Is anyone on Pb still of the view the UK should have joined the war?
We should have sent the RAF to attack Iranian missile sites as Kemi rightly said. If Trump commits ground troops we should join Israel and provide them with support from the air in my view too as that would be the only way to topple the regime.
However as Starmer is in power neither will happen as he is sticking to his line offensive actions in Iran are not authorised under international law
If we'd done that we'd be counting body bags in London, Birmingham, Glasgow, Cardiff, Belfast, Leeds, Liverpool, Newcastle, Edinburgh and any other town or city
Sleepers in our midst revenge lone rangers martyrs
Forget all that. That is not the reason we should not be doing this. If Iran was a genuine threat to us and we needed to change the regime there then attacks in the UK are simply part of that scenario and one we have to deal with.
The real issue here is we should not be attacking Iran or supporting the US and Israel in attacking them. They are not and were not a threat to ourselves, Europe or the US. They did not attack us. They did not attack the US or Israel. They were attacked and we should not be supporting or condoning the aggressors.
I think you can make an argument that they were attacking Israel fairly regularly via their proxies
Well yes, but by the same rote you could say Russia has been attacking us for decades. Nobody has suggested bombing St Petersburg in response.
Russia has been attacking us for decades
And bombing St Pete’s always been on the list of options.
But wiser heads have prevailed to date
Because Russia has nukes.
Iran does not, yet, and its better to have this conflict now than after a mushroom cloud appears above Tel Aviv.
Israel has had nukes for a long while, yet there has been no sign of mushroom clouds over Tehran, or anywhere else.
Is anyone on Pb still of the view the UK should have joined the war?
We should have sent the RAF to attack Iranian missile sites as Kemi rightly said. If Trump commits ground troops we should join Israel and provide them with support from the air in my view too as that would be the only way to topple the regime.
However as Starmer is in power neither will happen as he is sticking to his line offensive actions in Iran are not authorised under international law
If we'd done that we'd be counting body bags in London, Birmingham, Glasgow, Cardiff, Belfast, Leeds, Liverpool, Newcastle, Edinburgh and any other town or city
Sleepers in our midst revenge lone rangers martyrs
Are you implying that the U.K. has a unique number of Iranian sleepers in the population?
Sounds a bit racist.
Note that, world wide, the number of sleeper attacks is somewhere between 0 and not a lot (the ambulances was probably some criminal being recruited/paid over the internet)
According to European intelligence services, in recent weeks there have been attacks on synagogues and other Jewish sites in Amsterdam, Liege, Brussels, Paris, Rotterdam as well as an attempted attack on a Jewish primary school in Michigan. According to them, there have been similarities in the modus operandi of the attacks which are consistent with Iranian involvement. In Belgium the army has been tasked with protecting the Jewish population. The army. This is what a European country has to do in 2026 to protect a vulnerable minority.
I think it a bit complacent to assume that there is no problem. Iran has form in using proxies to attack Jewish sites all round the world. This dates back to the 1990's when they attacked an embassy and a Jewish community centre in Buenos Aires, killing over a hundred people. In the last few weeks, two men – one British, one British-Iranian – have been charged with spying on various Jewish sites, including the Bevis Marks synagogue and its community centre, the oldest continuously used synagogue in the UK. In the last week 2 Torahs were stolen from a Salford synagogue.
In regard to the arson of the ambulances, it might be relevant to note that the ambulances were parked in front of a synagogue very near to a wall where there were posters of the hostages taken on October 7. That wall now has photos of Iranian protestors killed by the IRGC, the very IRGC which the EU (plus Iceland, Moldova, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Montenegro, North Macedonia and Liechtenstein) have proscribed as a terror organisation: something which the UK government has so far failed to do.
We do not know yet who carried out the attacks on the 4 ambulances but dismissing the terror and anxiety attacks like these - and the others there have been - causes Jews is despicable. This is how anti-Jewish hatred and indifference to how Jews are being treated has become normalised in this country. It is utterly shameful.
I met up with my friends: all “centrist dads”, whether in Law, Consulting, Advertising or IT.
They are now all ferociously anti-Israel, if not actively anti-Zionist.
Are they people who are usually political, or not?
Good question. I would say yes.
Although, it begs the question are there centrist dads in such professions, in London, who aren’t really political in some way?
Well, some people have actual opinions, and some people just say (or nod along to) what's generally considered sophisticated, and some people stay quiet and have opinions they are ashamed of and some stay quiet and have no opinions.
Groups 1,3 there are political, groups 2,4 not roughly.
Starmer needs to get ahead of this oil crisis. Do some unpopular stuff that people will come to appreciate and will signal this is a big deal.
Cut speed limits, mandate wfh where possible, introduce carpool lanes all over the place...
Tories and Reform will oppose on reflex and it will show he's the serious politician thinking about national interest.
Pure authoritarianism that will do nothing to fix the problems.
Serious politics means fixing what the politicians control.
The Australian Labor Government has had good ideas on this. The price of fuel is mostly tax anyway, and the fuel cost is controlled by HMG. Australia has halved fuel duty, we should do the same, or go one better and suspend it altogether.
Doesn't that kind of miss the point?
The issue facing us isn't so much that fuel will become more expensive, but that fuel won't be available in the quantities we want at any realistic cost for a meaningful period of time. It's going to be horrible, but demand needs to be destroyed, at least for a while.
(See also the Rosebank etc debate. Even if EdM gave permission today, the lead time for a project like that surely makes it irrelevant for this crisis.)
Is anyone on Pb still of the view the UK should have joined the war?
We should have sent the RAF to attack Iranian missile sites as Kemi rightly said. If Trump commits ground troops we should join Israel and provide them with support from the air in my view too as that would be the only way to topple the regime.
However as Starmer is in power neither will happen as he is sticking to his line offensive actions in Iran are not authorised under international law
If we'd done that we'd be counting body bags in London, Birmingham, Glasgow, Cardiff, Belfast, Leeds, Liverpool, Newcastle, Edinburgh and any other town or city
Sleepers in our midst revenge lone rangers martyrs
Forget all that. That is not the reason we should not be doing this. If Iran was a genuine threat to us and we needed to change the regime there then attacks in the UK are simply part of that scenario and one we have to deal with.
The real issue here is we should not be attacking Iran or supporting the US and Israel in attacking them. They are not and were not a threat to ourselves, Europe or the US. They did not attack us. They did not attack the US or Israel. They were attacked and we should not be supporting or condoning the aggressors.
I think you can make an argument that they were attacking Israel fairly regularly via their proxies
Well yes, but by the same rote you could say Russia has been attacking us for decades. Nobody has suggested bombing St Petersburg in response.
Russia has been attacking us for decades
And bombing St Pete’s always been on the list of options.
But wiser heads have prevailed to date
Because Russia has nukes.
Iran does not, yet, and its better to have this conflict now than after a mushroom cloud appears above Tel Aviv.
Israel has had nukes for a long while, yet there has been no sign of mushroom clouds over Tehran, or anywhere else.
Israel is not led by deranged, religious nihilists.
I met up with my friends: all “centrist dads”, whether in Law, Consulting, Advertising or IT.
They are now all ferociously anti-Israel, if not actively anti-Zionist.
What policies do they want as a result? The removal of Israel? If so, where do its Jewish citizens go? Or do they want them killed? Or some other policy and, if so, what?
I met up with my friends: all “centrist dads”, whether in Law, Consulting, Advertising or IT.
They are now all ferociously anti-Israel, if not actively anti-Zionist.
I'm anti-Israeli Government but the problem with that is there are a lot of people (including the Israeli Government) who aim to make such comments appear anti-Israel and antisemitic because that protects the Israeli Government by pushing the blame back on those objecting.
I met up with my friends: all “centrist dads”, whether in Law, Consulting, Advertising or IT.
They are now all ferociously anti-Israel, if not actively anti-Zionist.
What policies do they want as a result? The removal of Israel? If so, where do its Jewish citizens go? Or do they want them killed? Or some other policy and, if so, what?
Benjamin Netanyahu on trial in the Hague for Genecide would probably suit most of them down to the ground - after all it's where he should be...
Is anyone on Pb still of the view the UK should have joined the war?
We should have sent the RAF to attack Iranian missile sites as Kemi rightly said. If Trump commits ground troops we should join Israel and provide them with support from the air in my view too as that would be the only way to topple the regime.
However as Starmer is in power neither will happen as he is sticking to his line offensive actions in Iran are not authorised under international law
If we'd done that we'd be counting body bags in London, Birmingham, Glasgow, Cardiff, Belfast, Leeds, Liverpool, Newcastle, Edinburgh and any other town or city
Sleepers in our midst revenge lone rangers martyrs
Are you implying that the U.K. has a unique number of Iranian sleepers in the population?
Sounds a bit racist.
Note that, world wide, the number of sleeper attacks is somewhere between 0 and not a lot (the ambulances was probably some criminal being recruited/paid over the internet)
According to European intelligence services, in recent weeks there have been attacks on synagogues and other Jewish sites in Amsterdam, Liege, Brussels, Paris, Rotterdam as well as an attempted attack on a Jewish primary school in Michigan. According to them, there have been similarities in the modus operandi of the attacks which are consistent with Iranian involvement. In Belgium the army has been tasked with protecting the Jewish population. The army. This is what a European country has to do in 2026 to protect a vulnerable minority.
I think it a bit complacent to assume that there is no problem. Iran has form in using proxies to attack Jewish sites all round the world. This dates back to the 1990's when they attacked an embassy and a Jewish community centre in Buenos Aires, killing over a hundred people. In the last few weeks, two men – one British, one British-Iranian – have been charged with spying on various Jewish sites, including the Bevis Marks synagogue and its community centre, the oldest continuously used synagogue in the UK. In the last week 2 Torahs were stolen from a Salford synagogue.
In regard to the arson of the ambulances, it might be relevant to note that the ambulances were parked in front of a synagogue very near to a wall where there were posters of the hostages taken on October 7. That wall now has photos of Iranian protestors killed by the IRGC, the very IRGC which the EU (plus Iceland, Moldova, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Montenegro, North Macedonia and Liechtenstein) have proscribed as a terror organisation: something which the UK government has so far failed to do.
We do not know yet who carried out the attacks on the 4 ambulances but dismissing the terror and anxiety attacks like these - and the others there have been - causes Jews is despicable. This is how anti-Jewish hatred and indifference to how Jews are being treated has become normalised in this country. It is utterly shameful.
Yes - the proxy stuff is well known. As should be the fact that, for many years, the government has been contributing to private security costs for Jewish sites, because the levels of racist attacks was hitting police budgets really hard.
I walked past the Siege of Chiswick Park on the way to the gym quite a few times.
My point was that there is no particular difference in the level of this stuff in the UK. And that sleeper cells of undercover Iranian agents are basically non-existent.
