I am increasingly confident that he won't be, no matter how bad they are. The alternatives are worse and the Cabinet would be nervous about their jobs under a new leader as they were during the Burnham rumblings.
As I understand it the cabinet do not decide it.
A rival has to stand with the support of 20% of the PLP, which is 81 MPs I think, then Starmer decides whether to contest the challenge (nominations are not needed), then the rivals need 5% of CLPs to support and a number of affiliates.
I expect that challenge in May.
A leadership contest im midst of an international crisis is not unprecedented. We had one in May 1940 after all.
I agree that the Cabinet do not decide it but the fact that they all backed Starmer's blocking of Burnham was decisive. It would be daunting to take on not just the leader but the entire cabinet. I suspect if this is repeated getting the 81 will prove difficult.
With the exception of the usual hard core left MP's and a couple of trotskyite Union Leaders there will be NO APPETITE in the PLP for a Leadership Challenge whilst Trump and Netanyahu are creating havoc
(1) Because there are inherently sensible voices who actually do put Country before Politics
(2) Because Starmer is head and shuolder the best option (in any Party) we have on the Global Stage right now
(3) Because (2) means that the longer he remains he nullifies the idiotic Party Leaders to his Right and Left and maintains Labour Polling above what it might otherwise be.
(4) Because it gives candidates time to be seen to be supportive at a time of global crisis and not opportunists like Farage , Badenoch , Polanski and to a degree Davey
I cannot see a Leadership challenge in 2026 unless the ME crisis is resolved a lot quicker than we all anticipate.
Oh lord. We agree twice in a morning. Surely the end of times approaches.
And (5) absolutely no leadership hopeful is going to grasp the torch now and be immolated
I get my "not by April 1" winnings shortly I hope. 2028 looking overpriced at 15s on Betfair? SKS exhausted by another 30 months of Trump and time to bed in a chosen successor.
On the other hand, if Starmer's still there in 2028 he might be looking forward to having a US president who might not be off his rocker.
You believe there will be free and fair elections in 2028? How quaint.
Even if the Grim Reaper does the job of the voter, Vance, Don Jnr. or Eric would be arguably worse.
I am increasingly confident that he won't be, no matter how bad they are. The alternatives are worse and the Cabinet would be nervous about their jobs under a new leader as they were during the Burnham rumblings.
As I understand it the cabinet do not decide it.
A rival has to stand with the support of 20% of the PLP, which is 81 MPs I think, then Starmer decides whether to contest the challenge (nominations are not needed), then the rivals need 5% of CLPs to support and a number of affiliates.
I expect that challenge in May.
A leadership contest im midst of an international crisis is not unprecedented. We had one in May 1940 after all.
I agree that the Cabinet do not decide it but the fact that they all backed Starmer's blocking of Burnham was decisive. It would be daunting to take on not just the leader but the entire cabinet. I suspect if this is repeated getting the 81 will prove difficult.
With the exception of the usual hard core left MP's and a couple of trotskyite Union Leaders there will be NO APPETITE in the PLP for a Leadership Challenge whilst Trump and Netanyahu are creating havoc
(1) Because there are inherently sensible voices who actually do put Country before Politics
(2) Because Starmer is head and shuolder the best option (in any Party) we have on the Global Stage right now
(3) Because (2) means that the longer he remains he nullifies the idiotic Party Leaders to his Right and Left and maintains Labour Polling above what it might otherwise be.
(4) Because it gives candidates time to be seen to be supportive at a time of global crisis and not opportunists like Farage , Badenoch , Polanski and to a degree Davey
I cannot see a Leadership challenge in 2026 unless the ME crisis is resolved a lot quicker than we all anticipate.
I disagree, as a member of over 50 years' standing (13 as an MP) and until very recently CLP chair (I'm still a member). The membership is simply disappearing, with a typical month having 1 new entry and 10 resignations/non-renewals. I do see the points of (a) hoping that people will rally round the party, faut de mieux and (b) waiting until close to the election for any replacement. Against that, the party is suffering structural damage to an extent that I've never seen before, and another 2 years like this will largely finish it off as a fighting force. I think we have to take the plunge of leadership replacement, and I'll be surprised if the numbers aren't there.
Presumably the leavers are predominantly the types who would vote for Rayner/Burnham? So Streeting just has to sit and wait
I am increasingly confident that he won't be, no matter how bad they are. The alternatives are worse and the Cabinet would be nervous about their jobs under a new leader as they were during the Burnham rumblings.
As I understand it the cabinet do not decide it.
A rival has to stand with the support of 20% of the PLP, which is 81 MPs I think, then Starmer decides whether to contest the challenge (nominations are not needed), then the rivals need 5% of CLPs to support and a number of affiliates.
I expect that challenge in May.
A leadership contest im midst of an international crisis is not unprecedented. We had one in May 1940 after all.
I agree that the Cabinet do not decide it but the fact that they all backed Starmer's blocking of Burnham was decisive. It would be daunting to take on not just the leader but the entire cabinet. I suspect if this is repeated getting the 81 will prove difficult.
With the exception of the usual hard core left MP's and a couple of trotskyite Union Leaders there will be NO APPETITE in the PLP for a Leadership Challenge whilst Trump and Netanyahu are creating havoc
(1) Because there are inherently sensible voices who actually do put Country before Politics
(2) Because Starmer is head and shuolder the best option (in any Party) we have on the Global Stage right now
(3) Because (2) means that the longer he remains he nullifies the idiotic Party Leaders to his Right and Left and maintains Labour Polling above what it might otherwise be.
(4) Because it gives candidates time to be seen to be supportive at a time of global crisis and not opportunists like Farage , Badenoch , Polanski and to a degree Davey
I cannot see a Leadership challenge in 2026 unless the ME crisis is resolved a lot quicker than we all anticipate.
Oh lord. We agree twice in a morning. Surely the end of times approaches.
Yes. There is a high chance that by May whatever the election results are will feel to be a little local difficulty, quickly forgotten, in hard times. In the longer run, Reform may be a possible choice for control of park benches and bins, but Trump's best British friend does not look like a top choice for PM at this moment.
As to the impossible question of next Labour leader, both when and who is truly open. Perhaps the probabilities start to favour serious looking people. Cooper, Jones, Healey come to mind. None of these are in the top eight in the betting.
Perhaps this reflects the parochial unseriousness of so many Labour MPs.
Another 1,610 Russian troops pushed through the meat grinder in Ukraine yesterday.
That makes 5,760 lost in the past four days. In 4 days, Russia has lost 10% of America's killed in nearly 20 years of war in Vietnam.
I think those figures are for killed/serious wounded/POW rather than just dead.
Even so, the slaughter is incredible. Putin could stop it at any time by simply withdrawing. Ukraine doesn't have that option.
The proportion of dead has been rising significantly - there is a grisly record of the deaths by drone attack maintained by Ukraine. It has recently been proved that two thirds of casualties have been KIA. There is also a suggestion that the recent proportion of dead are even higher as the Russians made a push in fog, which didn't prevent the drones from proceeding with their lethal tasks.
“The front” has become a meaningless concept. How do you fight a war in such circumstances? Until drone defence radically improves I would suggest that you simply can’t.
Drone defence has shown to be a fatal flaw in US planning (and GCC protection). A multi-billion dollar bit of hydrocarbons kit - the means of producing your national wealth - made a heap of ashes by a single drone. Ditto aircraft carriers. There can't be any confidence they can fight back 1,000 drones launched at them. Even a fire in the laundry (assuming that is all it was!) has taken the USS Gerald R Ford back to Crete for repairs - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0rjr28nxrwo
Ukraine is going to make a killing out of this attack on Iran. They have shown what they can do with limited means. With tens of billions of development and manufacturing facilities, they are going to at least give a greater degree of comfort that how ever many drones come at you, they can be defeated. Bad news for Russia. They should perhaps have remembered that in the Soviet Union, Ukraine was the centre of weapons development. Or maybe that was one of the reasons Putin was so determined to acquire it.
I am increasingly confident that he won't be, no matter how bad they are. The alternatives are worse and the Cabinet would be nervous about their jobs under a new leader as they were during the Burnham rumblings.
As I understand it the cabinet do not decide it.
A rival has to stand with the support of 20% of the PLP, which is 81 MPs I think, then Starmer decides whether to contest the challenge (nominations are not needed), then the rivals need 5% of CLPs to support and a number of affiliates.
I expect that challenge in May.
A leadership contest im midst of an international crisis is not unprecedented. We had one in May 1940 after all.
I agree that the Cabinet do not decide it but the fact that they all backed Starmer's blocking of Burnham was decisive. It would be daunting to take on not just the leader but the entire cabinet. I suspect if this is repeated getting the 81 will prove difficult.
With the exception of the usual hard core left MP's and a couple of trotskyite Union Leaders there will be NO APPETITE in the PLP for a Leadership Challenge whilst Trump and Netanyahu are creating havoc
(1) Because there are inherently sensible voices who actually do put Country before Politics
(2) Because Starmer is head and shuolder the best option (in any Party) we have on the Global Stage right now
(3) Because (2) means that the longer he remains he nullifies the idiotic Party Leaders to his Right and Left and maintains Labour Polling above what it might otherwise be.
(4) Because it gives candidates time to be seen to be supportive at a time of global crisis and not opportunists like Farage , Badenoch , Polanski and to a degree Davey
I cannot see a Leadership challenge in 2026 unless the ME crisis is resolved a lot quicker than we all anticipate.
I disagree, as a member of over 50 years' standing (13 as an MP) and until very recently CLP chair (I'm still a member). The membership is simply disappearing, with a typical month having 1 new entry and 10 resignations/non-renewals. I do see the points of (a) hoping that people will rally round the party, faut de mieux and (b) waiting until close to the election for any replacement. Against that, the party is suffering structural damage to an extent that I've never seen before, and another 2 years like this will largely finish it off as a fighting force. I think we have to take the plunge of leadership replacement, and I'll be surprised if the numbers aren't there.
Further to JJ’s recent piece about those on peril on the sea, an unexamined part of the current clusterfuck. Eight times as many ships trapped in the Gulf as there were during the Suez blockage, and they’re running out of water.
I am increasingly confident that he won't be, no matter how bad they are. The alternatives are worse and the Cabinet would be nervous about their jobs under a new leader as they were during the Burnham rumblings.
As I understand it the cabinet do not decide it.
A rival has to stand with the support of 20% of the PLP, which is 81 MPs I think, then Starmer decides whether to contest the challenge (nominations are not needed), then the rivals need 5% of CLPs to support and a number of affiliates.
I expect that challenge in May.
A leadership contest im midst of an international crisis is not unprecedented. We had one in May 1940 after all.
I agree that the Cabinet do not decide it but the fact that they all backed Starmer's blocking of Burnham was decisive. It would be daunting to take on not just the leader but the entire cabinet. I suspect if this is repeated getting the 81 will prove difficult.
With the exception of the usual hard core left MP's and a couple of trotskyite Union Leaders there will be NO APPETITE in the PLP for a Leadership Challenge whilst Trump and Netanyahu are creating havoc
(1) Because there are inherently sensible voices who actually do put Country before Politics
(2) Because Starmer is head and shuolder the best option (in any Party) we have on the Global Stage right now
(3) Because (2) means that the longer he remains he nullifies the idiotic Party Leaders to his Right and Left and maintains Labour Polling above what it might otherwise be.
(4) Because it gives candidates time to be seen to be supportive at a time of global crisis and not opportunists like Farage , Badenoch , Polanski and to a degree Davey
I cannot see a Leadership challenge in 2026 unless the ME crisis is resolved a lot quicker than we all anticipate.
Oh lord. We agree twice in a morning. Surely the end of times approaches.
Yes. There is a high chance that by May whatever the election results are will feel to be a little local difficulty, quickly forgotten, in hard times. In the longer run, Reform may be a possible choice for control of park benches and bins, but Trump's best British friend does not look like a top choice for PM at this moment.
As to the impossible question of next Labour leader, both when and who is truly open. Perhaps the probabilities start to favour serious looking people. Cooper, Jones, Healey come to mind. None of these are in the top eight in the betting.
Perhaps this reflects the parochial unseriousness of so many Labour MPs.
The return of the prodigal brother, D Miliband, on a Bregret surge.
