how could someone who is so clearly the handmaiden of Aphrodite be guilty? She was found innocent, and the prosecuting lawyer resigned from the profession in disgust.
Here, a few years ago, a beautiful blonde woman who was a medical undergraduate attacked her boyfriend with a knife and was not sent to prison by the judge as it might 'harm her career'.
Yes. It’s been proven that attractive defendants are more likely to be acquitted for serious crimes, compared to ugly defendants. All I can say is thank God I was quite dashing back in the 1980s
Yep. Attractiveness, sex, wealth, and skin colour all play a role.
A beautiful rich white woman has to work bloody hard to go to prison.
An ugly homeless black guy is going to have a rather tougher time avoiding it.
A beautiful woman is going to have to torture puppies or kittens to get sent to prison. I'm always amused by claims that "too many" women get sent to prison when it is in fact, incredibly difficult for a woman to get a gaol term.
My favourite case is that of Henriette Caillaux, married to a former Prime Minister of France, whose husband was subjected to a sustained campaign by Le Figaro. Worried that her husband would feel obliged to fight a duel to clear his name, she did what any good wife would do, and shot the editor dead. At trial, her counsel argued that women were fundamentally irrational and emotional, and could not really be held criminally responsible for their actions, and she was acquitted.
Years ago, during the first Blair government, I think, I read the appalling Corston Report which suggested women shouldn't go to prison at all (NB circa 20x men incarcerated for every woman) and instead be subject to a sort of collective house arrest with multiple felons sharing an abode. Complete with day trips for shopping and suchlike.
It's a bit like violence against women. There's more against men but apparently that doesn't matter.
The Greens are a party of protest under Polanski growing by winning over Corbynites from Labour disillusioned with Starmer. However, as the poll shows voters also have reservations about their management of defence, immigration and the national finances as they did with Corbyn which will likely see swing voters still not vote for them
Corbyn needed to get 35% or so to be in with a hot at Downing Street. The Greens only need to get 20% to get lots of seats and aplace at the government table, especially with no other party doing much better. I think (regrettably) that you're right about how most voters will see the Greens if the media swing the spotlight on them. But not more than 75-80%.
Are the Greens ready for prime time?
Because if they are polling near 20% a year out from GE the media focus is going to be utterly relentless.
Yes. But 20% of the electorate is probably either switched off from media or actively hostile to it. The Daily Mail hates the Greens? OK, let's vote for them...
Now just the similar one in Russia that also needs to be liquidated.
Yebbut....Ukraine can't have Tomahawks because they will sell them to Iran who will then fire them in to a girls' school in a false flag. Or something.
Had our 2026 pension statements and how absurd my wife and I get 25p a week more because we are 80+
The whole scheme needs radical overhaul and not just ending the triple lock
Don’t spend it all in the one shop! I assume the 25p (5/-) was originally to cover the additional costs of being older and having to pay for more help. It’s as daft as the £10 Christmas bonus.
Sorry but it's a fantasy to think that Europe can wash its hands of the crisis in Iran and the gulf.
It has the potential to wreck the global economy. Cause starvation among the world's poor. If our own economies could head south with Russia friendly politicians who want sanctions removed gaining ground. Meanwhile the main beneficiary of the war is Vladimir Putin who gets more money by the day to continue his war in Europe.
So pressure Trump to try and end the war ASAP whatever the conditions? Well do we want to be dealing with an Iranian leadership arguably even more fanatical and emboldened because they think they've seen off the great satan? That's doesn't look too inviting either.
I agree this is one of the decisions facing Europe and the answer is Yes.
Comments
Next up - Cuba, baby!!
They now need to tackle the HMRC digital reporting fiasco.
(Like Hegseth needs an excuse...)
I’m fast asleep
You, however, are up and furiously posting and your first post is about ME. I’m not even on the site. Yet it’s the first thing on your mind. ME
As a narcissist who loves attention, I can only say Thanks
As an empathetic human, I honestly wonder if you should seek help
He's achieved more in 4 to 6 weeks than 18 wasted months.