I met up with my friends: all “centrist dads”, whether in Law, Consulting, Advertising or IT.
They are now all ferociously anti-Israel, if not actively anti-Zionist.
I'm anti-Israeli Government but the problem with that is there are a lot of people (including the Israeli Government) who aim to make such comments appear anti-Israel and antisemitic because that protects the Israeli Government by pushing the blame back on those objecting.
Yes, it is impossible to comment without having that comment weaponised. This is why I am happy to stand back in disdain at all the protagonists.
@kinabalu My grocery order has arrived and the sardines in olive oil with it. (Sainsbury's, 120g/85g, £1.95).
Result! How I have them - if I had some which I still don't - is for lunch in a bowl with cannellini beans. Perhaps you can do that on my behalf. It's a pretty healthy option.
This, with a little sliced red onion and some parsley mixed through, is perfection.
Iranians competing with Trump for the most bonkers social media posts. This is Galibhaf the ostensible Iranian negotiator and presumably not actually killed in an airstrike of a couple of days ago:
Heads-up: Pre-market so-called “news” or “Truth” is often just a setup for profit-taking. Basically, it’s a reverse indicator.
Do the opposite: If they pump it, short it. If they dump it, go long.
Is anyone on Pb still of the view the UK should have joined the war?
We should have sent the RAF to attack Iranian missile sites as Kemi rightly said. If Trump commits ground troops we should join Israel and provide them with support from the air in my view too as that would be the only way to topple the regime.
However as Starmer is in power neither will happen as he is sticking to his line offensive actions in Iran are not authorised under international law
The US does not have a clear war aim. It is unclear how much they are aiming to topple the regime. Should we commit military forces to try to achieve our war aim (regime change) if we can't agree with the US what the war aims are?
If they commit ground troops yes as that shows they want to topple the regime
Committing ground troops does not show they want to topple the regime. Committing ground troops doesn't suddenly mean Trump gains some cognitive clarity. He gives multiple different and contradictory rationales for the war within the same press conference. He has often talked about a deal that leaves the current regime in power, which is of course what he did in Venezuela.
He didn't launch a full scale invasion of Venezuela to topple the regime, just captured Maduro who was succeeded by his VP. Little different to his strikes so far just killing the Supreme Leader and putting his son in his place. Ground troops show he is serious
“Tactics without strategy is just the noise before defeat.”
I can see no strategy here, and we would simply be throwing lives away for no reason, if we got involved.
It may be that we, and other powers, will have no choice but to get involved, but that’s a decision that should only be taken after careful thought.
If the strategy is to remove the regime, then Trump deploying ground troops would support that.
However our involvement is all theoretical at the moment as Starmer has made clear he does not believe international law justifies the US and Israeli strikes against Iran. So it would take probably a Reform led government propped up by a Kemi led Tories for the UK to even back offensive strikes against Iran let alone sending in UK ground troops and that is not going to happen for at least 2 or 3 years and only if Labour lose the next general election
...and is a very good reason why, when it comes to it, the voters will not go for any kind of Reform government.
As for the US midterms, I am beginning to wonder whether all of these AI forecasts might not be rather tame. Extraordinary and probably illegal and even unconstitutional measures by Trump are being answered by large-scale and growing resistance. The economic catastrophe of tariffs has just been joined by exactly the kind of war that Trump promised to avoid, coupled with vulgarity and brutality to friend and foe alike that seems almost literally demented. This seems to me to be the kind of election that could throw up some earthquake results, and all of these scenarios seem based on the input of the relative stability of the past, rather than some unexpectedly dramatic future shift, which certainly could happen now. AI is shaped by the past, and that may end up being a poor guide to future prospects.
Good post.
Humans, on average, are very poor at understanding non-linear scenarios where there is a 'tipping point' where a small change has a disproportionate impact.
No reason to think AI would be any better at it unless specifically prompted otherwise.
I met up with my friends: all “centrist dads”, whether in Law, Consulting, Advertising or IT.
They are now all ferociously anti-Israel, if not actively anti-Zionist.
What policies do they want as a result? The removal of Israel? If so, where do its Jewish citizens go? Or do they want them killed? Or some other policy and, if so, what?
I did not ask. I pass on the anecdote just because I think it’s interesting and - to me - new. I would have assumed most would have been unthinkingly pro Israel historically.
Is anyone on Pb still of the view the UK should have joined the war?
We should have sent the RAF to attack Iranian missile sites as Kemi rightly said. If Trump commits ground troops we should join Israel and provide them with support from the air in my view too as that would be the only way to topple the regime.
However as Starmer is in power neither will happen as he is sticking to his line offensive actions in Iran are not authorised under international law
If we'd done that we'd be counting body bags in London, Birmingham, Glasgow, Cardiff, Belfast, Leeds, Liverpool, Newcastle, Edinburgh and any other town or city
Sleepers in our midst revenge lone rangers martyrs
Forget all that. That is not the reason we should not be doing this. If Iran was a genuine threat to us and we needed to change the regime there then attacks in the UK are simply part of that scenario and one we have to deal with.
The real issue here is we should not be attacking Iran or supporting the US and Israel in attacking them. They are not and were not a threat to ourselves, Europe or the US. They did not attack us. They did not attack the US or Israel. They were attacked and we should not be supporting or condoning the aggressors.
I think you can make an argument that they were attacking Israel fairly regularly via their proxies
Well yes, but by the same rote you could say Russia has been attacking us for decades. Nobody has suggested bombing St Petersburg in response.
Russia has been attacking us for decades
And bombing St Pete’s always been on the list of options.
But wiser heads have prevailed to date
Because Russia has nukes.
Iran does not, yet, and its better to have this conflict now than after a mushroom cloud appears above Tel Aviv.
I met up with my friends: all “centrist dads”, whether in Law, Consulting, Advertising or IT.
They are now all ferociously anti-Israel, if not actively anti-Zionist.
I'm anti-Israeli Government but the problem with that is there are a lot of people (including the Israeli Government) who aim to make such comments appear anti-Israel and antisemitic because that protects the Israeli Government by pushing the blame back on those objecting.
Critical thinking is all about letting uncomfortable facts sit alongside each other. One fact is that genuine antisemites disguise their antisemitism with chat about Zionism and Nakba, an other is that the Israeli government expends huge resources on portraying any criticism of their many iniquitous actions as antisemitism. Anyone who doesn’t accept both these facts can get in the fucking sea (or river) as far as I’m concerned.
Is anyone on Pb still of the view the UK should have joined the war?
We should have sent the RAF to attack Iranian missile sites as Kemi rightly said. If Trump commits ground troops we should join Israel and provide them with support from the air in my view too as that would be the only way to topple the regime.
However as Starmer is in power neither will happen as he is sticking to his line offensive actions in Iran are not authorised under international law
If we'd done that we'd be counting body bags in London, Birmingham, Glasgow, Cardiff, Belfast, Leeds, Liverpool, Newcastle, Edinburgh and any other town or city
Sleepers in our midst revenge lone rangers martyrs
Forget all that. That is not the reason we should not be doing this. If Iran was a genuine threat to us and we needed to change the regime there then attacks in the UK are simply part of that scenario and one we have to deal with.
The real issue here is we should not be attacking Iran or supporting the US and Israel in attacking them. They are not and were not a threat to ourselves, Europe or the US. They did not attack us. They did not attack the US or Israel. They were attacked and we should not be supporting or condoning the aggressors.
I think you can make an argument that they were attacking Israel fairly regularly via their proxies
Well yes, but by the same rote you could say Russia has been attacking us for decades. Nobody has suggested bombing St Petersburg in response.
Russia has been attacking us for decades
And bombing St Pete’s always been on the list of options.
But wiser heads have prevailed to date
Because Russia has nukes.
Iran does not, yet, and its better to have this conflict now than after a mushroom cloud appears above Tel Aviv.
Israel has had nukes for a long while, yet there has been no sign of mushroom clouds over Tehran, or anywhere else.
Israel is not led by deranged, religious nihilists.
I met up with my friends: all “centrist dads”, whether in Law, Consulting, Advertising or IT.
They are now all ferociously anti-Israel, if not actively anti-Zionist.
I'm anti-Israeli Government but the problem with that is there are a lot of people (including the Israeli Government) who aim to make such comments appear anti-Israel and antisemitic because that protects the Israeli Government by pushing the blame back on those objecting.
Yes, and my friends are fed up with being gaslit by Israel and its sophisticated lobbying / subversion operation.
Is anyone on Pb still of the view the UK should have joined the war?
We should have sent the RAF to attack Iranian missile sites as Kemi rightly said. If Trump commits ground troops we should join Israel and provide them with support from the air in my view too as that would be the only way to topple the regime.
However as Starmer is in power neither will happen as he is sticking to his line offensive actions in Iran are not authorised under international law
The US does not have a clear war aim. It is unclear how much they are aiming to topple the regime. Should we commit military forces to try to achieve our war aim (regime change) if we can't agree with the US what the war aims are?
If they commit ground troops yes as that shows they want to topple the regime
Committing ground troops does not show they want to topple the regime. Committing ground troops doesn't suddenly mean Trump gains some cognitive clarity. He gives multiple different and contradictory rationales for the war within the same press conference. He has often talked about a deal that leaves the current regime in power, which is of course what he did in Venezuela.
He didn't launch a full scale invasion of Venezuela to topple the regime, just captured Maduro who was succeeded by his VP. Little different to his strikes so far just killing the Supreme Leader and putting his son in his place. Ground troops show he is serious
“Tactics without strategy is just the noise before defeat.”
I can see no strategy here, and we would simply be throwing lives away for no reason, if we got involved.
It may be that we, and other powers, will have no choice but to get involved, but that’s a decision that should only be taken after careful thought.
If the strategy is to remove the regime, then Trump deploying ground troops would support that.
However our involvement is all theoretical at the moment as Starmer has made clear he does not believe international law justifies the US and Israeli strikes against Iran. So it would take probably a Reform led government propped up by a Kemi led Tories for the UK to even back offensive strikes against Iran let alone sending in UK ground troops and that is not going to happen for at least 2 or 3 years and only if Labour lose the next general election
...and is a very good reason why, when it comes to it, the voters will not go for any kind of Reform government.
As for the US midterms, I am beginning to wonder whether all of these AI forecasts might not be rather tame. Extraordinary and probably illegal and even unconstitutional measures by Trump are being answered by large-scale and growing resistance. The economic catastrophe of tariffs has just been joined by exactly the kind of war that Trump promised to avoid, coupled with vulgarity and brutality to friend and foe alike that seems almost literally demented. This seems to me to be the kind of election that could throw up some earthquake results, and all of these scenarios seem based on the input of the relative stability of the past, rather than some unexpectedly dramatic future shift, which certainly could happen now. AI is shaped by the past, and that may end up being a poor guide to future prospects.
Good post.