I am increasingly confident that he won't be, no matter how bad they are. The alternatives are worse and the Cabinet would be nervous about their jobs under a new leader as they were during the Burnham rumblings.
As I understand it the cabinet do not decide it.
A rival has to stand with the support of 20% of the PLP, which is 81 MPs I think, then Starmer decides whether to contest the challenge (nominations are not needed), then the rivals need 5% of CLPs to support and a number of affiliates.
I expect that challenge in May.
A leadership contest im midst of an international crisis is not unprecedented. We had one in May 1940 after all.
I agree that the Cabinet do not decide it but the fact that they all backed Starmer's blocking of Burnham was decisive. It would be daunting to take on not just the leader but the entire cabinet. I suspect if this is repeated getting the 81 will prove difficult.
With the exception of the usual hard core left MP's and a couple of trotskyite Union Leaders there will be NO APPETITE in the PLP for a Leadership Challenge whilst Trump and Netanyahu are creating havoc
(1) Because there are inherently sensible voices who actually do put Country before Politics
(2) Because Starmer is head and shuolder the best option (in any Party) we have on the Global Stage right now
(3) Because (2) means that the longer he remains he nullifies the idiotic Party Leaders to his Right and Left and maintains Labour Polling above what it might otherwise be.
(4) Because it gives candidates time to be seen to be supportive at a time of global crisis and not opportunists like Farage , Badenoch , Polanski and to a degree Davey
I cannot see a Leadership challenge in 2026 unless the ME crisis is resolved a lot quicker than we all anticipate.
I disagree, as a member of over 50 years' standing (13 as an MP) and until very recently CLP chair (I'm still a member). The membership is simply disappearing, with a typical month having 1 new entry and 10 resignations/non-renewals. I do see the points of (a) hoping that people will rally round the party, faut de mieux and (b) waiting until close to the election for any replacement. Against that, the party is suffering structural damage to an extent that I've never seen before, and another 2 years like this will largely finish it off as a fighting force. I think we have to take the plunge of leadership replacement, and I'll be surprised if the numbers aren't there.
You have your finger on the pulse of labour and @Brixian59 piece is certainly possible but it does seem Starmer is facing considerable opposition from within
As with this conflict, and everything else, what follows next is guesswork
As former Ambassador Bolton, a wise head on this issue, said it was always war gamed that Iran could try to shut the Strait but in those scenarios America would always stop Iran from getting its own oil out of the Strait too.
What was never considered was a scenario where Iran could stop Gulf states getting their products out, while still being allowed to let its own out too.
Utter insanity.
The whole thing is an example of the dangers of half arsing something
I blame the US electorate.
They knew that Trump was a capricious, narcisstic, vengeful, vainglorious potential tyrant from his first term, but re-elected him anyway. Now the world has to live with the consequences.
Now we know how the Romans must have felt under Caligula.
The Democrats are at fault,here. As is Biden.
For contriving to put forward Kamala Harris. Inept as a candidate during the primaries that saw Biden come to get the nomination. What did they expect
That's a bit like blaming the sexual assault victim because she was wearing a short skirt.
It is not Biden/Harris's "fault" Trump was elected. He was elected fairly and squarely by a majority of voters and won the electoral college.
Neither is it Biden/Harris's "fault" that Trump has surrounded himself with yes-men (and Tulsi) and is suffering a terminal cognitive decline.
One could argue that installing an imbecile and wannabe dictator as the official Republican Presidential candidate was the "fault" of the Republican Party.
It’s perfectly fair to blame the Democrats for poor leadership candidate selection. Just as people did here with Corbyn and Labour in 2019.
No one is blaming them for the subsequent actions of the Trumpdozer who, along with Bibi, are doing their best to remove Western global hegemony.
I am increasingly confident that he won't be, no matter how bad they are. The alternatives are worse and the Cabinet would be nervous about their jobs under a new leader as they were during the Burnham rumblings.
As I understand it the cabinet do not decide it.
A rival has to stand with the support of 20% of the PLP, which is 81 MPs I think, then Starmer decides whether to contest the challenge (nominations are not needed), then the rivals need 5% of CLPs to support and a number of affiliates.
I expect that challenge in May.
A leadership contest im midst of an international crisis is not unprecedented. We had one in May 1940 after all.
I agree that the Cabinet do not decide it but the fact that they all backed Starmer's blocking of Burnham was decisive. It would be daunting to take on not just the leader but the entire cabinet. I suspect if this is repeated getting the 81 will prove difficult.
With the exception of the usual hard core left MP's and a couple of trotskyite Union Leaders there will be NO APPETITE in the PLP for a Leadership Challenge whilst Trump and Netanyahu are creating havoc
(1) Because there are inherently sensible voices who actually do put Country before Politics
(2) Because Starmer is head and shuolder the best option (in any Party) we have on the Global Stage right now
(3) Because (2) means that the longer he remains he nullifies the idiotic Party Leaders to his Right and Left and maintains Labour Polling above what it might otherwise be.
(4) Because it gives candidates time to be seen to be supportive at a time of global crisis and not opportunists like Farage , Badenoch , Polanski and to a degree Davey
I cannot see a Leadership challenge in 2026 unless the ME crisis is resolved a lot quicker than we all anticipate.
I disagree, as a member of over 50 years' standing (13 as an MP) and until very recently CLP chair (I'm still a member). The membership is simply disappearing, with a typical month having 1 new entry and 10 resignations/non-renewals. I do see the points of (a) hoping that people will rally round the party, faut de mieux and (b) waiting until close to the election for any replacement. Against that, the party is suffering structural damage to an extent that I've never seen before, and another 2 years like this will largely finish it off as a fighting force. I think we have to take the plunge of leadership replacement, and I'll be surprised if the numbers aren't there.
A betting post, finally. (Likely) Runners and riders?
One of the reasons we had global stability for well over hack a century is that only countries with large resources were able to project power globally. The military terms of trade were heavily skewed towards them.
It's no longer quite clear that's still the case
ZELENSKYY: War no longer has distance. Drones already fly 3,000–5,000 km today, and soon they'll reach 10,000 km. Every day, Ukraine faces 350–500 drone strikes. Imagine any country dealing with that. No continent is safe anymore. Distance is now a matter of months, not decades... https://x.com/BohuslavskaKate/status/2034689272335274318
Maintaining a balance between a handful of powerful states is comparatively easy. It's getting more complicated.
Yes. The UK will come under direct attack sometime in the next few years.
I am increasingly confident that he won't be, no matter how bad they are. The alternatives are worse and the Cabinet would be nervous about their jobs under a new leader as they were during the Burnham rumblings.
As I understand it the cabinet do not decide it.
A rival has to stand with the support of 20% of the PLP, which is 81 MPs I think, then Starmer decides whether to contest the challenge (nominations are not needed), then the rivals need 5% of CLPs to support and a number of affiliates.
I expect that challenge in May.
A leadership contest im midst of an international crisis is not unprecedented. We had one in May 1940 after all.
I agree that the Cabinet do not decide it but the fact that they all backed Starmer's blocking of Burnham was decisive. It would be daunting to take on not just the leader but the entire cabinet. I suspect if this is repeated getting the 81 will prove difficult.
With the exception of the usual hard core left MP's and a couple of trotskyite Union Leaders there will be NO APPETITE in the PLP for a Leadership Challenge whilst Trump and Netanyahu are creating havoc
(1) Because there are inherently sensible voices who actually do put Country before Politics
(2) Because Starmer is head and shuolder the best option (in any Party) we have on the Global Stage right now
(3) Because (2) means that the longer he remains he nullifies the idiotic Party Leaders to his Right and Left and maintains Labour Polling above what it might otherwise be.
(4) Because it gives candidates time to be seen to be supportive at a time of global crisis and not opportunists like Farage , Badenoch , Polanski and to a degree Davey
I cannot see a Leadership challenge in 2026 unless the ME crisis is resolved a lot quicker than we all anticipate.
I disagree, as a member of over 50 years' standing (13 as an MP) and until very recently CLP chair (I'm still a member). The membership is simply disappearing, with a typical month having 1 new entry and 10 resignations/non-renewals. I do see the points of (a) hoping that people will rally round the party, faut de mieux and (b) waiting until close to the election for any replacement. Against that, the party is suffering structural damage to an extent that I've never seen before, and another 2 years like this will largely finish it off as a fighting force. I think we have to take the plunge of leadership replacement, and I'll be surprised if the numbers aren't there.
1) a UK based vaccine pipeline 2) a UK based pipeline for PPE
So in the event of a pandemic, we will
- order a vaccine from abroad - order a big pile of PPE from China
Bt we have a nice large pile of paper that said we did lots of stuff wrong and lots of stuff right. Perhaps we can make PPE out of the invoices for the lawyers bills?
As former Ambassador Bolton, a wise head on this issue, said it was always war gamed that Iran could try to shut the Strait but in those scenarios America would always stop Iran from getting its own oil out of the Strait too.
What was never considered was a scenario where Iran could stop Gulf states getting their products out, while still being allowed to let its own out too.
Utter insanity.
The whole thing is an example of the dangers of half arsing something
I blame the US electorate.
They knew that Trump was a capricious, narcisstic, vengeful, vainglorious potential tyrant from his first term, but re-elected him anyway. Now the world has to live with the consequences.
Now we know how the Romans must have felt under Caligula.
The Democrats are at fault,here. As is Biden.
For contriving to put forward Kamala Harris. Inept as a candidate during the primaries that saw Biden come to get the nomination. What did they expect
That's a bit like blaming the sexual assault victim because she was wearing a short skirt.
It is not Biden/Harris's "fault" Trump was elected. He was elected fairly and squarely by a majority of voters and won the electoral college.
Neither is it Biden/Harris's "fault" that Trump has surrounded himself with yes-men (and Tulsi) and is suffering a terminal cognitive decline.
One could argue that installing an imbecile and wannabe dictator as the official Republican Presidential candidate was the "fault" of the Republican Party.
It’s perfectly fair to blame the Democrats for poor leadership candidate selection. Just as people did here with Corbyn and Labour in 2019.
No one is blaming them for the subsequent actions of the Trumpdozer who, along with Bibi, are doing their best to remove Western global hegemony.
Harris was vilified by the media, not least by packs of lies distributed on X and Fox.
Granted Biden's immigration free for all wasn't ideal in the cold light of reality, but then voters believed that the man who advised them to inject bleach into their bodies to overcome COVID could bring down the price of gas and eggs.
As former Ambassador Bolton, a wise head on this issue, said it was always war gamed that Iran could try to shut the Strait but in those scenarios America would always stop Iran from getting its own oil out of the Strait too.
What was never considered was a scenario where Iran could stop Gulf states getting their products out, while still being allowed to let its own out too.
Utter insanity.
The whole thing is an example of the dangers of half arsing something
I blame the US electorate.
They knew that Trump was a capricious, narcisstic, vengeful, vainglorious potential tyrant from his first term, but re-elected him anyway. Now the world has to live with the consequences.
Now we know how the Romans must have felt under Caligula.
The Democrats are at fault,here. As is Biden.
For contriving to put forward Kamala Harris. Inept as a candidate during the primaries that saw Biden come to get the nomination. What did they expect
That's a bit like blaming the sexual assault victim because she was wearing a short skirt.
It is not Biden/Harris's "fault" Trump was elected. He was elected fairly and squarely by a majority of voters and won the electoral college.
Neither is it Biden/Harris's "fault" that Trump has surrounded himself with yes-men (and Tulsi) and is suffering a terminal cognitive decline.
One could argue that installing an imbecile and wannabe dictator as the official Republican Presidential candidate was the "fault" of the Republican Party.
For such a catastrophe as Trump's second term there is more than enough blame to go around.
NOW - Netanyahu: "Jesus Christ has no advantage over Genghis Khan. Because if you are strong enough, ruthless enough, powerful enough, evil will overcome good."
Not sure if this is a real quote, but it does capture the Israeli mood; to put faith in the sword alone. The mistake is one well explained by Machiavelli (not himself a bleeding-heart pacifist): considering the difference between conquerors who gain the settled possession and loyalty of their acquisition, and those who never do so, he observed that those who, because of paranoia or other reasons, cannot restrain themselves from continuing violence and abuse towards their subjects, have to live forever with knife in hand; and in the end cannot sustain themselves. Those who offer their subjects the certainty of peace, and potential advancement, become secure in their loyalty even in the face of foreign temptation.