He has to take the rap for it. On fairness to him he does take responsibility unlike some who are never wrong.
Had McSweeney gone even 6 months ago it may have been different.
The longer Starmer stays after May the more he takes the flak, disastrous results are factored in.
It's bad luck that Netanyahu and Trump try to start WW3 but he's far better to deal with it than any other Party Leader and that in itself buys him time.
Badenoch is very good at shouting her mouth off for 5 minutes of lies but very very poor under pressure and off script, often shouting back and losing her temper.
The more you see the worse it gets for the Tories.
She'll definitely be gone before Starmer, I think Starmer is safe until early 2027.
As a trivial lightweight person who spent a career in tampon advertising, you should know the importance of that
https://x.com/osinttechnical/status/2034207563458252886
USAF B-1 Lancer heavy bomber departing England on an Iran strike mission yesterday.
Other Governments have tried to do radical things (Heath 1970, Blair 1997, Johnson 2019) but have come unstuck.
Stamer came in with no radical ideas to speak of and in truth the "centre left" has had no new ideas since 2008. The "centre right" hasn't got anything to offer either and the populists are basically delusional.
No one has come up with a coherent method of promoting economic growth and prosperity against the background of demographic, technological and cultural changes. We are still trying to apply 20th Century solutions to 21st Century problems.
https://x.com/TheMaineWonk/status/2033893197030535356
I think he is in the mix for the Democratic nomination; one of the Democrats' outstanding communicators.
Rather it was Dunkirk which was English territory between the Treaty of the Pyrenees in 1659 and its sale to France in 1662:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sale_of_Dunkirk
https://www.holyrood.com/news/view,msps-reject-assisted-dying-bill says, "Health Secretary Neil Grey, who was absent from the debate after being hospitalised on Monday, abstained from the vote by proxy."
So, he did vote by proxy, but he voted to abstain! So, he went out of the way for his vote to be not counted deliberately rather than just be not counted because he was in hospital.
Now out to 1.51.
I thought they were meant to be running out of missiles and drones? This has echoes of all the “Putin has no more ammunition” stories, from the PB Dads, back in 2024
I hope @Sandpit is OK. Perhaps he can give us an honest update
https://policyexchange.org.uk/publication/worlds-apart-british-muslim-attitudes-on-the-iran-conflict/
If you think it’s purely a comms problem I suppose a better communicator might communicate the existing platform better but in that case is that what MPs would be wanting change for? Surely implicitly they will be calling for a change in policies.
It has the potential to wreck the global economy. Cause starvation among the world's poor. If our own economies could head south with Russia friendly politicians who want sanctions removed gaining ground. Meanwhile the main beneficiary of the war is Vladimir Putin who gets more money by the day to continue his war in Europe.
So pressure Trump to try and end the war ASAP whatever the conditions? Well do we want to be dealing with an Iranian leadership arguably even more fanatical and emboldened because they think they've seen off the great satan? That's doesn't look too inviting either.
Farage doesn’t look that bad. Nor does he look that good. He’s getting on. The one leader who is going to seed is Starmer. He was a very handsome man into his 50s. Now he’s fat red and puffy
I also dispute the idea that attractiveness is irrelevant in politics. I’m fairly sure there’s polling to prove it does play a role, albeit not decisive. eg voters really don’t like bald male leaders
The UK helped the US in Vietnam rather more than is often realised.
- A range of angles on the israel-US war on Iran.
- The failure that is Ofcom.
- Water industry.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AcgQY_wnrBE
I think McSweeney is a supremely gifted election strategist bur Starmer should have chosen somebody else to run the government. It’s obvious McSweeney’s talents were not in this area.
I am detecting some small signs of improvement since McSweeney left.
But that won't get us out of it.
Kemi isn't the problem - the problem is their track record in government, where they mainly kicked the can down the road, rather than fixing anything, constantly talking right and acting left.
Now, no-one believes them, whatever they say.
The best thing Kemi could do would be to win the party up, and tell her MPs to join Reform or the Libdems as they preferred.