Humans, on average, are very poor at understanding non-linear scenarios where there is a 'tipping point' where a small change has a disproportionate impact.
No reason to think AI would be any better at it unless specifically prompted otherwise.
Polling (which has been reasonably accurate, in the US, to date) says that the Republicans are going to have a bad midterms. But not a landslide wipeout.
Is anyone on Pb still of the view the UK should have joined the war?
We should have sent the RAF to attack Iranian missile sites as Kemi rightly said. If Trump commits ground troops we should join Israel and provide them with support from the air in my view too as that would be the only way to topple the regime.
However as Starmer is in power neither will happen as he is sticking to his line offensive actions in Iran are not authorised under international law
The US does not have a clear war aim. It is unclear how much they are aiming to topple the regime. Should we commit military forces to try to achieve our war aim (regime change) if we can't agree with the US what the war aims are?
If they commit ground troops yes as that shows they want to topple the regime
Committing ground troops does not show they want to topple the regime. Committing ground troops doesn't suddenly mean Trump gains some cognitive clarity. He gives multiple different and contradictory rationales for the war within the same press conference. He has often talked about a deal that leaves the current regime in power, which is of course what he did in Venezuela.
He didn't launch a full scale invasion of Venezuela to topple the regime, just captured Maduro who was succeeded by his VP. Little different to his strikes so far just killing the Supreme Leader and putting his son in his place. Ground troops show he is serious
“Tactics without strategy is just the noise before defeat.”
I can see no strategy here, and we would simply be throwing lives away for no reason, if we got involved.
It may be that we, and other powers, will have no choice but to get involved, but that’s a decision that should only be taken after careful thought.
If the strategy is to remove the regime, then Trump deploying ground troops would support that.
However our involvement is all theoretical at the moment as Starmer has made clear he does not believe international law justifies the US and Israeli strikes against Iran. So it would take probably a Reform led government propped up by a Kemi led Tories for the UK to even back offensive strikes against Iran let alone sending in UK ground troops and that is not going to happen for at least 2 or 3 years and only if Labour lose the next general election
...and is a very good reason why, when it comes to it, the voters will not go for any kind of Reform government.
As for the US midterms, I am beginning to wonder whether all of these AI forecasts might not be rather tame. Extraordinary and probably illegal and even unconstitutional measures by Trump are being answered by large-scale and growing resistance. The economic catastrophe of tariffs has just been joined by exactly the kind of war that Trump promised to avoid, coupled with vulgarity and brutality to friend and foe alike that seems almost literally demented. This seems to me to be the kind of election that could throw up some earthquake results, and all of these scenarios seem based on the input of the relative stability of the past, rather than some unexpectedly dramatic future shift, which certainly could happen now. AI is shaped by the past, and that may end up being a poor guide to future prospects.
The strong probability for the earthquake is the elections either not taking place or taking place only in some North Korean sense.
(As to AI's ability to foresee the future better than humans, if it is found to be better at picking winners at Plumpton than any human intelligence, PB contributors will be among the first to know. And until it can do something simple like who is going to win a race with only a handful of possible winners or a football match with only three possible outcomes I won't believe anything else much about its predictive powers.)
@kinabalu My grocery order has arrived and the sardines in olive oil with it. (Sainsbury's, 120g/85g, £1.95).
Result! How I have them - if I had some which I still don't - is for lunch in a bowl with cannellini beans. Perhaps you can do that on my behalf. It's a pretty healthy option.
I might give it a try. For clarity, the delivery came from Sainsbury's, the brand is Minerva. I wish you success in sourcing them yourself.
It's interesting to recall the recently published US National Security Strategy. What a load of drivel that was. The contents seemed a bit scary (not least the dismissive tone on Europe) but the whole thing was in fact yet more sane-washing and an accurate version would have been scarier still. It would simply have said, "US foreign policy under this administration will be driven on a day to day basis purely by the urges, moods and gut feels of President Donald J Trump. And that's it folks."
I met up with my friends: all “centrist dads”, whether in Law, Consulting, Advertising or IT.
They are now all ferociously anti-Israel, if not actively anti-Zionist.
We seem to have been on the same journey
And yet the deliberate planned horror of the brutal rapes of women on October 7 and the female hostages kept thereafter has not led to any journey by you - or apparently @Gardenwalker's friends - reflecting on why male violence against women is wrong and why those groups, states, cultures etc which promote it should be equally viewed with horror and distaste. Which is doubtless why we read you this morning proudly saying that you feel like punching an opportunistic female politician but never an opportunistic male politician, of which there are many.
I met up with my friends: all “centrist dads”, whether in Law, Consulting, Advertising or IT.
They are now all ferociously anti-Israel, if not actively anti-Zionist.
I'm anti-Israeli Government but the problem with that is there are a lot of people (including the Israeli Government) who aim to make such comments appear anti-Israel and antisemitic because that protects the Israeli Government by pushing the blame back on those objecting.
Yes, it is impossible to comment without having that comment weaponised. This is why I am happy to stand back in disdain at all the protagonists.
Definitely the sanest policy. The problem is when it (Israel, US, Iran - pick your loon) drags the rest of the world into the verge of economic crisis. To say nothing of the humanitarian tragedies.
Is anyone on Pb still of the view the UK should have joined the war?
We should have sent the RAF to attack Iranian missile sites as Kemi rightly said. If Trump commits ground troops we should join Israel and provide them with support from the air in my view too as that would be the only way to topple the regime.
However as Starmer is in power neither will happen as he is sticking to his line offensive actions in Iran are not authorised under international law
If we'd done that we'd be counting body bags in London, Birmingham, Glasgow, Cardiff, Belfast, Leeds, Liverpool, Newcastle, Edinburgh and any other town or city
Sleepers in our midst revenge lone rangers martyrs
Are you implying that the U.K. has a unique number of Iranian sleepers in the population?
Sounds a bit racist.
Note that, world wide, the number of sleeper attacks is somewhere between 0 and not a lot (the ambulances was probably some criminal being recruited/paid over the internet)
According to European intelligence services, in recent weeks there have been attacks on synagogues and other Jewish sites in Amsterdam, Liege, Brussels, Paris, Rotterdam as well as an attempted attack on a Jewish primary school in Michigan. According to them, there have been similarities in the modus operandi of the attacks which are consistent with Iranian involvement. In Belgium the army has been tasked with protecting the Jewish population. The army. This is what a European country has to do in 2026 to protect a vulnerable minority.
I think it a bit complacent to assume that there is no problem. Iran has form in using proxies to attack Jewish sites all round the world. This dates back to the 1990's when they attacked an embassy and a Jewish community centre in Buenos Aires, killing over a hundred people. In the last few weeks, two men – one British, one British-Iranian – have been charged with spying on various Jewish sites, including the Bevis Marks synagogue and its community centre, the oldest continuously used synagogue in the UK. In the last week 2 Torahs were stolen from a Salford synagogue.
In regard to the arson of the ambulances, it might be relevant to note that the ambulances were parked in front of a synagogue very near to a wall where there were posters of the hostages taken on October 7. That wall now has photos of Iranian protestors killed by the IRGC, the very IRGC which the EU (plus Iceland, Moldova, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Montenegro, North Macedonia and Liechtenstein) have proscribed as a terror organisation: something which the UK government has so far failed to do.
We do not know yet who carried out the attacks on the 4 ambulances but dismissing the terror and anxiety attacks like these - and the others there have been - causes Jews is despicable. This is how anti-Jewish hatred and indifference to how Jews are being treated has become normalised in this country. It is utterly shameful.
Yes - the proxy stuff is well known. As should be the fact that, for many years, the government has been contributing to private security costs for Jewish sites, because the levels of racist attacks was hitting police budgets really hard.
I walked past the Siege of Chiswick Park on the way to the gym quite a few times.
My point was that there is no particular difference in the level of this stuff in the UK. And that sleeper cells of undercover Iranian agents are basically non-existent.
We simply do not know whether the last statement is true.
I met up with my friends: all “centrist dads”, whether in Law, Consulting, Advertising or IT.
They are now all ferociously anti-Israel, if not actively anti-Zionist.
We seem to have been on the same journey
And yet the deliberate planned horror of the brutal rapes of women on October 7 and the female hostages kept thereafter has not led to any journey by you - or apparently @Gardenwalker's friends - reflecting on why male violence against women is wrong and why those groups, states, cultures etc which promote it should be equally viewed with horror and distaste. Which is doubtless why we read you this morning proudly saying that you feel like punching an opportunistic female politician but never an opportunistic male politician, of which there are many.
It is not necessary to balance every criticism of Israel with a criticism of Islam, or Hamas or whatever.
Is anyone on Pb still of the view the UK should have joined the war?
We should have sent the RAF to attack Iranian missile sites as Kemi rightly said. If Trump commits ground troops we should join Israel and provide them with support from the air in my view too as that would be the only way to topple the regime.
However as Starmer is in power neither will happen as he is sticking to his line offensive actions in Iran are not authorised under international law
If we'd done that we'd be counting body bags in London, Birmingham, Glasgow, Cardiff, Belfast, Leeds, Liverpool, Newcastle, Edinburgh and any other town or city
Sleepers in our midst revenge lone rangers martyrs
Forget all that. That is not the reason we should not be doing this. If Iran was a genuine threat to us and we needed to change the regime there then attacks in the UK are simply part of that scenario and one we have to deal with.
The real issue here is we should not be attacking Iran or supporting the US and Israel in attacking them. They are not and were not a threat to ourselves, Europe or the US. They did not attack us. They did not attack the US or Israel. They were attacked and we should not be supporting or condoning the aggressors.
I think you can make an argument that they were attacking Israel fairly regularly via their proxies
Well yes, but by the same rote you could say Russia has been attacking us for decades. Nobody has suggested bombing St Petersburg in response.
Russia has been attacking us for decades
And bombing St Pete’s always been on the list of options.
But wiser heads have prevailed to date
Because Russia has nukes.
Iran does not, yet, and its better to have this conflict now than after a mushroom cloud appears above Tel Aviv.
Israel has had nukes for a long while, yet there has been no sign of mushroom clouds over Tehran, or anywhere else.
Israel is not led by deranged, religious nihilists.
As much as people claim they are.
Israel is not my ally. Iran is not my ally. They are both bad and I have little interest in discussing who is badder.
When it comes to setting fire to ambulances in the UK I have no tolerance for any kind of justification. Everyone has a right in this country to live free of fear and intimidation.
Is anyone on Pb still of the view the UK should have joined the war?
We should have sent the RAF to attack Iranian missile sites as Kemi rightly said. If Trump commits ground troops we should join Israel and provide them with support from the air in my view too as that would be the only way to topple the regime.