Yes. If you have to choose between fear and love, you choose fear, but you must take care not to make yourself hated. People must fear the consequences of attacking or betraying you, but they must not fear you will hurt them without cause.
Israel and the US are making themselves hated. Being desperate, the Iranians don’t care about being hated.
This debate which Nick is having is not about freedom of religion. It is about how religion is expressed in a shared public space, and whether those expressions fit within the norms of a British culture.
Of course it is about that. Denying it is to argue with reality.
Otoh, we do restrict politically-motivated Christians praying outside abortion clinics, so there's that.
No we don't. That's a political narrative.
We restrict actions which are deemed to be harassment or intimidation of women seeking healthcare services.
This debate which Nick is having is not about freedom of religion. It is about how religion is expressed in a shared public space, and whether those expressions fit within the norms of a British culture.
Of course it is about that. Denying it is to argue with reality.
Equally, as we approach Holy Week and Easter, suggesting that religion should not be expressed in public spaces is curious timing. No more Palm Sunday processions following the donkey from the market place into church, or walks of witness on Good Friday? On the other hand, I would be grateful never to be required to turn out at the war memorial on a cold November morning.
Slightly different context I would have thought. Tojo was from a regime trying to conquer as TSE's header suggests much of Asia and the Pacific and which was allied with Hitler's Nazis in Germany. Trump for all his faults is trying with Israel to remove a vile repressive regime in Iran which oppresses women and executes homosexuals and its opponents (indeed only yesterday Iran executed a teenage wrestling champion for having taken part in anti regime protests). Where Trump is going wrong is air strikes alone with Israel will not remove the regime, if he really wanted to remove it he would need ground troops too and the swifter the regime is removed the quicker the oil price will stabilise
I am increasingly confident that he won't be, no matter how bad they are. The alternatives are worse and the Cabinet would be nervous about their jobs under a new leader as they were during the Burnham rumblings.
As I understand it the cabinet do not decide it.
A rival has to stand with the support of 20% of the PLP, which is 81 MPs I think, then Starmer decides whether to contest the challenge (nominations are not needed), then the rivals need 5% of CLPs to support and a number of affiliates.
I expect that challenge in May.
A leadership contest im midst of an international crisis is not unprecedented. We had one in May 1940 after all.
I agree that the Cabinet do not decide it but the fact that they all backed Starmer's blocking of Burnham was decisive. It would be daunting to take on not just the leader but the entire cabinet. I suspect if this is repeated getting the 81 will prove difficult.
With the exception of the usual hard core left MP's and a couple of trotskyite Union Leaders there will be NO APPETITE in the PLP for a Leadership Challenge whilst Trump and Netanyahu are creating havoc
(1) Because there are inherently sensible voices who actually do put Country before Politics
(2) Because Starmer is head and shuolder the best option (in any Party) we have on the Global Stage right now
(3) Because (2) means that the longer he remains he nullifies the idiotic Party Leaders to his Right and Left and maintains Labour Polling above what it might otherwise be.
(4) Because it gives candidates time to be seen to be supportive at a time of global crisis and not opportunists like Farage , Badenoch , Polanski and to a degree Davey
I cannot see a Leadership challenge in 2026 unless the ME crisis is resolved a lot quicker than we all anticipate.
I disagree, as a member of over 50 years' standing (13 as an MP) and until very recently CLP chair (I'm still a member). The membership is simply disappearing, with a typical month having 1 new entry and 10 resignations/non-renewals. I do see the points of (a) hoping that people will rally round the party, faut de mieux and (b) waiting until close to the election for any replacement. Against that, the party is suffering structural damage to an extent that I've never seen before, and another 2 years like this will largely finish it off as a fighting force. I think we have to take the plunge of leadership replacement, and I'll be surprised if the numbers aren't there.
Very interesting thank you, especially from someone more inside the tent than I have been since exiled to deepest South Hams and Torbay Devon where Labour is a word not often heard although plenty of MPs around the Cities in Devon and parts of Cornwall
What I can't get over is that the razing of South Beirut within the last fortnight has gone largely unreported in the legacy media.
Bibi has managed this under the cover of the BBC sane washing Trump's Iranian adventure.
Compare and contrast Simon Marks's withering expose of Trump madness on LBC with Sarah Smith's normalising the insanity.
I partially agree, but the BBC has a different job from LBC. Simon Marks is outstanding, but when does he make any effort to put across a diversity of opinions giving proper weight to the ones running counter to his (in my view correct) view? On a different aspect of LBC, James O'Brien has a three hour daily platform, accessible to almost 100% of the population, to promote a particular worldview. One I often agree with. How often does he give considered time to careful evaluation through judicious interviewing of articulate and able people of points of view he does not hold? How much time does this daily three hour bully pulpit devote to telling us the self evident untruth that the media is mostly a right wing conspiracy?
As former Ambassador Bolton, a wise head on this issue, said it was always war gamed that Iran could try to shut the Strait but in those scenarios America would always stop Iran from getting its own oil out of the Strait too.
What was never considered was a scenario where Iran could stop Gulf states getting their products out, while still being allowed to let its own out too.
Utter insanity.
The whole thing is an example of the dangers of half arsing something
I blame the US electorate.
They knew that Trump was a capricious, narcisstic, vengeful, vainglorious potential tyrant from his first term, but re-elected him anyway. Now the world has to live with the consequences.
Now we know how the Romans must have felt under Caligula.
The Democrats are at fault,here. As is Biden.
For contriving to put forward Kamala Harris. Inept as a candidate during the primaries that saw Biden come to get the nomination. What did they expect
That's a bit like blaming the sexual assault victim because she was wearing a short skirt.
It is not Biden/Harris's "fault" Trump was elected. He was elected fairly and squarely by a majority of voters and won the electoral college.
Neither is it Biden/Harris's "fault" that Trump has surrounded himself with yes-men (and Tulsi) and is suffering a terminal cognitive decline.
One could argue that installing an imbecile and wannabe dictator as the official Republican Presidential candidate was the "fault" of the Republican Party.
For such a catastrophe as Trump's second term there is more than enough blame to go around.
There is a special place in Hell for Starmer for inviting Trump and Melania on a second state visit.
I am increasingly confident that he won't be, no matter how bad they are. The alternatives are worse and the Cabinet would be nervous about their jobs under a new leader as they were during the Burnham rumblings.
As I understand it the cabinet do not decide it.
A rival has to stand with the support of 20% of the PLP, which is 81 MPs I think, then Starmer decides whether to contest the challenge (nominations are not needed), then the rivals need 5% of CLPs to support and a number of affiliates.
I expect that challenge in May.
A leadership contest im midst of an international crisis is not unprecedented. We had one in May 1940 after all.
I agree that the Cabinet do not decide it but the fact that they all backed Starmer's blocking of Burnham was decisive. It would be daunting to take on not just the leader but the entire cabinet. I suspect if this is repeated getting the 81 will prove difficult.
With the exception of the usual hard core left MP's and a couple of trotskyite Union Leaders there will be NO APPETITE in the PLP for a Leadership Challenge whilst Trump and Netanyahu are creating havoc
(1) Because there are inherently sensible voices who actually do put Country before Politics
(2) Because Starmer is head and shuolder the best option (in any Party) we have on the Global Stage right now
(3) Because (2) means that the longer he remains he nullifies the idiotic Party Leaders to his Right and Left and maintains Labour Polling above what it might otherwise be.
(4) Because it gives candidates time to be seen to be supportive at a time of global crisis and not opportunists like Farage , Badenoch , Polanski and to a degree Davey
I cannot see a Leadership challenge in 2026 unless the ME crisis is resolved a lot quicker than we all anticipate.
I disagree, as a member of over 50 years' standing (13 as an MP) and until very recently CLP chair (I'm still a member). The membership is simply disappearing, with a typical month having 1 new entry and 10 resignations/non-renewals. I do see the points of (a) hoping that people will rally round the party, faut de mieux and (b) waiting until close to the election for any replacement. Against that, the party is suffering structural damage to an extent that I've never seen before, and another 2 years like this will largely finish it off as a fighting force. I think we have to take the plunge of leadership replacement, and I'll be surprised if the numbers aren't there.
Same with our local Tory membership, as many of your Labour members have gone Green so many Conservative members here have gone Reform.
However given mass Labour membership twice elected Jeremy Corbyn leader and mass Conservative leadership membership elected Liz Truss leader is that such a bad thing? Generally the bigger the party membership the more its ideologues control the party, the closer the party is to the centre often the smaller its membership
NOW - Netanyahu: "Jesus Christ has no advantage over Genghis Khan. Because if you are strong enough, ruthless enough, powerful enough, evil will overcome good."
Not sure if this is a real quote, but it does capture the Israeli mood; to put faith in the sword alone. The mistake is one well explained by Machiavelli (not himself a bleeding-heart pacifist): considering the difference between conquerors who gain the settled possession and loyalty of their acquisition, and those who never do so, he observed that those who, because of paranoia or other reasons, cannot restrain themselves from continuing violence and abuse towards their subjects, have to live forever with knife in hand; and in the end cannot sustain themselves. Those who offer their subjects the certainty of peace, and potential advancement, become secure in their loyalty even in the face of foreign temptation.
Yes. If you have to choose between fear and love, you choose fear, but you must take care not to make yourself hated. People must fear the consequences of attacking or betraying you, but they must not fear you will hurt them without cause.
Israel and the US are making themselves hated. Being desperate, the Iranians don’t care about being hated.
I am increasingly confident that he won't be, no matter how bad they are. The alternatives are worse and the Cabinet would be nervous about their jobs under a new leader as they were during the Burnham rumblings.
As I understand it the cabinet do not decide it.
A rival has to stand with the support of 20% of the PLP, which is 81 MPs I think, then Starmer decides whether to contest the challenge (nominations are not needed), then the rivals need 5% of CLPs to support and a number of affiliates.
I expect that challenge in May.
A leadership contest im midst of an international crisis is not unprecedented. We had one in May 1940 after all.
I agree that the Cabinet do not decide it but the fact that they all backed Starmer's blocking of Burnham was decisive. It would be daunting to take on not just the leader but the entire cabinet. I suspect if this is repeated getting the 81 will prove difficult.
With the exception of the usual hard core left MP's and a couple of trotskyite Union Leaders there will be NO APPETITE in the PLP for a Leadership Challenge whilst Trump and Netanyahu are creating havoc
(1) Because there are inherently sensible voices who actually do put Country before Politics
(2) Because Starmer is head and shuolder the best option (in any Party) we have on the Global Stage right now
(3) Because (2) means that the longer he remains he nullifies the idiotic Party Leaders to his Right and Left and maintains Labour Polling above what it might otherwise be.
(4) Because it gives candidates time to be seen to be supportive at a time of global crisis and not opportunists like Farage , Badenoch , Polanski and to a degree Davey
I cannot see a Leadership challenge in 2026 unless the ME crisis is resolved a lot quicker than we all anticipate.
I disagree, as a member of over 50 years' standing (13 as an MP) and until very recently CLP chair (I'm still a member). The membership is simply disappearing, with a typical month having 1 new entry and 10 resignations/non-renewals. I do see the points of (a) hoping that people will rally round the party, faut de mieux and (b) waiting until close to the election for any replacement. Against that, the party is suffering structural damage to an extent that I've never seen before, and another 2 years like this will largely finish it off as a fighting force. I think we have to take the plunge of leadership replacement, and I'll be surprised if the numbers aren't there.
I thought you were off to campaign for Zack?
No, I'm waiting till the local elections (not being fought in my area) and any aftermath - e.g. I'd stay on if Sadiq were leader.
What I can't get over is that the razing of South Beirut within the last fortnight has gone largely unreported in the legacy media.
Bibi has managed this under the cover of the BBC sane washing Trump's Iranian adventure.
Compare and contrast Simon Marks's withering expose of Trump madness on LBC with Sarah Smith's normalising the insanity.