Tony Blair was a handsome young leader. Now he looks like a disinterred Peter Stringfellow
Sic transit….
https://understandingwar.org/research/middle-east/iran-update-special-report-march-17-2026/
Iran's military capabilities have been greatly reduced - just as Russia's have been.
The Labour Party does best when it is a pale imitation of the Conservatives, as it was for Blair's first two terms. In fact, its major blunder during those years, the Iraq War, was a bit of uncharacteristic boldness from Blair.
It does terribly when it is bold, basically because its ideology doesn't work so its boldness always blows up in its face in one way or another. Corbyn was the boldest recent Labour leader, and lost both times. Most obvious more recent examples are the Winter Fuel Allowance, Rayner's labour market reforms and raising the minimum wage, which have increased unemployment amongst those they were supposed to help, or energy market reforms which have increased the price of energy not reduced it.
I'd wish that Labour were always that bold but unfortunately when it is it tends to take the country down with it.
She was a bit more pragmatic in her choice of spouse though.
Here, a few years ago, a beautiful blonde woman who was a medical undergraduate attacked her boyfriend with a knife and was not sent to prison by the judge as it might 'harm her career'.
It could be that the best Labour can hope for is that the voters decide they at least aren't actively making things worse, and that the status quo is not so desperately bad that they're willing to try anything.
The longer the Iran War goes on the harder that will be.
These are not insignificant.
No, not really, it does best when it has focus, and you know what it stands for. Clem Attlee's government (1945-51) was hardly a pale imitation of the Conservatives and it set the tone until Mrs T in 1979.
A beautiful rich white woman has to work bloody hard to go to prison.
An ugly homeless black guy is going to have a rather tougher time avoiding it.
Major had been willing to trash the economy in order to remain in his beloved ERM.
As with the war in Ukraine or the COVID pandemic sometimes there are no good options, only a menu of bad to worse ones.
In the short term it seems that Iran is permitting ships to transit Hormuz to states which are not taking part in the conflict, which lessons the international economic impact considerably. It seems likely that a full ground invasion of Iran would extract a terrible cost in blood & $ on all sides. A negotiated truce with an extremely aggravated Iran that will bear a grudge against the US for another generation is likely to be the best possible outcome available.
A few alerts overnight last night, and some interception noises heard this morning, but we’re all okay here. Those who are paid to keep us safe appear to be doing a rather good job of it.
Eid holiday starts tomorrow, celebrating the end of Ramadan, so hoping for a quiet few days.
Somewhat stronger measures wrt to dogs attacking sheep, being off leads in the countryside etc:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy0dxzz0pzro
The changes introduced by the Dogs (Protection of Livestock) (Amendment) Act 2025 will now see:
- the maximum penalty facing those whose dogs attack or chase livestock rise from £1,000 to an unlimited fine;
- police given new powers to seize dogs believed to pose an ongoing threat to livestock and to enter premises to secure evidence or animal DNA;
- new powers allowing a court to order an offender to pay expenses associated with seizing and detaining a dog;
- incidents prosecuted even if they occur on roads or public paths, rather than only on private farmland;
- the definition of livestock protected by the law expanded to include camelids, such as llamas and alpacas.
https://ibrahimjalal.substack.com/
The USA and Israel have neither elected Starmer, nor Powell. Just because Powell thought that progress was acceptable, does not mean either of those nations democratically-elected leaders are obliged to agree with them.
If Badenoch was our PM, then we might be making different choices to what Starmer and Powell are making, so why can't they?
That is democracy in action. It is profoundly illiberal and undemocratic to deny sovereign countries the right to make their own independent decisions.
The morality of the decisions is an entirely separate debate to the ability of independent, sovereign countries to make their own choices.
Hard to know for sure of course: the countries involved are generally not interested in broadcasting their negotiations with the Iranian state.
Because if they are polling near 20% a year out from GE the media focus is going to be utterly relentless.
One example from yesterday, someone posting a six-year-old video of a marketplace fire in the city of Ajman, but saying that it was a current event in Dubai caused by a missile attack.