However as Starmer is in power neither will happen as he is sticking to his line offensive actions in Iran are not authorised under international law
If we'd done that we'd be counting body bags in London, Birmingham, Glasgow, Cardiff, Belfast, Leeds, Liverpool, Newcastle, Edinburgh and any other town or city
Sleepers in our midst revenge lone rangers martyrs
Forget all that. That is not the reason we should not be doing this. If Iran was a genuine threat to us and we needed to change the regime there then attacks in the UK are simply part of that scenario and one we have to deal with.
The real issue here is we should not be attacking Iran or supporting the US and Israel in attacking them. They are not and were not a threat to ourselves, Europe or the US. They did not attack us. They did not attack the US or Israel. They were attacked and we should not be supporting or condoning the aggressors.
I think you can make an argument that they were attacking Israel fairly regularly via their proxies
Well yes, but by the same rote you could say Russia has been attacking us for decades. Nobody has suggested bombing St Petersburg in response.
Russia has been attacking us for decades
And bombing St Pete’s always been on the list of options.
But wiser heads have prevailed to date
Because Russia has nukes.
Iran does not, yet, and its better to have this conflict now than after a mushroom cloud appears above Tel Aviv.
Israel has had nukes for a long while, yet there has been no sign of mushroom clouds over Tehran, or anywhere else.
Israel is not led by deranged, religious nihilists.
As much as people claim they are.
That's debatable, Bart.
I would replace the word nihilists with mass murderers.
Is anyone on Pb still of the view the UK should have joined the war?
We should have sent the RAF to attack Iranian missile sites as Kemi rightly said. If Trump commits ground troops we should join Israel and provide them with support from the air in my view too as that would be the only way to topple the regime.
However as Starmer is in power neither will happen as he is sticking to his line offensive actions in Iran are not authorised under international law
If we'd done that we'd be counting body bags in London, Birmingham, Glasgow, Cardiff, Belfast, Leeds, Liverpool, Newcastle, Edinburgh and any other town or city
Sleepers in our midst revenge lone rangers martyrs
Forget all that. That is not the reason we should not be doing this. If Iran was a genuine threat to us and we needed to change the regime there then attacks in the UK are simply part of that scenario and one we have to deal with.
The real issue here is we should not be attacking Iran or supporting the US and Israel in attacking them. They are not and were not a threat to ourselves, Europe or the US. They did not attack us. They did not attack the US or Israel. They were attacked and we should not be supporting or condoning the aggressors.
Somewhat disingenuous to say "not a threat to ourselves, Europe or the US."
Is anyone on Pb still of the view the UK should have joined the war?
We should have sent the RAF to attack Iranian missile sites as Kemi rightly said. If Trump commits ground troops we should join Israel and provide them with support from the air in my view too as that would be the only way to topple the regime.
However as Starmer is in power neither will happen as he is sticking to his line offensive actions in Iran are not authorised under international law
The US does not have a clear war aim. It is unclear how much they are aiming to topple the regime. Should we commit military forces to try to achieve our war aim (regime change) if we can't agree with the US what the war aims are?
If they commit ground troops yes as that shows they want to topple the regime
Committing ground troops does not show they want to topple the regime. Committing ground troops doesn't suddenly mean Trump gains some cognitive clarity. He gives multiple different and contradictory rationales for the war within the same press conference. He has often talked about a deal that leaves the current regime in power, which is of course what he did in Venezuela.
He didn't launch a full scale invasion of Venezuela to topple the regime, just captured Maduro who was succeeded by his VP. Little different to his strikes so far just killing the Supreme Leader and putting his son in his place. Ground troops show he is serious
“Tactics without strategy is just the noise before defeat.”
I can see no strategy here, and we would simply be throwing lives away for no reason, if we got involved.
It may be that we, and other powers, will have no choice but to get involved, but that’s a decision that should only be taken after careful thought.
If the strategy is to remove the regime, then Trump deploying ground troops would support that.
However our involvement is all theoretical at the moment as Starmer has made clear he does not believe international law justifies the US and Israeli strikes against Iran. So it would take probably a Reform led government propped up by a Kemi led Tories for the UK to even back offensive strikes against Iran let alone sending in UK ground troops and that is not going to happen for at least 2 or 3 years and only if Labour lose the next general election
...and is a very good reason why, when it comes to it, the voters will not go for any kind of Reform government.
As for the US midterms, I am beginning to wonder whether all of these AI forecasts might not be rather tame. Extraordinary and probably illegal and even unconstitutional measures by Trump are being answered by large-scale and growing resistance. The economic catastrophe of tariffs has just been joined by exactly the kind of war that Trump promised to avoid, coupled with vulgarity and brutality to friend and foe alike that seems almost literally demented. This seems to me to be the kind of election that could throw up some earthquake results, and all of these scenarios seem based on the input of the relative stability of the past, rather than some unexpectedly dramatic future shift, which certainly could happen now. AI is shaped by the past, and that may end up being a poor guide to future prospects.
Good post.
Humans, on average, are very poor at understanding non-linear scenarios where there is a 'tipping point' where a small change has a disproportionate impact.
No reason to think AI would be any better at it unless specifically prompted otherwise.
Polling (which has been reasonably accurate, in the US, to date) says that the Republicans are going to have a bad midterms. But not a landslide wipeout.
Quite a long time to go, of course. Bad/worst case scenario, the Americans land on Kharg Island and get pushed off, with heavy casualties. What would that do to Republican polling?
Is anyone on Pb still of the view the UK should have joined the war?
We should have sent the RAF to attack Iranian missile sites as Kemi rightly said. If Trump commits ground troops we should join Israel and provide them with support from the air in my view too as that would be the only way to topple the regime.
However as Starmer is in power neither will happen as he is sticking to his line offensive actions in Iran are not authorised under international law
If we'd done that we'd be counting body bags in London, Birmingham, Glasgow, Cardiff, Belfast, Leeds, Liverpool, Newcastle, Edinburgh and any other town or city
Sleepers in our midst revenge lone rangers martyrs
Forget all that. That is not the reason we should not be doing this. If Iran was a genuine threat to us and we needed to change the regime there then attacks in the UK are simply part of that scenario and one we have to deal with.
The real issue here is we should not be attacking Iran or supporting the US and Israel in attacking them. They are not and were not a threat to ourselves, Europe or the US. They did not attack us. They did not attack the US or Israel. They were attacked and we should not be supporting or condoning the aggressors.
I think you can make an argument that they were attacking Israel fairly regularly via their proxies
Well yes, but by the same rote you could say Russia has been attacking us for decades. Nobody has suggested bombing St Petersburg in response.
Russia has been attacking us for decades
And bombing St Pete’s always been on the list of options.
But wiser heads have prevailed to date
Because Russia has nukes.
Iran does not, yet, and its better to have this conflict now than after a mushroom cloud appears above Tel Aviv.
Israel has had nukes for a long while, yet there has been no sign of mushroom clouds over Tehran, or anywhere else.
Israel is not led by deranged, religious nihilists.
As much as people claim they are.
Israel is not my ally. Iran is not my ally. They are both bad and I have little interest in discussing who is badder.
When it comes to setting fire to ambulances in the UK I have no tolerance for any kind of justification. Everyone has a right in this country to live free of fear and intimidation.
Have we identified the ethnicity of the Jewish ambulances arsonists yet?
Two British citizens is all i have seen yet i know the nutter with the vehicle bloke in Derby was a British citizen of Indian Origin
What governs when origin or ethnicity is revealed?
I met up with my friends: all “centrist dads”, whether in Law, Consulting, Advertising or IT.
They are now all ferociously anti-Israel, if not actively anti-Zionist.
What policies do they want as a result? The removal of Israel? If so, where do its Jewish citizens go? Or do they want them killed? Or some other policy and, if so, what?
I did not ask. I pass on the anecdote just because I think it’s interesting and - to me - new. I would have assumed most would have been unthinkingly pro Israel historically.
The difficulty with precisely what you describe is the failure to say what they would like to see done. I have heard quite a few people say that they wish Israel did not exist. But there is tumbleweed when I ask what they want done with its Jewish citizens. Unless people have an answer to that - something more realistic than kumbaya-let's-all-sing-together - then a country's destruction usually involves at a minimum ethnic cleansing and usually the killing of many of its inhabitants.
Quite a few seem to have no issue with doing that to Jews . It does not matter what description you give it. Such a view is utterly vile.
Strategy is something that has to be worked out, before you start a war. There’s no point in trying to work it out, afterwards, which is what Trump and his clown show are doing.
Eisenhower once quoted the dictum that no plan survives contact with the enemy, but *planning* is essential.
There is no planning here.
It is worse than that. The US military has war gamed conflicts with Iran for decades. The administration ignored every lesson from those, as we can see from their surprise at Iran's capacity to respond, the fact that they didn't inform a single ally in advance. There was no clear US war aim, so there was nothing for the military to plan anyway, other than air strikes.
The planning for this conflict was done by Israel, which has its own war aims, and Netentahu persuaded Trump to come onboard.
Starmer needs to get ahead of this oil crisis. Do some unpopular stuff that people will come to appreciate and will signal this is a big deal.
Cut speed limits, mandate wfh where possible, introduce carpool lanes all over the place...
Tories and Reform will oppose on reflex and it will show he's the serious politician thinking about national interest.
Pure authoritarianism that will do nothing to fix the problems.
Serious politics means fixing what the politicians control.
The Australian Labor Government has had good ideas on this. The price of fuel is mostly tax anyway, and the fuel cost is controlled by HMG. Australia has halved fuel duty, we should do the same, or go one better and suspend it altogether.
Doesn't that kind of miss the point?
The issue facing us isn't so much that fuel will become more expensive, but that fuel won't be available in the quantities we want at any realistic cost for a meaningful period of time. It's going to be horrible, but demand needs to be destroyed, at least for a while.
(See also the Rosebank etc debate. Even if EdM gave permission today, the lead time for a project like that surely makes it irrelevant for this crisis.)
QTWAIN.
Fuel is going to be available, just at a more expensive price.
Some who can't afford higher prices may be unable to pay it, but there is absolutely no reason why that should be the UK given both our wealth and geography.
So what matters is the price and the state controls that via fuel duty. Stop plucking the golden goose until this is resolved.
Starmer needs to get ahead of this oil crisis. Do some unpopular stuff that people will come to appreciate and will signal this is a big deal.
Cut speed limits, mandate wfh where possible, introduce carpool lanes all over the place...
Tories and Reform will oppose on reflex and it will show he's the serious politician thinking about national interest.
Better still, apply speed limits to ICE vehicles only, thereby encouraging the switch to EVs.
I am Ed Milliband and claim my £5.
Genius. I’m annoyed I didn’t think of that.
Similar policy - traffic lights to switch to red if they detect speeding. No fine, you get where you want to be faster if you drive slower, and it affects the part of the road where a fatal collision with a pedestrian or cyclist is most likely to happen.
Trouble is that effects all the non speeding cars as well. MOreover, even the craziest driver tends to slow down on approach to traffic lights and will generally be going below the limit in the distance where they could be picked up by a camera at the lights.