I partially agree, but the BBC has a different job from LBC. Simon Marks is outstanding, but when does he make any effort to put across a diversity of opinions giving proper weight to the ones running counter to his (in my view correct) view? On a different aspect of LBC, James O'Brien has a three hour daily platform, accessible to almost 100% of the population, to promote a particular worldview. One I often agree with. How often does he give considered time to careful evaluation through judicious interviewing of articulate and able people of points of view he does not hold? How much time does this daily three hour bully pulpit devote to telling us the self evident untruth that the media is mostly a right wing conspiracy?
The fact O'Brien's programme is preceded by three hours of Ferrari seems to be an acceptable counterbalance, and Ferrari's show of itself justifies O' Brexit's thesis.
Ditto aircraft carriers. There can't be any confidence they can fight back 1,000 drones launched at them. Even a fire in the laundry (assuming that is all it was!) has taken the USS Gerald R Ford back to Crete for repairs - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0rjr28nxrwo
100% sabotage, but it'll never come out. The Ford has been deployed for 255 days and that's were discipline starts to break down no matter how effective the command structure. We did 175 days on the Vinson and by then every man, woman and machine on the ship was comprehensively broken.
I disagree, as a member of over 50 years' standing (13 as an MP) and until very recently CLP chair (I'm still a member). The membership is simply disappearing, with a typical month having 1 new entry and 10 resignations/non-renewals. I do see the points of (a) hoping that people will rally round the party, faut de mieux and (b) waiting until close to the election for any replacement. Against that, the party is suffering structural damage to an extent that I've never seen before, and another 2 years like this will largely finish it off as a fighting force. I think we have to take the plunge of leadership replacement, and I'll be surprised if the numbers aren't there.
A betting post, finally. (Likely) Runners and riders?
Well, Angela Rayner is clearly up for it, but will need a more concrete platform to appeal to people like me, including those who would ideally prefer Burnham. Wes Streeting is the insider's favourite, and strengthened by the loss of left-wing members, but I can't see him actually winning. I'm not sure that others have a realistic chance at the moment.
King Charles is due to visit the US on 27-29 April for a mini state visit. I bet he absolutely hates the prospect and isn't keeping quiet about it with the PM. Watch out for a diplomatic toothache - or more likely a diplomatic resumption of chemo for his cancer.
As former Ambassador Bolton, a wise head on this issue, said it was always war gamed that Iran could try to shut the Strait but in those scenarios America would always stop Iran from getting its own oil out of the Strait too.
What was never considered was a scenario where Iran could stop Gulf states getting their products out, while still being allowed to let its own out too.
Utter insanity.
The whole thing is an example of the dangers of half arsing something
I blame the US electorate.
They knew that Trump was a capricious, narcisstic, vengeful, vainglorious potential tyrant from his first term, but re-elected him anyway. Now the world has to live with the consequences.
Now we know how the Romans must have felt under Caligula.
The Democrats are at fault,here. As is Biden.
For contriving to put forward Kamala Harris. Inept as a candidate during the primaries that saw Biden come to get the nomination. What did they expect
That's a bit like blaming the sexual assault victim because she was wearing a short skirt.
It is not Biden/Harris's "fault" Trump was elected. He was elected fairly and squarely by a majority of voters and won the electoral college.
Neither is it Biden/Harris's "fault" that Trump has surrounded himself with yes-men (and Tulsi) and is suffering a terminal cognitive decline.
One could argue that installing an imbecile and wannabe dictator as the official Republican Presidential candidate was the "fault" of the Republican Party.
It’s perfectly fair to blame the Democrats for poor leadership candidate selection. Just as people did here with Corbyn and Labour in 2019.
No one is blaming them for the subsequent actions of the Trumpdozer who, along with Bibi, are doing their best to remove Western global hegemony.
Harris was vilified by the media, not least by packs of lies distributed on X and Fox.
Granted Biden's immigration free for all wasn't ideal in the cold light of reality, but then voters believed that the man who advised them to inject bleach into their bodies to overcome COVID could bring down the price of gas and eggs.
Voters vote for who they want. For whatever reason.
Trump said no more wars. He lied. He has been a disaster and we need to buckle up as the world is soon to be fucked.
But then I voted Labour and we had the illegal war and lies about Iraq.
Trump was vilified in parts of the US media as was Harris. I’d suspect in both cases the media are pandering to their viewers prejudices.
Ditto aircraft carriers. There can't be any confidence they can fight back 1,000 drones launched at them. Even a fire in the laundry (assuming that is all it was!) has taken the USS Gerald R Ford back to Crete for repairs - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0rjr28nxrwo
100% sabotage, but it'll never come out. The Ford has been deployed for 255 days and that's were discipline starts to break down no matter how effective the command structure. We did 175 days on the Vinson and by then every man, woman and machine on the ship was comprehensively broken.
So blocked toilets due to reading material being flushed down them?
As former Ambassador Bolton, a wise head on this issue, said it was always war gamed that Iran could try to shut the Strait but in those scenarios America would always stop Iran from getting its own oil out of the Strait too.
What was never considered was a scenario where Iran could stop Gulf states getting their products out, while still being allowed to let its own out too.
Utter insanity.
The whole thing is an example of the dangers of half arsing something
I blame the US electorate.
They knew that Trump was a capricious, narcisstic, vengeful, vainglorious potential tyrant from his first term, but re-elected him anyway. Now the world has to live with the consequences.
Now we know how the Romans must have felt under Caligula.
The Democrats are at fault,here. As is Biden.
For contriving to put forward Kamala Harris. Inept as a candidate during the primaries that saw Biden come to get the nomination. What did they expect
Nope. It is purely the fault of those that voted for Trump (and his MAGA gimps in the Senate and House).
Harris was not a perfect candidate (who is?) but she was merely useless within the normal range. Trump is off the scale bad.
Remember, the first rule of populism is that It's Somebody Else's Fault.
Democrats absolutely should be asking themselves why they couldn't find a better candidate than Harris. It's not obvious that the Democratic Party top table had anyone better, but in a country the size of the USA, there must have been someone. (The nature of the primary process, and the megabucks involved, are a massive issue.)
But the same could be said of the Republicans, only more so. They have let themselves be swallowed whole by DJT.
And as for voters... There's a line where a candidate's contempt for democracy means that their opponent is preferable, no matter how flawed. Trump crossed that line in 2021, and there's not much excuse for ignoring that.
No, you can't control someone like that.
It's pretty stupid to blame the Democrats. You cannot excuse those who elected the worst President in US history - who had already proven his complete unsuitability for office - on the basis that they selected an average candidate.
No political party is ever perfect. Demanding that or else you'll vote for an absurdity is in itself absurd.
There is also the fact that great candidates, electorally or as leaders, are near generational events. There is not some great candidate factory churning out Democrats who would be so much better than Harris and not flawed in many other ways - look at how many of the alternatives mooted here for both the UK and US have gone on to lesser things.
Perhaps we're talking Obama, Clinton, Reagan, JFK in American folklore, perhaps Blair, Thatcher, Macmillan in the UK (other lists are available), but whoever you put in, there are several Kemi's and Keir's for every Maggie and Tone.
The irony is that, terrible and transparent to many of us though he is, Trump has been a massively effective campaigner.
Yes Trump is the best election winner the Republicans have had as their presidential nominee since Reagan, even if Reagan was a far better and more competent President once he won those elections. I doubt any Democrat would have beaten Trump in 2004 especially with cost of living rising too, even if that trend has continued further under Trump
Bibi about to annex Lebanon in his war against Iran? Perhaps it is all about oil and gas.
Lebanon is a beautiful country and the Beirut corniche exceptionally lovely when the bombs aren't falling. Bibi could annex far worse places. I wonder where the Lebanese people will be displaced to?
I am increasingly confident that he won't be, no matter how bad they are. The alternatives are worse and the Cabinet would be nervous about their jobs under a new leader as they were during the Burnham rumblings.
As I understand it the cabinet do not decide it.
A rival has to stand with the support of 20% of the PLP, which is 81 MPs I think, then Starmer decides whether to contest the challenge (nominations are not needed), then the rivals need 5% of CLPs to support and a number of affiliates.
I expect that challenge in May.
A leadership contest im midst of an international crisis is not unprecedented. We had one in May 1940 after all.
I agree that the Cabinet do not decide it but the fact that they all backed Starmer's blocking of Burnham was decisive. It would be daunting to take on not just the leader but the entire cabinet. I suspect if this is repeated getting the 81 will prove difficult.
With the exception of the usual hard core left MP's and a couple of trotskyite Union Leaders there will be NO APPETITE in the PLP for a Leadership Challenge whilst Trump and Netanyahu are creating havoc
(1) Because there are inherently sensible voices who actually do put Country before Politics
(2) Because Starmer is head and shuolder the best option (in any Party) we have on the Global Stage right now
(3) Because (2) means that the longer he remains he nullifies the idiotic Party Leaders to his Right and Left and maintains Labour Polling above what it might otherwise be.
(4) Because it gives candidates time to be seen to be supportive at a time of global crisis and not opportunists like Farage , Badenoch , Polanski and to a degree Davey
I cannot see a Leadership challenge in 2026 unless the ME crisis is resolved a lot quicker than we all anticipate.
I disagree, as a member of over 50 years' standing (13 as an MP) and until very recently CLP chair (I'm still a member). The membership is simply disappearing, with a typical month having 1 new entry and 10 resignations/non-renewals. I do see the points of (a) hoping that people will rally round the party, faut de mieux and (b) waiting until close to the election for any replacement. Against that, the party is suffering structural damage to an extent that I've never seen before, and another 2 years like this will largely finish it off as a fighting force. I think we have to take the plunge of leadership replacement, and I'll be surprised if the numbers aren't there.
I thought you were off to campaign for Zack?
No, I'm waiting till the local elections (not being fought in my area) and any aftermath - e.g. I'd stay on if Sadiq were leader.
He's got the same incumbent mayor issues, though a good choice. Sadly I can't see it happening.
I am increasingly confident that he won't be, no matter how bad they are. The alternatives are worse and the Cabinet would be nervous about their jobs under a new leader as they were during the Burnham rumblings.
As I understand it the cabinet do not decide it.
A rival has to stand with the support of 20% of the PLP, which is 81 MPs I think, then Starmer decides whether to contest the challenge (nominations are not needed), then the rivals need 5% of CLPs to support and a number of affiliates.
I expect that challenge in May.
A leadership contest im midst of an international crisis is not unprecedented. We had one in May 1940 after all.
If Labour are third in May in the local and devolved elections then yes Rayner will likely challenge Starmer for the leadership of the Labour Party.
If however Labour are second and it is the Conservatives third then it will be Kemi likely facing a Vote of No Confidence in her leadership of the Conservative Party from Tory MPs which will probably see her replaced by Cleverly if she loses it
NOW - Netanyahu: "Jesus Christ has no advantage over Genghis Khan. Because if you are strong enough, ruthless enough, powerful enough, evil will overcome good."
Not sure if this is a real quote, but it does capture the Israeli mood; to put faith in the sword alone. The mistake is one well explained by Machiavelli (not himself a bleeding-heart pacifist): considering the difference between conquerors who gain the settled possession and loyalty of their acquisition, and those who never do so, he observed that those who, because of paranoia or other reasons, cannot restrain themselves from continuing violence and abuse towards their subjects, have to live forever with knife in hand; and in the end cannot sustain themselves. Those who offer their subjects the certainty of peace, and potential advancement, become secure in their loyalty even in the face of foreign temptation.
Yes. If you have to choose between fear and love, you choose fear, but you must take care not to make yourself hated. People must fear the consequences of attacking or betraying you, but they must not fear you will hurt them without cause.
Israel and the US are making themselves hated. Being desperate, the Iranians don’t care about being hated.
Nor do the Israelis
Don't think the Iranians are bothered about trying to fix a frivolus pop music contest though.
Slightly different context I would have thought. Tojo was from a regime trying to conquer as TSE's header suggests much of Asia and the Pacific and which was allied with Hitler's Nazis in Germany. Trump for all his faults is trying with Israel to remove a vile repressive regime in Iran which oppresses women and executes homosexuals and its opponents (indeed only yesterday Iran executed a teenage wrestling champion for having taken part in anti regime protests). Where Trump is going wrong is air strikes alone with Israel will not remove the regime, if he really wanted to remove it he would need ground troops too and the swifter the regime is removed the quicker the oil price will stabilise
Israel seems like it’s trying to conquer land. Right-wing Israeli politicians wave flags of Greater Israel and the US envoy to Israel says the country has the biblical right to such land. Israel has annexed a chunk of Syria and say they have no plans to leave. Now they’ve invaded southern Lebanon.