Trump does not think strategically, historically, geographically, or even rationally. He does not connect actions he takes on one day to events that occur weeks later. Allied leaders know that if they help him in the Gulf, he won't be grateful, or even remember
https://bsky.app/profile/anneapplebaum.bsky.social/post/3mhcogderd22o
Seems Andy is on board with Angela
Getting ready for May 8th !!!!!!! which remarkably is just 6 weeks away tomorrow
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2026/mar/18/andy-burnham-angela-rayner-labour-immigration-plans
That might prove problematic in an actual general election
"The National Audit Office has released a report into the Afghan resettlement scheme, the findings are grim.
37,950 Afghans have already been resettled in the UK and the Government expects a further 8,632 - 9,741 to be resettled by 2030, bringing the total to 46,582 - 47,691."
"The Government have already spent £3.1bn on the relocation schemes and expect to spend a total of £5.7bn by 2032-33.
By the time this scheme is finished, it works out to around £120,000~ per Afghan relocated to the UK."
80-90% live in social housing. Half can't speak English, and won't learn, so they will never pay taxes via work. Many will strive to bring wider families, one guy brought 22 relatives. Yes. 22. Local authorities are being "incentivised" to house them, all over the country
We will end up spending many many billions of YOUR tax money on this insane virtue signalling, which endangers us all, especially women. meanwhile our taxes go up and our borrowing goes up to make the Afghans happy
And yes, Robert Jenrick is implicated in this disaster, up to his eyeballs
https://x.com/charliecolecc/status/2034065448166191489?s=20
That is all that is needed
Israel says it killed Esmaeil Khatib, Iran’s Minister of Intelligence, in an overnight airstrike.
Andrew Lilico
@andrew_lilico
·
1h
It seems very clear that the rise of the Greens in recent months could have been the rise of the Corbyn party had it not been for the chaos associated with that party's formation. Indeed, Corbyn's party might have done even better.
https://x.com/andrew_lilico/status/2034200089363624132
EDIT: and this follow up comment is worth mulling over:
theimperiumdidnothingwrong
@imperimnowtwrng
·
1h
There is some interesting research to be done into why the Green Party factions can unite despite being fundamentally at odds about almost everything while Your Party's factions which agree about almost everything can't.
https://x.com/imperimnowtwrng/status/2034206791412650058
The whole scheme needs radical overhaul and not just ending the triple lock
He's very much on board with Rachel too after her speech yesterday about closer EU integration.
Starmer is safe until eat 2027.
https://x.com/maks_nafo_fella/status/2033862588463751624
Now just the similar one in Russia that also needs to be liquidated.
The current incumbent is immoral to his fucking core.
I experienced exactly this in Odessa. I was strolling back to my hotel and I heard - honestly - the loudest, most frightening noise I have ever heard in my life. Everyone on the street reflexively ducked (never a good sign in Odessa, where they shrug off air sirens)
We turned around and saw a puff of smoke and a lot of crushed metal. It was an intercepted drone and it had fallen on to a kid's playground, obliterating the swings - happily the playground was empty at the time (there aren't many small children left in Odessa). The metal smouldered and did not burn. We all got on with the day, I immediately went into the next shop and bought a load of jamon iberica de bellota, having been reminded that life is short
However, I really would not like to live in a city where "interceptions" like this happen all the time. Once, is an anecdote, twice or thrice and it's a sign to get the fuck out
My favourite case is that of Henriette Caillaux, married to a former Prime Minister of France, whose husband was subjected to a sustained campaign by Le Figaro. Worried that her husband would feel obliged to fight a duel to clear his name, she did what any good wife would do, and shot the editor dead. At trial, her counsel argued that women were fundamentally irrational and emotional, and could not really be held criminally responsible for their actions, and she was acquitted.
It's a bit like violence against women. There's more against men but apparently that doesn't matter.
RFM: 28% (-2)
CON: 21% (+2)
LAB: 20% (-2)
GRN: 13% (+2)
LDM: 12% (-1)
SNP: 2% (=)
Via
@Moreincommon_
13-16 Mar.
Changes w/ 6-9 Mar.
For the reasons implied in your question.