Which is why I hate average speed cameras.
Any party which abolishes them gets my vote.
Isn't Nigel 's manifesto pledge "No stop signs, speed limits, ain't no one gonna mess me around", or was that Bon Scott?
I met up with my friends: all “centrist dads”, whether in Law, Consulting, Advertising or IT.
They are now all ferociously anti-Israel, if not actively anti-Zionist.
We seem to have been on the same journey
And yet the deliberate planned horror of the brutal rapes of women on October 7 and the female hostages kept thereafter has not led to any journey by you - or apparently @Gardenwalker's friends - reflecting on why male violence against women is wrong and why those groups, states, cultures etc which promote it should be equally viewed with horror and distaste. Which is doubtless why we read you this morning proudly saying that you feel like punching an opportunistic female politician but never an opportunistic male politician, of which there are many.
It is not necessary to balance every criticism of Israel with a criticism of Islam, or Hamas or whatever.
When a man talks about inflicting violence against a woman but then claims to have been on a journey because of his distaste about why Israel has done then it is worth noting how selective his outrage is and how he has never, as far as I can see, condemned male violence against women.
I am not often here anymore but it strikes me that it the preponderance of criticism here has been against Israel rather than Iran or Hamas and there has been very little talk or reflection on or criticism of the those attacking Jews in this country which, unlike the Middle East, is something we can actually do something about.
Is anyone on Pb still of the view the UK should have joined the war?
We should have sent the RAF to attack Iranian missile sites as Kemi rightly said. If Trump commits ground troops we should join Israel and provide them with support from the air in my view too as that would be the only way to topple the regime.
However as Starmer is in power neither will happen as he is sticking to his line offensive actions in Iran are not authorised under international law
If we'd done that we'd be counting body bags in London, Birmingham, Glasgow, Cardiff, Belfast, Leeds, Liverpool, Newcastle, Edinburgh and any other town or city
Sleepers in our midst revenge lone rangers martyrs
Forget all that. That is not the reason we should not be doing this. If Iran was a genuine threat to us and we needed to change the regime there then attacks in the UK are simply part of that scenario and one we have to deal with.
The real issue here is we should not be attacking Iran or supporting the US and Israel in attacking them. They are not and were not a threat to ourselves, Europe or the US. They did not attack us. They did not attack the US or Israel. They were attacked and we should not be supporting or condoning the aggressors.
I think you can make an argument that they were attacking Israel fairly regularly via their proxies
Well yes, but by the same rote you could say Russia has been attacking us for decades. Nobody has suggested bombing St Petersburg in response.
Russia has been attacking us for decades
And bombing St Pete’s always been on the list of options.
But wiser heads have prevailed to date
Because Russia has nukes.
Iran does not, yet, and its better to have this conflict now than after a mushroom cloud appears above Tel Aviv.
Israel has had nukes for a long while, yet there has been no sign of mushroom clouds over Tehran, or anywhere else.
Israel is not led by deranged, religious nihilists.
As much as people claim they are.
Israel is not my ally. Iran is not my ally. They are both bad and I have little interest in discussing who is badder.
When it comes to setting fire to ambulances in the UK I have no tolerance for any kind of justification. Everyone has a right in this country to live free of fear and intimidation.
Have we identified the ethnicity of the Jewish ambulances arsonists yet?
Two British citizens is all i have seen yet i know the nutter with the vehicle bloke in Derby was a British citizen of Indian Origin
What governs when origin or ethnicity is revealed?
I suspect finding those who did the attack with reasonably certainty is the first criteria.
At the moment 2 people have been arrested but then released on bail.
But the arson attack is known to have been done by 3 people ..
Which means the police still don't know who did the attack - and it's rather hard to identify people wearing masks when that's all you've got to go on...
Is anyone on Pb still of the view the UK should have joined the war?
We should have sent the RAF to attack Iranian missile sites as Kemi rightly said. If Trump commits ground troops we should join Israel and provide them with support from the air in my view too as that would be the only way to topple the regime.
However as Starmer is in power neither will happen as he is sticking to his line offensive actions in Iran are not authorised under international law
If we'd done that we'd be counting body bags in London, Birmingham, Glasgow, Cardiff, Belfast, Leeds, Liverpool, Newcastle, Edinburgh and any other town or city
Sleepers in our midst revenge lone rangers martyrs
Forget all that. That is not the reason we should not be doing this. If Iran was a genuine threat to us and we needed to change the regime there then attacks in the UK are simply part of that scenario and one we have to deal with.
The real issue here is we should not be attacking Iran or supporting the US and Israel in attacking them. They are not and were not a threat to ourselves, Europe or the US. They did not attack us. They did not attack the US or Israel. They were attacked and we should not be supporting or condoning the aggressors.
I think you can make an argument that they were attacking Israel fairly regularly via their proxies
Well yes, but by the same rote you could say Russia has been attacking us for decades. Nobody has suggested bombing St Petersburg in response.
Russia has been attacking us for decades
And bombing St Pete’s always been on the list of options.
But wiser heads have prevailed to date
Because Russia has nukes.
Iran does not, yet, and its better to have this conflict now than after a mushroom cloud appears above Tel Aviv.
Israel has had nukes for a long while, yet there has been no sign of mushroom clouds over Tehran, or anywhere else.
Israel is not led by deranged, religious nihilists.
As much as people claim they are.
Israel is not my ally. Iran is not my ally. They are both bad and I have little interest in discussing who is badder.
When it comes to setting fire to ambulances in the UK I have no tolerance for any kind of justification. Everyone has a right in this country to live free of fear and intimidation.
Have we identified the ethnicity of the Jewish ambulances arsonists yet?
Two British citizens is all i have seen yet i know the nutter with the vehicle bloke in Derby was a British citizen of Indian Origin
What governs when origin or ethnicity is revealed?
Hopefully they will find the perpetrators and put them behind bars. I am more concerned with the justifications from people who should know better: the ambulances were empty, not as bad as what Israel does to ambulances in Gaza etc. To be clear, this was a despicable act of intimidation as well as criminal damage.
Is anyone on Pb still of the view the UK should have joined the war?
We should have sent the RAF to attack Iranian missile sites as Kemi rightly said. If Trump commits ground troops we should join Israel and provide them with support from the air in my view too as that would be the only way to topple the regime.
However as Starmer is in power neither will happen as he is sticking to his line offensive actions in Iran are not authorised under international law
If we'd done that we'd be counting body bags in London, Birmingham, Glasgow, Cardiff, Belfast, Leeds, Liverpool, Newcastle, Edinburgh and any other town or city
Sleepers in our midst revenge lone rangers martyrs
Forget all that. That is not the reason we should not be doing this. If Iran was a genuine threat to us and we needed to change the regime there then attacks in the UK are simply part of that scenario and one we have to deal with.
The real issue here is we should not be attacking Iran or supporting the US and Israel in attacking them. They are not and were not a threat to ourselves, Europe or the US. They did not attack us. They did not attack the US or Israel. They were attacked and we should not be supporting or condoning the aggressors.
I think you can make an argument that they were attacking Israel fairly regularly via their proxies
Well yes, but by the same rote you could say Russia has been attacking us for decades. Nobody has suggested bombing St Petersburg in response.
Russia has been attacking us for decades
And bombing St Pete’s always been on the list of options.
But wiser heads have prevailed to date
Because Russia has nukes.
Iran does not, yet, and its better to have this conflict now than after a mushroom cloud appears above Tel Aviv.
Israel has had nukes for a long while, yet there has been no sign of mushroom clouds over Tehran, or anywhere else.
Israel is not led by deranged, religious nihilists.
As much as people claim they are.
Israel is not my ally. Iran is not my ally. They are both bad and I have little interest in discussing who is badder.
When it comes to setting fire to ambulances in the UK I have no tolerance for any kind of justification. Everyone has a right in this country to live free of fear and intimidation.
Israel are America's ally, so if it is legitimate for the UK to act against a threat to us (it is), then it is legitimate for Israel to act against a threat to them (it is) and it is legitimate for America to assist their ally (it is).
Starmer needs to get ahead of this oil crisis. Do some unpopular stuff that people will come to appreciate and will signal this is a big deal.
Cut speed limits, mandate wfh where possible, introduce carpool lanes all over the place...
Tories and Reform will oppose on reflex and it will show he's the serious politician thinking about national interest.
Pure authoritarianism that will do nothing to fix the problems.
Serious politics means fixing what the politicians control.
The Australian Labor Government has had good ideas on this. The price of fuel is mostly tax anyway, and the fuel cost is controlled by HMG. Australia has halved fuel duty, we should do the same, or go one better and suspend it altogether.
Australia has reacted faster as they are (like the Asian counties) affected earlier, as they import a larger percentage of their oil from the Gulf.
I’ve spent the last week in London and, despite the mostly grey weather, it’s been great. Creatively exuberant, noticeably younger than New York, seemingly better functioning across a range of small measures.
Not really the dystopian hellhole of X (formerly known as Twitter)’s imagination.
Sad to be leaving.
So we can scratch you off our list of potential Leon nom de plume posters.
Starmer needs to get ahead of this oil crisis. Do some unpopular stuff that people will come to appreciate and will signal this is a big deal.
Cut speed limits, mandate wfh where possible, introduce carpool lanes all over the place...
Tories and Reform will oppose on reflex and it will show he's the serious politician thinking about national interest.
Pure authoritarianism that will do nothing to fix the problems.
Serious politics means fixing what the politicians control.
The Australian Labor Government has had good ideas on this. The price of fuel is mostly tax anyway, and the fuel cost is controlled by HMG. Australia has halved fuel duty, we should do the same, or go one better and suspend it altogether.
Doesn't that kind of miss the point?
The issue facing us isn't so much that fuel will become more expensive, but that fuel won't be available in the quantities we want at any realistic cost for a meaningful period of time. It's going to be horrible, but demand needs to be destroyed, at least for a while.
(See also the Rosebank etc debate. Even if EdM gave permission today, the lead time for a project like that surely makes it irrelevant for this crisis.)
QTWAIN.
Fuel is going to be available, just at a more expensive price.
Some who can't afford higher prices may be unable to pay it, but there is absolutely no reason why that should be the UK given both our wealth and geography.
So what matters is the price and the state controls that via fuel duty. Stop plucking the golden goose until this is resolved.
You say fuel is available yet the local supermarkets have started restricting fueling to £30 max purchase.
I met up with my friends: all “centrist dads”, whether in Law, Consulting, Advertising or IT.
They are now all ferociously anti-Israel, if not actively anti-Zionist.
We seem to have been on the same journey
And yet the deliberate planned horror of the brutal rapes of women on October 7 and the female hostages kept thereafter has not led to any journey by you - or apparently @Gardenwalker's friends - reflecting on why male violence against women is wrong and why those groups, states, cultures etc which promote it should be equally viewed with horror and distaste. Which is doubtless why we read you this morning proudly saying that you feel like punching an opportunistic female politician but never an opportunistic male politician, of which there are many.