Ditto aircraft carriers. There can't be any confidence they can fight back 1,000 drones launched at them. Even a fire in the laundry (assuming that is all it was!) has taken the USS Gerald R Ford back to Crete for repairs - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0rjr28nxrwo
100% sabotage, but it'll never come out. The Ford has been deployed for 255 days and that's were discipline starts to break down no matter how effective the command structure. We did 175 days on the Vinson and by then every man, woman and machine on the ship was comprehensively broken.
So blocked toilets due to reading material being flushed down them?
Countless photos of Donald J. Trump used to wipe arses. Photgraphic paper very slow to break down when put down the lavvy.
As former Ambassador Bolton, a wise head on this issue, said it was always war gamed that Iran could try to shut the Strait but in those scenarios America would always stop Iran from getting its own oil out of the Strait too.
What was never considered was a scenario where Iran could stop Gulf states getting their products out, while still being allowed to let its own out too.
Utter insanity.
The whole thing is an example of the dangers of half arsing something
I blame the US electorate.
They knew that Trump was a capricious, narcisstic, vengeful, vainglorious potential tyrant from his first term, but re-elected him anyway. Now the world has to live with the consequences.
Now we know how the Romans must have felt under Caligula.
The Democrats are at fault,here. As is Biden.
For contriving to put forward Kamala Harris. Inept as a candidate during the primaries that saw Biden come to get the nomination. What did they expect
That's a bit like blaming the sexual assault victim because she was wearing a short skirt.
It is not Biden/Harris's "fault" Trump was elected. He was elected fairly and squarely by a majority of voters and won the electoral college.
Neither is it Biden/Harris's "fault" that Trump has surrounded himself with yes-men (and Tulsi) and is suffering a terminal cognitive decline.
One could argue that installing an imbecile and wannabe dictator as the official Republican Presidential candidate was the "fault" of the Republican Party.
It’s perfectly fair to blame the Democrats for poor leadership candidate selection. Just as people did here with Corbyn and Labour in 2019.
No one is blaming them for the subsequent actions of the Trumpdozer who, along with Bibi, are doing their best to remove Western global hegemony.
Harris was vilified by the media, not least by packs of lies distributed on X and Fox.
Granted Biden's immigration free for all wasn't ideal in the cold light of reality, but then voters believed that the man who advised them to inject bleach into their bodies to overcome COVID could bring down the price of gas and eggs.
Quek surprise! You don't like media which disagrees with your opinion.
King Charles is due to visit the US on 27-29 April for a mini state visit. I bet he absolutely hates the prospect and isn't keeping quiet about it with the PM. Watch out for a diplomatic toothache - or more likely a diplomatic resumption of chemo for his cancer.
He is actually going for the 250th anniversary of US Independence, as it will celebrate the removal of his ancestor King George III from the position of head of state of the American colonies leading to Presidents like Trump now as US head of state I doubt he would be that bothered at not going but diplomatically he has to go
I am increasingly confident that he won't be, no matter how bad they are. The alternatives are worse and the Cabinet would be nervous about their jobs under a new leader as they were during the Burnham rumblings.
As I understand it the cabinet do not decide it.
A rival has to stand with the support of 20% of the PLP, which is 81 MPs I think, then Starmer decides whether to contest the challenge (nominations are not needed), then the rivals need 5% of CLPs to support and a number of affiliates.
I expect that challenge in May.
A leadership contest im midst of an international crisis is not unprecedented. We had one in May 1940 after all.
If Labour are third in May in the local and devolved elections then yes Rayner will likely challenge Starmer for the leadership of the Labour Party.
If however Labour are second and it is the Conservatives third then it will be Kemi likely facing a Vote of No Confidence in her leadership of the Conservative Party from Tory MPs which will probably see her replaced by Cleverly if she loses it
What if the NEV is:
1. Reform 2. Lib Dem 3. Green 4. Labour 5. Conservative
As former Ambassador Bolton, a wise head on this issue, said it was always war gamed that Iran could try to shut the Strait but in those scenarios America would always stop Iran from getting its own oil out of the Strait too.
What was never considered was a scenario where Iran could stop Gulf states getting their products out, while still being allowed to let its own out too.
Utter insanity.
The whole thing is an example of the dangers of half arsing something
I blame the US electorate.
They knew that Trump was a capricious, narcisstic, vengeful, vainglorious potential tyrant from his first term, but re-elected him anyway. Now the world has to live with the consequences.
Now we know how the Romans must have felt under Caligula.
The Democrats are at fault,here. As is Biden.
For contriving to put forward Kamala Harris. Inept as a candidate during the primaries that saw Biden come to get the nomination. What did they expect
That's a bit like blaming the sexual assault victim because she was wearing a short skirt.
It is not Biden/Harris's "fault" Trump was elected. He was elected fairly and squarely by a majority of voters and won the electoral college.
Neither is it Biden/Harris's "fault" that Trump has surrounded himself with yes-men (and Tulsi) and is suffering a terminal cognitive decline.
One could argue that installing an imbecile and wannabe dictator as the official Republican Presidential candidate was the "fault" of the Republican Party.
For such a catastrophe as Trump's second term there is more than enough blame to go around.
There is a special place in Hell for Starmer for inviting Trump and Melania on a second state visit.
Of all the things… Jaw Jaw is better than War War.
Given some of the ghastly people that Liz II was told to shake hands with, that’s the tinyest thing.
Even from the point of a Labour partisan, the fracturing of the Labour coalition wasn’t down to inviting Trump. Not even 1%. It was the actions of Starmer and company - doing things they had control over and did not need to do. And then undo before they did them.
As former Ambassador Bolton, a wise head on this issue, said it was always war gamed that Iran could try to shut the Strait but in those scenarios America would always stop Iran from getting its own oil out of the Strait too.
What was never considered was a scenario where Iran could stop Gulf states getting their products out, while still being allowed to let its own out too.
Utter insanity.
The whole thing is an example of the dangers of half arsing something
I blame the US electorate.
They knew that Trump was a capricious, narcisstic, vengeful, vainglorious potential tyrant from his first term, but re-elected him anyway. Now the world has to live with the consequences.
Now we know how the Romans must have felt under Caligula.
The Democrats are at fault,here. As is Biden.
For contriving to put forward Kamala Harris. Inept as a candidate during the primaries that saw Biden come to get the nomination. What did they expect
That's a bit like blaming the sexual assault victim because she was wearing a short skirt.
It is not Biden/Harris's "fault" Trump was elected. He was elected fairly and squarely by a majority of voters and won the electoral college.
Neither is it Biden/Harris's "fault" that Trump has surrounded himself with yes-men (and Tulsi) and is suffering a terminal cognitive decline.
One could argue that installing an imbecile and wannabe dictator as the official Republican Presidential candidate was the "fault" of the Republican Party.
It’s perfectly fair to blame the Democrats for poor leadership candidate selection. Just as people did here with Corbyn and Labour in 2019.
No one is blaming them for the subsequent actions of the Trumpdozer who, along with Bibi, are doing their best to remove Western global hegemony.
Harris was vilified by the media, not least by packs of lies distributed on X and Fox.
Granted Biden's immigration free for all wasn't ideal in the cold light of reality, but then voters believed that the man who advised them to inject bleach into their bodies to overcome COVID could bring down the price of gas and eggs.
Voters vote for who they want. For whatever reason.
Trump said no more wars. He lied. He has been a disaster and we need to buckle up as the world is soon to be fucked.
But then I voted Labour and we had the illegal war and lies about Iraq.
Trump was vilified in parts of the US media as was Harris. I’d suspect in both cases the media are pandering to their viewers prejudices.
This is a fundamental weakness of having elections every so many years. I am no fan of the idea of digital passports and loath the online lack of safety act, BUT
I do think if you had a new system of online voting. Then, an elected member, MP Councillor, elected Peer pisses you off, then you go online and recast your vote. A simple secure system then overwrites your earlier vote and every two months the votes are all counted again. Yes, I know the obvious dangers, have thought a lot about them but no more difficult than banking online AND your Banking Card would be a good secure device to show it was you changing your vote. If on the other hand you are happy with your elected representative then your vote stands for say five years or until you change it. Radical I know but would also implement the last of the Chartist Aspirations, Annual Parliaments
Ditto aircraft carriers. There can't be any confidence they can fight back 1,000 drones launched at them. Even a fire in the laundry (assuming that is all it was!) has taken the USS Gerald R Ford back to Crete for repairs - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0rjr28nxrwo
100% sabotage, but it'll never come out. The Ford has been deployed for 255 days and that's were discipline starts to break down no matter how effective the command structure. We did 175 days on the Vinson and by then every man, woman and machine on the ship was comprehensively broken.
So blocked toilets due to reading material being flushed down them?
An idiot had a brilliant idea of replacing the old toilet system (used in most US ships) with a vacuum air plane style system.
If the vacuum is compromised by air leaking in, a whole section of the system stops working. So no flushing….
So a zillion miles of pipe work has to be perfect, all the time.
Ditto aircraft carriers. There can't be any confidence they can fight back 1,000 drones launched at them. Even a fire in the laundry (assuming that is all it was!) has taken the USS Gerald R Ford back to Crete for repairs - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0rjr28nxrwo
100% sabotage, but it'll never come out. The Ford has been deployed for 255 days and that's were discipline starts to break down no matter how effective the command structure. We did 175 days on the Vinson and by then every man, woman and machine on the ship was comprehensively broken.
And why the current Trident patrols are so dangerous. It's quite odd saying goodbye to a friend not knowing if they will be back in 2 or 7 months.
Ditto aircraft carriers. There can't be any confidence they can fight back 1,000 drones launched at them. Even a fire in the laundry (assuming that is all it was!) has taken the USS Gerald R Ford back to Crete for repairs - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0rjr28nxrwo
100% sabotage, but it'll never come out. The Ford has been deployed for 255 days and that's were discipline starts to break down no matter how effective the command structure. We did 175 days on the Vinson and by then every man, woman and machine on the ship was comprehensively broken.
And why the current Trident patrols are so dangerous. It's quite odd saying goodbye to a friend not knowing if they will be back in 2 or 7 months.
Meanwhile One Nation continues to rise in Australian polls, do they realise Albanese is the main block on a Pauline Hanson anti Muslim Australian government?
Ditto aircraft carriers. There can't be any confidence they can fight back 1,000 drones launched at them. Even a fire in the laundry (assuming that is all it was!) has taken the USS Gerald R Ford back to Crete for repairs - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0rjr28nxrwo
100% sabotage, but it'll never come out. The Ford has been deployed for 255 days and that's were discipline starts to break down no matter how effective the command structure. We did 175 days on the Vinson and by then every man, woman and machine on the ship was comprehensively broken.
And why the current Trident patrols are so dangerous. It's quite odd saying goodbye to a friend not knowing if they will be back in 2 or 7 months.
Not uncommon in the days of sail, though, surely!
True. I think the uncertainty is the problem - you get told a minimum period but that's it. At least when you went exploring you knew it could be several years before you came home.
I am increasingly confident that he won't be, no matter how bad they are. The alternatives are worse and the Cabinet would be nervous about their jobs under a new leader as they were during the Burnham rumblings.
As I understand it the cabinet do not decide it.
A rival has to stand with the support of 20% of the PLP, which is 81 MPs I think, then Starmer decides whether to contest the challenge (nominations are not needed), then the rivals need 5% of CLPs to support and a number of affiliates.
I expect that challenge in May.
A leadership contest im midst of an international crisis is not unprecedented. We had one in May 1940 after all.
If Labour are third in May in the local and devolved elections then yes Rayner will likely challenge Starmer for the leadership of the Labour Party.
If however Labour are second and it is the Conservatives third then it will be Kemi likely facing a Vote of No Confidence in her leadership of the Conservative Party from Tory MPs which will probably see her replaced by Cleverly if she loses it
What if the NEV is:
1. Reform 2. Lib Dem 3. Green 4. Labour 5. Conservative
Then likely both, Rayner will challenge Starmer and Kemi will face a VONC, though I suspect the Tories and Labour will still beat the LDs and Greens on NEV even if Reform still come first
As former Ambassador Bolton, a wise head on this issue, said it was always war gamed that Iran could try to shut the Strait but in those scenarios America would always stop Iran from getting its own oil out of the Strait too.
What was never considered was a scenario where Iran could stop Gulf states getting their products out, while still being allowed to let its own out too.
Utter insanity.
The whole thing is an example of the dangers of half arsing something
I blame the US electorate.
They knew that Trump was a capricious, narcisstic, vengeful, vainglorious potential tyrant from his first term, but re-elected him anyway. Now the world has to live with the consequences.
Now we know how the Romans must have felt under Caligula.
The Democrats are at fault,here. As is Biden.
For contriving to put forward Kamala Harris. Inept as a candidate during the primaries that saw Biden come to get the nomination. What did they expect
That's a bit like blaming the sexual assault victim because she was wearing a short skirt.
It is not Biden/Harris's "fault" Trump was elected. He was elected fairly and squarely by a majority of voters and won the electoral college.
Neither is it Biden/Harris's "fault" that Trump has surrounded himself with yes-men (and Tulsi) and is suffering a terminal cognitive decline.
One could argue that installing an imbecile and wannabe dictator as the official Republican Presidential candidate was the "fault" of the Republican Party.
It’s perfectly fair to blame the Democrats for poor leadership candidate selection. Just as people did here with Corbyn and Labour in 2019.
No one is blaming them for the subsequent actions of the Trumpdozer who, along with Bibi, are doing their best to remove Western global hegemony.
Harris was vilified by the media, not least by packs of lies distributed on X and Fox.
Granted Biden's immigration free for all wasn't ideal in the cold light of reality, but then voters believed that the man who advised them to inject bleach into their bodies to overcome COVID could bring down the price of gas and eggs.
Trump never said to inject bleach, he did muse about researching if uv light could work as the equivalent of disinfectant inside the body.
Its strange that given all the things Trump has actually said and done that people still repeat bollox that he never said.
Meanwhile One Nation continues to rise in Australian polls, do they realise Albanese is the main block on a Pauline Hanson anti Muslim Australian government?
Probably not although I’m not up on Aussie politics. So not sure of the issues.
As former Ambassador Bolton, a wise head on this issue, said it was always war gamed that Iran could try to shut the Strait but in those scenarios America would always stop Iran from getting its own oil out of the Strait too.
What was never considered was a scenario where Iran could stop Gulf states getting their products out, while still being allowed to let its own out too.
Utter insanity.
The whole thing is an example of the dangers of half arsing something
I blame the US electorate.
They knew that Trump was a capricious, narcisstic, vengeful, vainglorious potential tyrant from his first term, but re-elected him anyway. Now the world has to live with the consequences.
Now we know how the Romans must have felt under Caligula.
The Democrats are at fault,here. As is Biden.
For contriving to put forward Kamala Harris. Inept as a candidate during the primaries that saw Biden come to get the nomination. What did they expect
That's a bit like blaming the sexual assault victim because she was wearing a short skirt.
It is not Biden/Harris's "fault" Trump was elected. He was elected fairly and squarely by a majority of voters and won the electoral college.
Neither is it Biden/Harris's "fault" that Trump has surrounded himself with yes-men (and Tulsi) and is suffering a terminal cognitive decline.
One could argue that installing an imbecile and wannabe dictator as the official Republican Presidential candidate was the "fault" of the Republican Party.
For such a catastrophe as Trump's second term there is more than enough blame to go around.
There is a special place in Hell for Starmer for inviting Trump and Melania on a second state visit.
Of all the things… Jaw Jaw is better than War War.
Given some of the ghastly people that Liz II was told to shake hands with, that’s the tinyest thing.
Even from the point of a Labour partisan, the fracturing of the Labour coalition wasn’t down to inviting Trump. Not even 1%. It was the actions of Starmer and company - doing things they had control over and did not need to do. And then undo before they did them.
Seems excessively formal for Brenda to have to shake hands with her second son, but who knows the mysterious ways of the royal cult.
I am increasingly confident that he won't be, no matter how bad they are. The alternatives are worse and the Cabinet would be nervous about their jobs under a new leader as they were during the Burnham rumblings.
As I understand it the cabinet do not decide it.
A rival has to stand with the support of 20% of the PLP, which is 81 MPs I think, then Starmer decides whether to contest the challenge (nominations are not needed), then the rivals need 5% of CLPs to support and a number of affiliates.
I expect that challenge in May.
A leadership contest im midst of an international crisis is not unprecedented. We had one in May 1940 after all.
I agree that the Cabinet do not decide it but the fact that they all backed Starmer's blocking of Burnham was decisive. It would be daunting to take on not just the leader but the entire cabinet. I suspect if this is repeated getting the 81 will prove difficult.
With the exception of the usual hard core left MP's and a couple of trotskyite Union Leaders there will be NO APPETITE in the PLP for a Leadership Challenge whilst Trump and Netanyahu are creating havoc
(1) Because there are inherently sensible voices who actually do put Country before Politics
(2) Because Starmer is head and shuolder the best option (in any Party) we have on the Global Stage right now
(3) Because (2) means that the longer he remains he nullifies the idiotic Party Leaders to his Right and Left and maintains Labour Polling above what it might otherwise be.
(4) Because it gives candidates time to be seen to be supportive at a time of global crisis and not opportunists like Farage , Badenoch , Polanski and to a degree Davey
I cannot see a Leadership challenge in 2026 unless the ME crisis is resolved a lot quicker than we all anticipate.
Oh lord. We agree twice in a morning. Surely the end of times approaches.
Yes. There is a high chance that by May whatever the election results are will feel to be a little local difficulty, quickly forgotten, in hard times. In the longer run, Reform may be a possible choice for control of park benches and bins, but Trump's best British friend does not look like a top choice for PM at this moment.
As to the impossible question of next Labour leader, both when and who is truly open. Perhaps the probabilities start to favour serious looking people. Cooper, Jones, Healey come to mind. None of these are in the top eight in the betting.
Perhaps this reflects the parochial unseriousness of so many Labour MPs.
all dross and serial losers who could not run a bath, we are truly F****d
The latest borrowing figures show how bad her stewadship has been. And thats before she craps all over us the latest set of tax screw ups.
Now she has a war to blame everything on so nothing is her fault.
That was partly due to some debt repayments which normally go out in January going out in February. They have upgraded the surplus from January .
Overall net borrowing is still expected to come in well under the original OBR forecasts from last November . It’s by no means great but I’m beginning to warm to Reeves especially after her speech the other day .
King Charles is due to visit the US on 27-29 April for a mini state visit. I bet he absolutely hates the prospect and isn't keeping quiet about it with the PM. Watch out for a diplomatic toothache - or more likely a diplomatic resumption of chemo for his cancer.
He is actually going for the 250th anniversary of US Independence, as it will celebrate the removal of his ancestor King George III from the position of head of state of the American colonies leading to Presidents like Trump now as US head of state I doubt he would be that bothered at not going but diplomatically he has to go
Why should we be forced to go along to celebrate them kicking us out? Maybe we should invite Trump over to help us celebrate that time we burned down the White House.
Further to JJ’s recent piece about those on peril on the sea, an unexamined part of the current clusterfuck. Eight times as many ships trapped in the Gulf as there were during the Suez blockage, and they’re running out of water.
Ditto aircraft carriers. There can't be any confidence they can fight back 1,000 drones launched at them. Even a fire in the laundry (assuming that is all it was!) has taken the USS Gerald R Ford back to Crete for repairs - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0rjr28nxrwo
100% sabotage, but it'll never come out. The Ford has been deployed for 255 days and that's were discipline starts to break down no matter how effective the command structure. We did 175 days on the Vinson and by then every man, woman and machine on the ship was comprehensively broken.
"We'd have LOVED to have led the line into the Straits of Hormuz, but you know, since the laundry fire - no Whites...."
As former Ambassador Bolton, a wise head on this issue, said it was always war gamed that Iran could try to shut the Strait but in those scenarios America would always stop Iran from getting its own oil out of the Strait too.
What was never considered was a scenario where Iran could stop Gulf states getting their products out, while still being allowed to let its own out too.
Utter insanity.
The whole thing is an example of the dangers of half arsing something
I blame the US electorate.
They knew that Trump was a capricious, narcisstic, vengeful, vainglorious potential tyrant from his first term, but re-elected him anyway. Now the world has to live with the consequences.
Now we know how the Romans must have felt under Caligula.
The Democrats are at fault,here. As is Biden.
For contriving to put forward Kamala Harris. Inept as a candidate during the primaries that saw Biden come to get the nomination. What did they expect
That's a bit like blaming the sexual assault victim because she was wearing a short skirt.
It is not Biden/Harris's "fault" Trump was elected. He was elected fairly and squarely by a majority of voters and won the electoral college.
Neither is it Biden/Harris's "fault" that Trump has surrounded himself with yes-men (and Tulsi) and is suffering a terminal cognitive decline.
One could argue that installing an imbecile and wannabe dictator as the official Republican Presidential candidate was the "fault" of the Republican Party.
It’s perfectly fair to blame the Democrats for poor leadership candidate selection. Just as people did here with Corbyn and Labour in 2019.
No one is blaming them for the subsequent actions of the Trumpdozer who, along with Bibi, are doing their best to remove Western global hegemony.
Harris was vilified by the media, not least by packs of lies distributed on X and Fox.
Granted Biden's immigration free for all wasn't ideal in the cold light of reality, but then voters believed that the man who advised them to inject bleach into their bodies to overcome COVID could bring down the price of gas and eggs.
Trump never said to inject bleach, he did muse about researching if uv light could work as the equivalent of disinfectant inside the body.
Its strange that given all the things Trump has actually said and done that people still repeat bollox that he never said.
He also mused about injecting bleach. It's strange that people want to deny that.
"And then I see the disinfectant where it knocks it out in a minute. One minute. And is there a way we can do something like that, by injection inside or almost a cleaning?
King Charles is due to visit the US on 27-29 April for a mini state visit. I bet he absolutely hates the prospect and isn't keeping quiet about it with the PM. Watch out for a diplomatic toothache - or more likely a diplomatic resumption of chemo for his cancer.
He is actually going for the 250th anniversary of US Independence, as it will celebrate the removal of his ancestor King George III from the position of head of state of the American colonies leading to Presidents like Trump now as US head of state I doubt he would be that bothered at not going but diplomatically he has to go
Why should we be forced to go along to celebrate them kicking us out? Maybe we should invite Trump over to help us celebrate that time we burned down the White House.
As it looks awkward if we don't, a bit like the German head of state and Chancellor not turning up for the 50th anniversary of D Day or the 100th anniversary of the end of WW1
King Charles is due to visit the US on 27-29 April for a mini state visit. I bet he absolutely hates the prospect and isn't keeping quiet about it with the PM. Watch out for a diplomatic toothache - or more likely a diplomatic resumption of chemo for his cancer.
He is actually going for the 250th anniversary of US Independence, as it will celebrate the removal of his ancestor King George III from the position of head of state of the American colonies leading to Presidents like Trump now as US head of state I doubt he would be that bothered at not going but diplomatically he has to go
Why should we be forced to go along to celebrate them kicking us out? Maybe we should invite Trump over to help us celebrate that time we burned down the White House.
It would be funny because Americans couldn’t ignore that amidst all the talk about kicking out tyrants and getting rid of kings they would have the clear human example of how a constitutional monarchy is better than a despotic Presidential republic and really they might have made the wrong decision in the long term.
As former Ambassador Bolton, a wise head on this issue, said it was always war gamed that Iran could try to shut the Strait but in those scenarios America would always stop Iran from getting its own oil out of the Strait too.
What was never considered was a scenario where Iran could stop Gulf states getting their products out, while still being allowed to let its own out too.
Utter insanity.
The whole thing is an example of the dangers of half arsing something
I blame the US electorate.
They knew that Trump was a capricious, narcisstic, vengeful, vainglorious potential tyrant from his first term, but re-elected him anyway. Now the world has to live with the consequences.