It is not necessary to balance every criticism of Israel with a criticism of Islam, or Hamas or whatever.
When a man talks about inflicting violence against a woman but then claims to have been on a journey because of his distaste about why Israel has done then it is worth noting how selective his outrage is and how he has never, as far as I can see, condemned male violence against women.
I am not often here anymore but it strikes me that it the preponderance of criticism here has been against Israel rather than Iran or Hamas and there has been very little talk or reflection on or criticism of the those attacking Jews in this country which, unlike the Middle East, is something we can actually do something about.
None of my friends talked about inflicting violence on women. And I’m not sure Roger did, did he?
Starmer needs to get ahead of this oil crisis. Do some unpopular stuff that people will come to appreciate and will signal this is a big deal.
Cut speed limits, mandate wfh where possible, introduce carpool lanes all over the place...
Tories and Reform will oppose on reflex and it will show he's the serious politician thinking about national interest.
And Labour will be decimated.
Nigel and Kemi have it sewn up. If the Government issued new North Sea drilling licences for 2030 there would be no fuel crisis now. It is a compelling argument supported by Donald Trump, GB News, the Telegraph, the Mail, the Express and Nick Ferrari.
Objectively though it’s daft to shut down profitable production. It won’t change prices globally but it would create wealth and tax income in the uk which could be used to subsidise prices if the government chose to
They both want to abolish the windfall tax
Handing money to oil companies who avoid and evade tax.
Approaching summer we are closer to higher levels of solar and wind renewable are quickly reducing heating...
Thats where quick reinvestment wins can be gleaned faster than drilling and cheaper.
More wind, more solar, specifically more DIY solar that can generate we've in a few hours of winter sun.
I met up with my friends: all “centrist dads”, whether in Law, Consulting, Advertising or IT.
They are now all ferociously anti-Israel, if not actively anti-Zionist.
We seem to have been on the same journey
And yet the deliberate planned horror of the brutal rapes of women on October 7 and the female hostages kept thereafter has not led to any journey by you - or apparently @Gardenwalker's friends - reflecting on why male violence against women is wrong and why those groups, states, cultures etc which promote it should be equally viewed with horror and distaste. Which is doubtless why we read you this morning proudly saying that you feel like punching an opportunistic female politician but never an opportunistic male politician, of which there are many.
It is not necessary to balance every criticism of Israel with a criticism of Islam, or Hamas or whatever.
When a man talks about inflicting violence against a woman but then claims to have been on a journey because of his distaste about why Israel has done then it is worth noting how selective his outrage is and how he has never, as far as I can see, condemned male violence against women.
I am not often here anymore but it strikes me that it the preponderance of criticism here has been against Israel rather than Iran or Hamas and there has been very little talk or reflection on or criticism of the those attacking Jews in this country which, unlike the Middle East, is something we can actually do something about.
None of my friends talked about inflicting violence on women. And I’m not sure Roger did, did he?
And the rest of your post is absurd whataboutery.
Why do you feel the need to add the word "absurd"? It comes across as a personal insult and doesn't help your cause.
Starmer needs to get ahead of this oil crisis. Do some unpopular stuff that people will come to appreciate and will signal this is a big deal.
Cut speed limits, mandate wfh where possible, introduce carpool lanes all over the place...
Tories and Reform will oppose on reflex and it will show he's the serious politician thinking about national interest.
Pure authoritarianism that will do nothing to fix the problems.
Serious politics means fixing what the politicians control.
The Australian Labor Government has had good ideas on this. The price of fuel is mostly tax anyway, and the fuel cost is controlled by HMG. Australia has halved fuel duty, we should do the same, or go one better and suspend it altogether.
Australia has reacted faster as they are (like the Asian counties) affected earlier, as they import a larger percentage of their oil from the Gulf.
Indeed and we don't.
So we are more protected, besides fiscally.
So this can all be solved by slashing or abolishing fuel duty.
Iranians competing with Trump for the most bonkers social media posts. This is Galibhaf the ostensible Iranian negotiator and presumably not actually killed in an airstrike of a couple of days ago:
Heads-up: Pre-market so-called “news” or “Truth” is often just a setup for profit-taking. Basically, it’s a reverse indicator.
Do the opposite: If they pump it, short it. If they dump it, go long.
That's not entirely bonkers, as it's a comment on tendency of Trumpworld to manipulate its ability to control news releases for financial gain, as noted here regularly.
Do you really take Trump's accounts of how the negotiations are progressing at face value ?
Starmer needs to get ahead of this oil crisis. Do some unpopular stuff that people will come to appreciate and will signal this is a big deal.
Cut speed limits, mandate wfh where possible, introduce carpool lanes all over the place...
Tories and Reform will oppose on reflex and it will show he's the serious politician thinking about national interest.
Pure authoritarianism that will do nothing to fix the problems.
Serious politics means fixing what the politicians control.
The Australian Labor Government has had good ideas on this. The price of fuel is mostly tax anyway, and the fuel cost is controlled by HMG. Australia has halved fuel duty, we should do the same, or go one better and suspend it altogether.
Australia has reacted faster as they are (like the Asian counties) affected earlier, as they import a larger percentage of their oil from the Gulf.
Indeed and we don't.
So we are more protected, besides fiscally.
So this can all be solved by slashing or abolishing fuel duty.
Is anyone on Pb still of the view the UK should have joined the war?
We should have sent the RAF to attack Iranian missile sites as Kemi rightly said. If Trump commits ground troops we should join Israel and provide them with support from the air in my view too as that would be the only way to topple the regime.
However as Starmer is in power neither will happen as he is sticking to his line offensive actions in Iran are not authorised under international law
If we'd done that we'd be counting body bags in London, Birmingham, Glasgow, Cardiff, Belfast, Leeds, Liverpool, Newcastle, Edinburgh and any other town or city
Sleepers in our midst revenge lone rangers martyrs
Forget all that. That is not the reason we should not be doing this. If Iran was a genuine threat to us and we needed to change the regime there then attacks in the UK are simply part of that scenario and one we have to deal with.
The real issue here is we should not be attacking Iran or supporting the US and Israel in attacking them. They are not and were not a threat to ourselves, Europe or the US. They did not attack us. They did not attack the US or Israel. They were attacked and we should not be supporting or condoning the aggressors.
I think you can make an argument that they were attacking Israel fairly regularly via their proxies
Well yes, but by the same rote you could say Russia has been attacking us for decades. Nobody has suggested bombing St Petersburg in response.
Russia has been attacking us for decades
And bombing St Pete’s always been on the list of options.
But wiser heads have prevailed to date
Because Russia has nukes.
Iran does not, yet, and its better to have this conflict now than after a mushroom cloud appears above Tel Aviv.
Israel has had nukes for a long while, yet there has been no sign of mushroom clouds over Tehran, or anywhere else.
Israel is not led by deranged, religious nihilists.
As much as people claim they are.
Israel is not my ally. Iran is not my ally. They are both bad and I have little interest in discussing who is badder.
When it comes to setting fire to ambulances in the UK I have no tolerance for any kind of justification. Everyone has a right in this country to live free of fear and intimidation.
Israel are America's ally, so if it is legitimate for the UK to act against a threat to us (it is), then it is legitimate for Israel to act against a threat to them (it is) and it is legitimate for America to assist their ally (it is).
By that logic it is legitimate for Iran to act against those that are a threat to them?
Israel and US interests are now legitimate targets and £2/litre fuel inevitable?
And this hollowing out of the civil service, to be replaced by political appointees, is Reform’s policy for the UK.
The public have had enough of experts, they want instinctive feelz.......until that hits reality, by when they still don't want experts, just someone else's instinctive feelz.
If you bothered yourself to acquire some actual knowledge rather than 'instinctive feelz', you would know that the civil service has a deliberate policy of moving people from department to department too frequently to develop any expertise. Meaning not only are civil servants obstructionist and ideologically captured, they are are also not experts. Bringing outsiders in from the world of business would probably improve expertise as well as getting things done.
That’s a simplification, at best. The civil service moves some people around, not to prevent them developing expertise, but to produce people with broad skills. However, other civil service posts are filled by experts who stay in one department/quango.
The Trump administration shows us what happens when you replace civil servants and existing expertise with political appointees.
No it doesn't - every US administration replaces hundreds of civil servants with political appointees - probably to a far greater degree than Farage plans. That's the US system. That's what Obama and Clinton did. And their country happens to be the biggest and most powerful in the world. So obviously our 'experts' aren't doing that well are they.
The US does have a different system, and one with far more political appointees. However, the Trump administration have gone beyond the usual, as for example with how it’s replaced health experts with friends of RFK Jnr. or how they’ve gutted the expertise in the state department and DoD. The result is plain to see. Yet Farage wants to emulate Trump!
By the way, I recall you recently saying you wanted to restore Britain’s constitutional norms. Are you now saying you want to rip them up?
1. Is what Farage is proposing the same number of political appointees as Trump now has, or is he recommending the same number or less than the US system has always had in the modern era?
It seems inconceivable to me that the elected PM cannot and does not replace the Permanent Secretaries.
2. Britain’s constitutional norms were formed well before Northcote Trevelyan, and many have argued (notably Truss and Cummings) that it was this Act that created the rot that has consumed the British State. Certainly the timings correlate.
The norms I am talking about are things like the supremacy of parliament over the courts, with the judiciary sitting within parliament via the Lord Chancellor (this fell victim to Blair's Consitutional Reform Act). I want the British State to prioritise the safety and welfare of British citizens, which it cannot do under the Human Rights Act. I want all British citizens to be equal before the law - a vital part of our constitution that is undermined by the Equality Act, which makes protected groups more equal than the rest. UK in 1997 worked OK.
Is anyone on Pb still of the view the UK should have joined the war?
We should have sent the RAF to attack Iranian missile sites as Kemi rightly said. If Trump commits ground troops we should join Israel and provide them with support from the air in my view too as that would be the only way to topple the regime.
However as Starmer is in power neither will happen as he is sticking to his line offensive actions in Iran are not authorised under international law
If we'd done that we'd be counting body bags in London, Birmingham, Glasgow, Cardiff, Belfast, Leeds, Liverpool, Newcastle, Edinburgh and any other town or city
Sleepers in our midst revenge lone rangers martyrs
Forget all that. That is not the reason we should not be doing this. If Iran was a genuine threat to us and we needed to change the regime there then attacks in the UK are simply part of that scenario and one we have to deal with.
The real issue here is we should not be attacking Iran or supporting the US and Israel in attacking them. They are not and were not a threat to ourselves, Europe or the US. They did not attack us. They did not attack the US or Israel. They were attacked and we should not be supporting or condoning the aggressors.