Now we know how the Romans must have felt under Caligula.
The Democrats are at fault,here. As is Biden.
For contriving to put forward Kamala Harris. Inept as a candidate during the primaries that saw Biden come to get the nomination. What did they expect
That's a bit like blaming the sexual assault victim because she was wearing a short skirt.
It is not Biden/Harris's "fault" Trump was elected. He was elected fairly and squarely by a majority of voters and won the electoral college.
Neither is it Biden/Harris's "fault" that Trump has surrounded himself with yes-men (and Tulsi) and is suffering a terminal cognitive decline.
One could argue that installing an imbecile and wannabe dictator as the official Republican Presidential candidate was the "fault" of the Republican Party.
For such a catastrophe as Trump's second term there is more than enough blame to go around.
There is a special place in Hell for Starmer for inviting Trump and Melania on a second state visit.
Of all the things… Jaw Jaw is better than War War.
Given some of the ghastly people that Liz II was told to shake hands with, that’s the tinyest thing.
Even from the point of a Labour partisan, the fracturing of the Labour coalition wasn’t down to inviting Trump. Not even 1%. It was the actions of Starmer and company - doing things they had control over and did not need to do. And then undo before they did them.
Seems excessively formal for Brenda to have to shake hands with her second son, but who knows the mysterious ways of the royal cult.
Shake hands? They had to BOW...
I'm not exactly a raging republican, but your son expected to bow to you is a touch medieval.
The latest borrowing figures show how bad her stewadship has been. And thats before she craps all over us the latest set of tax screw ups.
Now she has a war to blame everything on so nothing is her fault.
That was partly due to some debt repayments which normally go out in January going out in February. They have upgraded the surplus from January .
Overall net borrowing is still expected to come in well under the original OBR forecasts from last November . It’s by no means great but I’m beginning to warm to Reeves especially after her speech the other day .
Ditto aircraft carriers. There can't be any confidence they can fight back 1,000 drones launched at them. Even a fire in the laundry (assuming that is all it was!) has taken the USS Gerald R Ford back to Crete for repairs - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0rjr28nxrwo
100% sabotage, but it'll never come out. The Ford has been deployed for 255 days and that's were discipline starts to break down no matter how effective the command structure. We did 175 days on the Vinson and by then every man, woman and machine on the ship was comprehensively broken.
"We'd have LOVED to have led the line into the Straits of Hormuz, but you know, since the laundry fire - no Whites...."
Can a ship the size of the Ford get through the Suez Canal? And had it done so it would have been quite a large target for the Houthis as it approached Bab el Mandeb! Even if it did, as it would, shoot back.
As former Ambassador Bolton, a wise head on this issue, said it was always war gamed that Iran could try to shut the Strait but in those scenarios America would always stop Iran from getting its own oil out of the Strait too.
What was never considered was a scenario where Iran could stop Gulf states getting their products out, while still being allowed to let its own out too.
Utter insanity.
The whole thing is an example of the dangers of half arsing something
I blame the US electorate.
They knew that Trump was a capricious, narcisstic, vengeful, vainglorious potential tyrant from his first term, but re-elected him anyway. Now the world has to live with the consequences.
Now we know how the Romans must have felt under Caligula.
The Democrats are at fault,here. As is Biden.
For contriving to put forward Kamala Harris. Inept as a candidate during the primaries that saw Biden come to get the nomination. What did they expect
That's a bit like blaming the sexual assault victim because she was wearing a short skirt.
It is not Biden/Harris's "fault" Trump was elected. He was elected fairly and squarely by a majority of voters and won the electoral college.
Neither is it Biden/Harris's "fault" that Trump has surrounded himself with yes-men (and Tulsi) and is suffering a terminal cognitive decline.
One could argue that installing an imbecile and wannabe dictator as the official Republican Presidential candidate was the "fault" of the Republican Party.
It’s perfectly fair to blame the Democrats for poor leadership candidate selection. Just as people did here with Corbyn and Labour in 2019.
No one is blaming them for the subsequent actions of the Trumpdozer who, along with Bibi, are doing their best to remove Western global hegemony.
Harris was vilified by the media, not least by packs of lies distributed on X and Fox.
Granted Biden's immigration free for all wasn't ideal in the cold light of reality, but then voters believed that the man who advised them to inject bleach into their bodies to overcome COVID could bring down the price of gas and eggs.
Trump never said to inject bleach, he did muse about researching if uv light could work as the equivalent of disinfectant inside the body.
Its strange that given all the things Trump has actually said and done that people still repeat bollox that he never said.
He also mused about injecting bleach. It's strange that people want to deny that.
"And then I see the disinfectant where it knocks it out in a minute. One minute. And is there a way we can do something like that, by injection inside or almost a cleaning?
As former Ambassador Bolton, a wise head on this issue, said it was always war gamed that Iran could try to shut the Strait but in those scenarios America would always stop Iran from getting its own oil out of the Strait too.
What was never considered was a scenario where Iran could stop Gulf states getting their products out, while still being allowed to let its own out too.
Utter insanity.
The whole thing is an example of the dangers of half arsing something
I blame the US electorate.
They knew that Trump was a capricious, narcisstic, vengeful, vainglorious potential tyrant from his first term, but re-elected him anyway. Now the world has to live with the consequences.
Now we know how the Romans must have felt under Caligula.
The Democrats are at fault,here. As is Biden.
For contriving to put forward Kamala Harris. Inept as a candidate during the primaries that saw Biden come to get the nomination. What did they expect
That's a bit like blaming the sexual assault victim because she was wearing a short skirt.
It is not Biden/Harris's "fault" Trump was elected. He was elected fairly and squarely by a majority of voters and won the electoral college.
Neither is it Biden/Harris's "fault" that Trump has surrounded himself with yes-men (and Tulsi) and is suffering a terminal cognitive decline.
One could argue that installing an imbecile and wannabe dictator as the official Republican Presidential candidate was the "fault" of the Republican Party.
For such a catastrophe as Trump's second term there is more than enough blame to go around.
There is a special place in Hell for Starmer for inviting Trump and Melania on a second state visit.
Of all the things… Jaw Jaw is better than War War.
Given some of the ghastly people that Liz II was told to shake hands with, that’s the tinyest thing.
Even from the point of a Labour partisan, the fracturing of the Labour coalition wasn’t down to inviting Trump. Not even 1%. It was the actions of Starmer and company - doing things they had control over and did not need to do. And then undo before they did them.
Seems excessively formal for Brenda to have to shake hands with her second son, but who knows the mysterious ways of the royal cult.
Shake hands? They had to BOW...
I'm not exactly a raging republican, but your son expected to bow to you is a touch medieval.
I would not doff my cap to the parasites never mind bow
Meanwhile One Nation continues to rise in Australian polls, do they realise Albanese is the main block on a Pauline Hanson anti Muslim Australian government?
Probably not although I’m not up on Aussie politics. So not sure of the issues.
The latest Yougov Australia poll for Sky has it Labor 30%, One Nation 26% and the Coalition 19%. Newspoll has it Labor 32%, One Nation 27% and the Coalition 20%. Resolve and Roy Morgan have it a bit better for the Coalition but even there they are neck and neck with One Nation for second. Resolve has it Labor 29%, One Nation 24% and Coalition 22% and Roy Morgan Labor 28,5%, Coalition 24% and One Nation 22.5%.
All have Labor down on the 34% it got last year at the Australian Federal election, the Coalition well down on the 31% it got and One Nation surging from the 6% it got
‘ Military analyst Ron Ben Yishai says Israel could wrap the Iran campaign in about 2 weeks, but reopening the Strait of Hormuz is a longer play that likely keeps the U.S. engaged beyond that timeline.
He assesses the regime has been hit hard but remains operational, with the IRGC stepping in to stabilize control.
On the ground, Israel is tracking signs of internal strain, confusion, and growing defections, particularly within the Basij. The expectation is that pressure could spill over into internal unrest once the war phase winds down, according to Ynet.
I am increasingly confident that he won't be, no matter how bad they are. The alternatives are worse and the Cabinet would be nervous about their jobs under a new leader as they were during the Burnham rumblings.
As I understand it the cabinet do not decide it.
A rival has to stand with the support of 20% of the PLP, which is 81 MPs I think, then Starmer decides whether to contest the challenge (nominations are not needed), then the rivals need 5% of CLPs to support and a number of affiliates.
I expect that challenge in May.
A leadership contest im midst of an international crisis is not unprecedented. We had one in May 1940 after all.
I agree that the Cabinet do not decide it but the fact that they all backed Starmer's blocking of Burnham was decisive. It would be daunting to take on not just the leader but the entire cabinet. I suspect if this is repeated getting the 81 will prove difficult.
With the exception of the usual hard core left MP's and a couple of trotskyite Union Leaders there will be NO APPETITE in the PLP for a Leadership Challenge whilst Trump and Netanyahu are creating havoc
(1) Because there are inherently sensible voices who actually do put Country before Politics
(2) Because Starmer is head and shuolder the best option (in any Party) we have on the Global Stage right now
(3) Because (2) means that the longer he remains he nullifies the idiotic Party Leaders to his Right and Left and maintains Labour Polling above what it might otherwise be.
(4) Because it gives candidates time to be seen to be supportive at a time of global crisis and not opportunists like Farage , Badenoch , Polanski and to a degree Davey
I cannot see a Leadership challenge in 2026 unless the ME crisis is resolved a lot quicker than we all anticipate.
What you say would be correct if year zero was four weeks ago. But it wasn't. Many of us have watched him for four years with sinking hearts as he tossed aside every value we thought Labour held.
He tried to get rid of Diane Abbott because she said something which was irrefutably true. He made a speech about foreigners which would have embarrassed Nigel Farage. He all but allowed Mark Regev to choose his Cabinet. He tethered himself to Netanyahu when he was committing a genocide. He worshipped at te altar of Trump when everyone with a soul could see it was a mistake. We watched in blind admiration as Mark Carney made a speech we knew was way beyond our leader's capabilities. We wished it could have been Starmer
As Labour supporters all we ask for is a leader who roughly shares what we think of as Labour values. I have no idea what he'll do because his principles -if he has any- are impossible to follow
As former Ambassador Bolton, a wise head on this issue, said it was always war gamed that Iran could try to shut the Strait but in those scenarios America would always stop Iran from getting its own oil out of the Strait too.
What was never considered was a scenario where Iran could stop Gulf states getting their products out, while still being allowed to let its own out too.
Utter insanity.
The whole thing is an example of the dangers of half arsing something
I blame the US electorate.
They knew that Trump was a capricious, narcisstic, vengeful, vainglorious potential tyrant from his first term, but re-elected him anyway. Now the world has to live with the consequences.
Now we know how the Romans must have felt under Caligula.
The Democrats are at fault,here. As is Biden.
For contriving to put forward Kamala Harris. Inept as a candidate during the primaries that saw Biden come to get the nomination. What did they expect
That's a bit like blaming the sexual assault victim because she was wearing a short skirt.
It is not Biden/Harris's "fault" Trump was elected. He was elected fairly and squarely by a majority of voters and won the electoral college.
Neither is it Biden/Harris's "fault" that Trump has surrounded himself with yes-men (and Tulsi) and is suffering a terminal cognitive decline.
One could argue that installing an imbecile and wannabe dictator as the official Republican Presidential candidate was the "fault" of the Republican Party.
It’s perfectly fair to blame the Democrats for poor leadership candidate selection. Just as people did here with Corbyn and Labour in 2019.
No one is blaming them for the subsequent actions of the Trumpdozer who, along with Bibi, are doing their best to remove Western global hegemony.
Harris was vilified by the media, not least by packs of lies distributed on X and Fox.
Granted Biden's immigration free for all wasn't ideal in the cold light of reality, but then voters believed that the man who advised them to inject bleach into their bodies to overcome COVID could bring down the price of gas and eggs.
Trump never said to inject bleach, he did muse about researching if uv light could work as the equivalent of disinfectant inside the body.
Its strange that given all the things Trump has actually said and done that people still repeat bollox that he never said.
He also mused about injecting bleach. It's strange that people want to deny that.
"And then I see the disinfectant where it knocks it out in a minute. One minute. And is there a way we can do something like that, by injection inside or almost a cleaning?