Somewhat disingenuous to say "not a threat to ourselves, Europe or the US."
Who is missing from that list - and why?
The country that spends all its time bombing its neighbours.
Starmer needs to get ahead of this oil crisis. Do some unpopular stuff that people will come to appreciate and will signal this is a big deal.
Cut speed limits, mandate wfh where possible, introduce carpool lanes all over the place...
Tories and Reform will oppose on reflex and it will show he's the serious politician thinking about national interest.
Pure authoritarianism that will do nothing to fix the problems.
Serious politics means fixing what the politicians control.
The Australian Labor Government has had good ideas on this. The price of fuel is mostly tax anyway, and the fuel cost is controlled by HMG. Australia has halved fuel duty, we should do the same, or go one better and suspend it altogether.
If we halve fuel duty then people will use more of it, or at least not change their behaviour.
But if we are really running out then we need them to use less.
Is anyone on Pb still of the view the UK should have joined the war?
We should have sent the RAF to attack Iranian missile sites as Kemi rightly said. If Trump commits ground troops we should join Israel and provide them with support from the air in my view too as that would be the only way to topple the regime.
However as Starmer is in power neither will happen as he is sticking to his line offensive actions in Iran are not authorised under international law
If we'd done that we'd be counting body bags in London, Birmingham, Glasgow, Cardiff, Belfast, Leeds, Liverpool, Newcastle, Edinburgh and any other town or city
Sleepers in our midst revenge lone rangers martyrs
Forget all that. That is not the reason we should not be doing this. If Iran was a genuine threat to us and we needed to change the regime there then attacks in the UK are simply part of that scenario and one we have to deal with.
The real issue here is we should not be attacking Iran or supporting the US and Israel in attacking them. They are not and were not a threat to ourselves, Europe or the US. They did not attack us. They did not attack the US or Israel. They were attacked and we should not be supporting or condoning the aggressors.
I think you can make an argument that they were attacking Israel fairly regularly via their proxies
Well yes, but by the same rote you could say Russia has been attacking us for decades. Nobody has suggested bombing St Petersburg in response.
Russia has been attacking us for decades
And bombing St Pete’s always been on the list of options.
But wiser heads have prevailed to date
Because Russia has nukes.
Iran does not, yet, and its better to have this conflict now than after a mushroom cloud appears above Tel Aviv.
Israel has had nukes for a long while, yet there has been no sign of mushroom clouds over Tehran, or anywhere else.
Israel is not led by deranged, religious nihilists.
As much as people claim they are.
Israel is not my ally. Iran is not my ally. They are both bad and I have little interest in discussing who is badder.
When it comes to setting fire to ambulances in the UK I have no tolerance for any kind of justification. Everyone has a right in this country to live free of fear and intimidation.
Israel are America's ally, so if it is legitimate for the UK to act against a threat to us (it is), then it is legitimate for Israel to act against a threat to them (it is) and it is legitimate for America to assist their ally (it is).
I don't understand your logic.
The UK might engage or oppose other countries who are not allies in its self interest. Examples of the first are a number of engagements with China. My point is just because Israel has an argument with Iran, we owe that country no favours and are not obliged to intervene on Israel's behalf.
Starmer needs to get ahead of this oil crisis. Do some unpopular stuff that people will come to appreciate and will signal this is a big deal.
Cut speed limits, mandate wfh where possible, introduce carpool lanes all over the place...
Tories and Reform will oppose on reflex and it will show he's the serious politician thinking about national interest.
Pure authoritarianism that will do nothing to fix the problems.
Serious politics means fixing what the politicians control.
The Australian Labor Government has had good ideas on this. The price of fuel is mostly tax anyway, and the fuel cost is controlled by HMG. Australia has halved fuel duty, we should do the same, or go one better and suspend it altogether.
Australia has reacted faster as they are (like the Asian counties) affected earlier, as they import a larger percentage of their oil from the Gulf.
Indeed and we don't.
So we are more protected, besides fiscally.
So this can all be solved by slashing or abolishing fuel duty.
And how would you replace the tax revenue?
The state takes billions more from drivers than it spends on roads etc, there is no shortfall there.
Drivers should pay no more for transport than the cost of their transport.
General expenditure should come from general taxation, not drivers.
Is anyone on Pb still of the view the UK should have joined the war?
We should have sent the RAF to attack Iranian missile sites as Kemi rightly said. If Trump commits ground troops we should join Israel and provide them with support from the air in my view too as that would be the only way to topple the regime.
However as Starmer is in power neither will happen as he is sticking to his line offensive actions in Iran are not authorised under international law
If we'd done that we'd be counting body bags in London, Birmingham, Glasgow, Cardiff, Belfast, Leeds, Liverpool, Newcastle, Edinburgh and any other town or city
Sleepers in our midst revenge lone rangers martyrs
Forget all that. That is not the reason we should not be doing this. If Iran was a genuine threat to us and we needed to change the regime there then attacks in the UK are simply part of that scenario and one we have to deal with.
The real issue here is we should not be attacking Iran or supporting the US and Israel in attacking them. They are not and were not a threat to ourselves, Europe or the US. They did not attack us. They did not attack the US or Israel. They were attacked and we should not be supporting or condoning the aggressors.
I think you can make an argument that they were attacking Israel fairly regularly via their proxies
Well yes, but by the same rote you could say Russia has been attacking us for decades. Nobody has suggested bombing St Petersburg in response.
Russia has been attacking us for decades
And bombing St Pete’s always been on the list of options.
But wiser heads have prevailed to date
Because Russia has nukes.
Iran does not, yet, and its better to have this conflict now than after a mushroom cloud appears above Tel Aviv.
Israel has had nukes for a long while, yet there has been no sign of mushroom clouds over Tehran, or anywhere else.
Israel is not led by deranged, religious nihilists.
As much as people claim they are.
Israel is not my ally. Iran is not my ally. They are both bad and I have little interest in discussing who is badder.
When it comes to setting fire to ambulances in the UK I have no tolerance for any kind of justification. Everyone has a right in this country to live free of fear and intimidation.
Have we identified the ethnicity of the Jewish ambulances arsonists yet?
Two British citizens is all i have seen yet i know the nutter with the vehicle bloke in Derby was a British citizen of Indian Origin
What governs when origin or ethnicity is revealed?
Hopefully they will find the perpetrators and put them behind bars. I am more concerned with the justifications from people who should know better: the ambulances were empty, not as bad as what Israel does to ambulances in Gaza etc. To be clear, this was a despicable act of intimidation as well as criminal damage.
Is anyone on Pb still of the view the UK should have joined the war?
We should have sent the RAF to attack Iranian missile sites as Kemi rightly said. If Trump commits ground troops we should join Israel and provide them with support from the air in my view too as that would be the only way to topple the regime.
However as Starmer is in power neither will happen as he is sticking to his line offensive actions in Iran are not authorised under international law
If we'd done that we'd be counting body bags in London, Birmingham, Glasgow, Cardiff, Belfast, Leeds, Liverpool, Newcastle, Edinburgh and any other town or city
Sleepers in our midst revenge lone rangers martyrs
Forget all that. That is not the reason we should not be doing this. If Iran was a genuine threat to us and we needed to change the regime there then attacks in the UK are simply part of that scenario and one we have to deal with.
The real issue here is we should not be attacking Iran or supporting the US and Israel in attacking them. They are not and were not a threat to ourselves, Europe or the US. They did not attack us. They did not attack the US or Israel. They were attacked and we should not be supporting or condoning the aggressors.
I think you can make an argument that they were attacking Israel fairly regularly via their proxies
Well yes, but by the same rote you could say Russia has been attacking us for decades. Nobody has suggested bombing St Petersburg in response.
Russia has been attacking us for decades
And bombing St Pete’s always been on the list of options.
But wiser heads have prevailed to date
Because Russia has nukes.
Iran does not, yet, and its better to have this conflict now than after a mushroom cloud appears above Tel Aviv.
Israel has had nukes for a long while, yet there has been no sign of mushroom clouds over Tehran, or anywhere else.
Israel is not led by deranged, religious nihilists.
As much as people claim they are.
Israel is not my ally. Iran is not my ally. They are both bad and I have little interest in discussing who is badder.
When it comes to setting fire to ambulances in the UK I have no tolerance for any kind of justification. Everyone has a right in this country to live free of fear and intimidation.
Israel are America's ally, so if it is legitimate for the UK to act against a threat to us (it is), then it is legitimate for Israel to act against a threat to them (it is) and it is legitimate for America to assist their ally (it is).
I don't understand your logic.
The UK might engage or oppose other countries who are not allies in its self interest. Examples of the first are a number of engagements with China. My point is just because Israel has an argument with Iran, we owe that country no favours and are not obliged to intervene on Israel's behalf.
We don't, but America do. And we are America's ally so have every right to act on that basis.
Yet for some reason America and Israel are being criticised on the basis that Iran was no threat to the United Kingdom.
I met up with my friends: all “centrist dads”, whether in Law, Consulting, Advertising or IT.
They are now all ferociously anti-Israel, if not actively anti-Zionist.
We seem to have been on the same journey
And yet the deliberate planned horror of the brutal rapes of women on October 7 and the female hostages kept thereafter has not led to any journey by you - or apparently @Gardenwalker's friends - reflecting on why male violence against women is wrong and why those groups, states, cultures etc which promote it should be equally viewed with horror and distaste. Which is doubtless why we read you this morning proudly saying that you feel like punching an opportunistic female politician but never an opportunistic male politician, of which there are many.
It is not necessary to balance every criticism of Israel with a criticism of Islam, or Hamas or whatever.
When a man talks about inflicting violence against a woman but then claims to have been on a journey because of his distaste about why Israel has done then it is worth noting how selective his outrage is and how he has never, as far as I can see, condemned male violence against women.
I am not often here anymore but it strikes me that it the preponderance of criticism here has been against Israel rather than Iran or Hamas and there has been very little talk or reflection on or criticism of the those attacking Jews in this country which, unlike the Middle East, is something we can actually do something about.
None of my friends talked about inflicting violence on women. And I’m not sure Roger did, did he?
And the rest of your post is absurd whataboutery.
I have often criticised the hard of thinking like Corbyn for being unable to differentiate the murderous activities of Netanyahu, Smotrich and Ben Gvir from old ladies shopping in a Cricklewood kosher butchers.
But equally on the flip side the pro Israel lobby are outraged when people revulsed by October 7th condemn 80,000 dead Gazans. Two wrongs don't make a right.
Condemning the IDF destruction of Gaza, Lebanon and the West Bank is not direct or tacit support for Hamas or Hezbollah.
I met up with my friends: all “centrist dads”, whether in Law, Consulting, Advertising or IT.
They are now all ferociously anti-Israel, if not actively anti-Zionist.