So why did you feel the need to use a different word to what Trump actually said ?
Ok Mr I'm Impartial But The Left Is So Terrible I Am Always Forced To Criticise Them Exclusively, as an expert on what Trump meant, to which disinfectant was he referring?
US going all out to wrench open Hormuz. Will take weeks, after which oil installations will be permanently damaged, and probably only partly successful in allowing some but not all oil and gas to go through.
Interesting that Reform Scotland didnt select Ross Lambie who got 26% in the Hamilton by election for a constituency or the central region list I mean they were clearly awash with quality.........
King Charles is due to visit the US on 27-29 April for a mini state visit. I bet he absolutely hates the prospect and isn't keeping quiet about it with the PM. Watch out for a diplomatic toothache - or more likely a diplomatic resumption of chemo for his cancer.
He is actually going for the 250th anniversary of US Independence, as it will celebrate the removal of his ancestor King George III from the position of head of state of the American colonies leading to Presidents like Trump now as US head of state I doubt he would be that bothered at not going but diplomatically he has to go
Why should we be forced to go along to celebrate them kicking us out? Maybe we should invite Trump over to help us celebrate that time we burned down the White House.
Counter-factuals are always speculative, but I wonder how things would have turned out, had the rebels lost.
Would slavery have ended sooner, or would the US civil war have been fought across the whole British empire?
There would be less of an imperative to expand Westward, so one could expect a bigger Mexico, an independent Hawaii, and perhaps a Russian presence on the West Coast. There might even be American Indian states.
The US would have achieved independence at the same time as Canada, in 1931.
‘ Military analyst Ron Ben Yishai says Israel could wrap the Iran campaign in about 2 weeks, but reopening the Strait of Hormuz is a longer play that likely keeps the U.S. engaged beyond that timeline.
He assesses the regime has been hit hard but remains operational, with the IRGC stepping in to stabilize control.
On the ground, Israel is tracking signs of internal strain, confusion, and growing defections, particularly within the Basij. The expectation is that pressure could spill over into internal unrest once the war phase winds down, according to Ynet.
So Israel gets the chaos it wanted, while leaving others, in particular their bank rollers the United States, to deal with some of the undesirable aspects of the mess it deliberately created.
As former Ambassador Bolton, a wise head on this issue, said it was always war gamed that Iran could try to shut the Strait but in those scenarios America would always stop Iran from getting its own oil out of the Strait too.
What was never considered was a scenario where Iran could stop Gulf states getting their products out, while still being allowed to let its own out too.
Utter insanity.
The whole thing is an example of the dangers of half arsing something
I blame the US electorate.
They knew that Trump was a capricious, narcisstic, vengeful, vainglorious potential tyrant from his first term, but re-elected him anyway. Now the world has to live with the consequences.
Now we know how the Romans must have felt under Caligula.
The Democrats are at fault,here. As is Biden.
For contriving to put forward Kamala Harris. Inept as a candidate during the primaries that saw Biden come to get the nomination. What did they expect
That's a bit like blaming the sexual assault victim because she was wearing a short skirt.
It is not Biden/Harris's "fault" Trump was elected. He was elected fairly and squarely by a majority of voters and won the electoral college.
Neither is it Biden/Harris's "fault" that Trump has surrounded himself with yes-men (and Tulsi) and is suffering a terminal cognitive decline.
One could argue that installing an imbecile and wannabe dictator as the official Republican Presidential candidate was the "fault" of the Republican Party.
It’s perfectly fair to blame the Democrats for poor leadership candidate selection. Just as people did here with Corbyn and Labour in 2019.
No one is blaming them for the subsequent actions of the Trumpdozer who, along with Bibi, are doing their best to remove Western global hegemony.
Harris was vilified by the media, not least by packs of lies distributed on X and Fox.
Granted Biden's immigration free for all wasn't ideal in the cold light of reality, but then voters believed that the man who advised them to inject bleach into their bodies to overcome COVID could bring down the price of gas and eggs.
Trump never said to inject bleach, he did muse about researching if uv light could work as the equivalent of disinfectant inside the body.
Its strange that given all the things Trump has actually said and done that people still repeat bollox that he never said.
He also mused about injecting bleach. It's strange that people want to deny that.
"And then I see the disinfectant where it knocks it out in a minute. One minute. And is there a way we can do something like that, by injection inside or almost a cleaning?
Comments
Even if the Grim Reaper does the job of the voter, Vance, Don Jnr. or Eric would be arguably worse.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/uk-covid-19-inquiry-impact-of-covid-19-pandemic-on-healthcare-systems-in-the-four-nations-of-the-united-kingdom-module-3-report
In the longer run, Reform may be a possible choice for control of park benches and bins, but Trump's best British friend does not look like a top choice for PM at this moment.
As to the impossible question of next Labour leader, both when and who is truly open. Perhaps the probabilities start to favour serious looking people. Cooper, Jones, Healey come to mind. None of these are in the top eight in the betting.
Perhaps this reflects the parochial unseriousness of so many Labour MPs.
Ditto aircraft carriers. There can't be any confidence they can fight back 1,000 drones launched at them. Even a fire in the laundry (assuming that is all it was!) has taken the USS Gerald R Ford back to Crete for repairs - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0rjr28nxrwo
Ukraine is going to make a killing out of this attack on Iran. They have shown what they can do with limited means. With tens of billions of development and manufacturing facilities, they are going to at least give a greater degree of comfort that how ever many drones come at you, they can be defeated. Bad news for Russia. They should perhaps have remembered that in the Soviet Union, Ukraine was the centre of weapons development. Or maybe that was one of the reasons Putin was so determined to acquire it.
Bibi has managed this under the cover of the BBC sane washing Trump's Iranian adventure.
Compare and contrast Simon Marks's withering expose of Trump madness on LBC with Sarah Smith's normalising the insanity.
Water, water, everywhere,
And all the boards did shrink;
Water, water, everywhere,
Nor any drop to drink.
As with this conflict, and everything else, what follows next is guesswork
No one is blaming them for the subsequent actions of the Trumpdozer who, along with Bibi, are doing their best to remove Western global hegemony.
FPT
Yes. The UK will come under direct attack sometime in the next few years.
1) a UK based vaccine pipeline
2) a UK based pipeline for PPE
So in the event of a pandemic, we will
- order a vaccine from abroad
- order a big pile of PPE from China
Bt we have a nice large pile of paper that said we did lots of stuff wrong and lots of stuff right. Perhaps we can make PPE out of the invoices for the lawyers bills?
Granted Biden's immigration free for all wasn't ideal in the cold light of reality, but then voters believed that the man who advised them to inject bleach into their bodies to overcome COVID could bring down the price of gas and eggs.
Israel and the US are making themselves hated. Being desperate, the Iranians don’t care about being hated.
We restrict actions which are deemed to be harassment or intimidation of women seeking healthcare services.
Clueless.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ce9mzn7k722o
https://x.com/cyberpunkcortes/status/2034816303324615048
https://x.com/snookersuper/status/2034909848698016190
Yes you heard that right, a 153 break!
However given mass Labour membership twice elected Jeremy Corbyn leader and mass Conservative leadership membership elected Liz Truss leader is that such a bad thing? Generally the bigger the party membership the more its ideologues control the party, the closer the party is to the centre often the smaller its membership
But he won’t fight the next election. He’ll quit in 2028.
Perhaps it is all about oil and gas.
I bet he absolutely hates the prospect and isn't keeping quiet about it with the PM.
Watch out for a diplomatic toothache - or more likely a diplomatic resumption of chemo for his cancer.
Trump said no more wars. He lied. He has been a disaster and we need to buckle up as the world is soon to be fucked.
But then I voted Labour and we had the illegal war and lies about Iraq.
Trump was vilified in parts of the US media as was Harris. I’d suspect in both cases the media are pandering to their viewers prejudices.
If we look at the world now and the state it’s in I suspect, of all the leading U.K. politicians, SKS is probably the best bet.
Rayner would not have a clue.
If however Labour are second and it is the Conservatives third then it will be Kemi likely facing a Vote of No Confidence in her leadership of the Conservative Party from Tory MPs which will probably see her replaced by Cleverly if she loses it
Photgraphic paper very slow to break down when put down the lavvy.
1. Reform
2. Lib Dem
3. Green
4. Labour
5. Conservative
Given some of the ghastly people that Liz II was told to shake hands with, that’s the tinyest thing.
Even from the point of a Labour partisan, the fracturing of the Labour coalition wasn’t down to inviting Trump. Not even 1%. It was the actions of Starmer and company - doing things they had control over and did not need to do. And then undo before they did them.
Reform-run council remove Nottinghamshire Live from chamber ahead of public meeting
I do think if you had a new system of online voting. Then, an elected member, MP Councillor, elected Peer pisses you off, then you go online and recast your vote. A simple secure system then overwrites your earlier vote and every two months the votes are all counted again. Yes, I know the obvious dangers, have thought a lot about them but no more difficult than banking online AND your Banking Card would be a good secure device to show it was you changing your vote. If on the other hand you are happy with your elected representative then your vote stands for say five years or until you change it. Radical I know but would also implement the last of the Chartist Aspirations, Annual Parliaments
‘ Progressive stuff...
Australia’s PM called a ‘putrid dog’ and chased out of mosque’
https://x.com/camillatominey/status/2034914793425887439?s=61
If the vacuum is compromised by air leaking in, a whole section of the system stops working. So no flushing….
So a zillion miles of pipe work has to be perfect, all the time.
The latest borrowing figures show how bad her stewadship has been. And thats before she craps all over us the latest set of tax screw ups.
Now she has a war to blame everything on so nothing is her fault.
Exactly how was Reeves supposed to reduce Borrowing
Its strange that given all the things Trump has actually said and done that people still repeat bollox that he never said.
Overall net borrowing is still expected to come in well under the original OBR forecasts from last November . It’s by no means great but I’m beginning to warm to Reeves especially after her speech the other day .
"And then I see the disinfectant where it knocks it out in a minute. One minute. And is there a way we can do something like that, by injection inside or almost a cleaning?
"So it'd be interesting to check that."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-52407177
I'm not exactly a raging republican, but your son expected to bow to you is a touch medieval.
That's not saying "go and inject bleach" is it.
And the word used was disinfectant, not bleach.
So why did you feel the need to use a different word to what Trump actually said ?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_Australian_federal_election
All have Labor down on the 34% it got last year at the Australian Federal election, the Coalition well down on the 31% it got and One Nation surging from the 6% it got
‘ Military analyst Ron Ben Yishai says Israel could wrap the Iran campaign in about 2 weeks, but reopening the Strait of Hormuz is a longer play that likely keeps the U.S. engaged beyond that timeline.
He assesses the regime has been hit hard but remains operational, with the IRGC stepping in to stabilize control.
On the ground, Israel is tracking signs of internal strain, confusion, and growing defections, particularly within the Basij. The expectation is that pressure could spill over into internal unrest once the war phase winds down, according to Ynet.
- Israel Radar’
https://x.com/osint613/status/2034905761134837961?s=61
He tried to get rid of Diane Abbott because she said something which was irrefutably true. He made a speech about foreigners which would have embarrassed Nigel Farage. He all but allowed Mark Regev to choose his Cabinet. He tethered himself to Netanyahu when he was committing a genocide. He worshipped at te altar of Trump when everyone with a soul could see it was a mistake. We watched in blind admiration as Mark Carney made a speech we knew was way beyond our leader's capabilities. We wished it could have been Starmer
As Labour supporters all we ask for is a leader who roughly shares what we think of as Labour values. I have no idea what he'll do because his principles -if he has any- are impossible to follow
https://www.wsj.com/world/middle-east/u-s-war-planes-and-helicopters-kick-off-battle-to-reopen-hormuz-530cdb78?st=agqazy&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink
I mean they were clearly awash with quality.........
Would slavery have ended sooner, or would the US civil war have been fought across the whole British empire?
There would be less of an imperative to expand Westward, so one could expect a bigger Mexico, an independent Hawaii, and perhaps a Russian presence on the West Coast. There might even be American Indian states.
The US would have achieved independence at the same time as Canada, in 1931.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=sarah+cooper+injecting+bleech#fpstate=ive&vld=cid:78cd32fb,vid:l6f3TOwv0NA,st:0