What policies do they want as a result? The removal of Israel? If so, where do its Jewish citizens go? Or do they want them killed? Or some other policy and, if so, what?
I did not ask. I pass on the anecdote just because I think it’s interesting and - to me - new. I would have assumed most would have been unthinkingly pro Israel historically.
The difficulty with precisely what you describe is the failure to say what they would like to see done. I have heard quite a few people say that they wish Israel did not exist. But there is tumbleweed when I ask what they want done with its Jewish citizens. Unless people have an answer to that - something more realistic than kumbaya-let's-all-sing-together - then a country's destruction usually involves at a minimum ethnic cleansing and usually the killing of many of its inhabitants.
Quite a few seem to have no issue with doing that to Jews . It does not matter what description you give it. Such a view is utterly vile.
Indeed it is.
But at the same time we have Israeli cabinet ministers, and PBers, openly discussing the desirability of precisely that for Gaza.
Which perhaps goes some way to explain why many of us are reluctant to take a side.
Starmer needs to get ahead of this oil crisis. Do some unpopular stuff that people will come to appreciate and will signal this is a big deal.
Cut speed limits, mandate wfh where possible, introduce carpool lanes all over the place...
Tories and Reform will oppose on reflex and it will show he's the serious politician thinking about national interest.
Pure authoritarianism that will do nothing to fix the problems.
Serious politics means fixing what the politicians control.
The Australian Labor Government has had good ideas on this. The price of fuel is mostly tax anyway, and the fuel cost is controlled by HMG. Australia has halved fuel duty, we should do the same, or go one better and suspend it altogether.
Australia has reacted faster as they are (like the Asian counties) affected earlier, as they import a larger percentage of their oil from the Gulf.
Indeed and we don't.
So we are more protected, besides fiscally.
So this can all be solved by slashing or abolishing fuel duty.
And how would you replace the tax revenue?
The state takes billions more from drivers than it spends on roads etc, there is no shortfall there.
Drivers should pay no more for transport than the cost of their transport.
General expenditure should come from general taxation, not drivers.
So specifically which tax would you increase instead?
Almost all the charges of outrageous behaviour by the Iranian government could equally be laid at the door of Saudi Arabia. Which is even less democratic. Would it be right to bomb them to achieve regime change?
I am not a great fan of the Saudi regime but Iran executed 5 times the number Saudi did in 2023 for instance and Saudi is not actively funding terrorism now against Israel and the West as Iran is
If you have time, buy "World Order" by Henry Kissinger. Chapter 3 describes the ongoing conflict between the Sunni bloc (led by Saudi Arabia) and the Shiite bloc (led by Iran), both wishing to export their brand of Islam. It's ten years old now, and Trump has remade the world, but it's still useful.
Starmer needs to get ahead of this oil crisis. Do some unpopular stuff that people will come to appreciate and will signal this is a big deal.
Cut speed limits, mandate wfh where possible, introduce carpool lanes all over the place...
Tories and Reform will oppose on reflex and it will show he's the serious politician thinking about national interest.
Pure authoritarianism that will do nothing to fix the problems.
Serious politics means fixing what the politicians control.
The Australian Labor Government has had good ideas on this. The price of fuel is mostly tax anyway, and the fuel cost is controlled by HMG. Australia has halved fuel duty, we should do the same, or go one better and suspend it altogether.
If we halve fuel duty then people will use more of it, or at least not change their behaviour.
But if we are really running out then we need them to use less.
We are not really running out though, we are just paying a higher price as it is a global commodity.
Starmer needs to get ahead of this oil crisis. Do some unpopular stuff that people will come to appreciate and will signal this is a big deal.
Cut speed limits, mandate wfh where possible, introduce carpool lanes all over the place...
Tories and Reform will oppose on reflex and it will show he's the serious politician thinking about national interest.
Pure authoritarianism that will do nothing to fix the problems.
Serious politics means fixing what the politicians control.
The Australian Labor Government has had good ideas on this. The price of fuel is mostly tax anyway, and the fuel cost is controlled by HMG. Australia has halved fuel duty, we should do the same, or go one better and suspend it altogether.
Australia has reacted faster as they are (like the Asian counties) affected earlier, as they import a larger percentage of their oil from the Gulf.
Indeed and we don't.
So we are more protected, besides fiscally.
So this can all be solved by slashing or abolishing fuel duty.
And how would you replace the tax revenue?
The state takes billions more from drivers than it spends on roads etc, there is no shortfall there.
Drivers should pay no more for transport than the cost of their transport.
General expenditure should come from general taxation, not drivers.
So specifically which tax would you increase instead?
I would start by merging Income Tax and National Insurance so everyone is paying the same tax rate.
I would also abolish subsidies on rail fares etc.
Drivers or rail passengers should pay their own transport costs, without extra taxes or subsidies.
Almost all the charges of outrageous behaviour by the Iranian government could equally be laid at the door of Saudi Arabia. Which is even less democratic. Would it be right to bomb them to achieve regime change?
I am not a great fan of the Saudi regime but Iran executed 5 times the number Saudi did in 2023 for instance and Saudi is not actively funding terrorism now against Israel and the West as Iran is
If you have time, buy "World Order" by Henry Kissinger. Chapter 3 describes the ongoing conflict between the Sunni bloc (led by Saudi Arabia) and the Shiite bloc (led by Iran), both wishing to export their brand of Islam. It's ten years old now, and Trump has remade the world, but it's still useful.
I'd like to see a citation for HYUFD's claim that KSA sponsors less terror than Iran. This seems extremely dubious to me. The vast majority of terror groups and terror acts are surely sunni, and inspired by Saudi-sponsored wahhabism.
I met up with my friends: all “centrist dads”, whether in Law, Consulting, Advertising or IT.
They are now all ferociously anti-Israel, if not actively anti-Zionist.
We seem to have been on the same journey
And yet the deliberate planned horror of the brutal rapes of women on October 7 and the female hostages kept thereafter has not led to any journey by you - or apparently @Gardenwalker's friends - reflecting on why male violence against women is wrong and why those groups, states, cultures etc which promote it should be equally viewed with horror and distaste. Which is doubtless why we read you this morning proudly saying that you feel like punching an opportunistic female politician but never an opportunistic male politician, of which there are many.
Once we descend into punching a woman you disagree with as acceptable, then we really are in a very dangerous place, especially female politicians
Is anyone on Pb still of the view the UK should have joined the war?
We should have sent the RAF to attack Iranian missile sites as Kemi rightly said. If Trump commits ground troops we should join Israel and provide them with support from the air in my view too as that would be the only way to topple the regime.
However as Starmer is in power neither will happen as he is sticking to his line offensive actions in Iran are not authorised under international law
If we'd done that we'd be counting body bags in London, Birmingham, Glasgow, Cardiff, Belfast, Leeds, Liverpool, Newcastle, Edinburgh and any other town or city
Sleepers in our midst revenge lone rangers martyrs
Forget all that. That is not the reason we should not be doing this. If Iran was a genuine threat to us and we needed to change the regime there then attacks in the UK are simply part of that scenario and one we have to deal with.
The real issue here is we should not be attacking Iran or supporting the US and Israel in attacking them. They are not and were not a threat to ourselves, Europe or the US. They did not attack us. They did not attack the US or Israel. They were attacked and we should not be supporting or condoning the aggressors.
I think you can make an argument that they were attacking Israel fairly regularly via their proxies
Well yes, but by the same rote you could say Russia has been attacking us for decades. Nobody has suggested bombing St Petersburg in response.
Russia has been attacking us for decades
And bombing St Pete’s always been on the list of options.
But wiser heads have prevailed to date
Because Russia has nukes.
Iran does not, yet, and its better to have this conflict now than after a mushroom cloud appears above Tel Aviv.
Israel has had nukes for a long while, yet there has been no sign of mushroom clouds over Tehran, or anywhere else.
Israel is not led by deranged, religious nihilists.
As much as people claim they are.
Israel is not my ally. Iran is not my ally. They are both bad and I have little interest in discussing who is badder.
When it comes to setting fire to ambulances in the UK I have no tolerance for any kind of justification. Everyone has a right in this country to live free of fear and intimidation.
Israel are America's ally, so if it is legitimate for the UK to act against a threat to us (it is), then it is legitimate for Israel to act against a threat to them (it is) and it is legitimate for America to assist their ally (it is).
I met up with my friends: all “centrist dads”, whether in Law, Consulting, Advertising or IT.
They are now all ferociously anti-Israel, if not actively anti-Zionist.
What policies do they want as a result? The removal of Israel? If so, where do its Jewish citizens go? Or do they want them killed? Or some other policy and, if so, what?
I did not ask. I pass on the anecdote just because I think it’s interesting and - to me - new. I would have assumed most would have been unthinkingly pro Israel historically.
The difficulty with precisely what you describe is the failure to say what they would like to see done. I have heard quite a few people say that they wish Israel did not exist. But there is tumbleweed when I ask what they want done with its Jewish citizens. Unless people have an answer to that - something more realistic than kumbaya-let's-all-sing-together - then a country's destruction usually involves at a minimum ethnic cleansing and usually the killing of many of its inhabitants.
Quite a few seem to have no issue with doing that to Jews . It does not matter what description you give it. Such a view is utterly vile.
I would like to see the US pressure Israel (under threat of the withdrawal of political and military support) to give up its expansionist aggression in the West Bank and further afield and engage seriously with the only route to its long term peace and security, the creation of a viable Palestinian state. This should be accompanied by similar pressure on the Palestinians and their allies to accept the existence of the state of Israel and stop the violence against it. It seems a pipedream right now but it needn't always be. It just needs different and better leadership in place for the main players - which shouldn't be too hard when you look at who's there now. The only way is up on that front.
Is anyone on Pb still of the view the UK should have joined the war?
We should have sent the RAF to attack Iranian missile sites as Kemi rightly said. If Trump commits ground troops we should join Israel and provide them with support from the air in my view too as that would be the only way to topple the regime.
However as Starmer is in power neither will happen as he is sticking to his line offensive actions in Iran are not authorised under international law
If we'd done that we'd be counting body bags in London, Birmingham, Glasgow, Cardiff, Belfast, Leeds, Liverpool, Newcastle, Edinburgh and any other town or city
Sleepers in our midst revenge lone rangers martyrs
Forget all that. That is not the reason we should not be doing this. If Iran was a genuine threat to us and we needed to change the regime there then attacks in the UK are simply part of that scenario and one we have to deal with.
The real issue here is we should not be attacking Iran or supporting the US and Israel in attacking them. They are not and were not a threat to ourselves, Europe or the US. They did not attack us. They did not attack the US or Israel. They were attacked and we should not be supporting or condoning the aggressors.
Somewhat disingenuous to say "not a threat to ourselves, Europe or the US."
Who is missing from that list - and why?
The country that spends all its time bombing its neighbours.
One country regularly attacked by its neighbours you mean.
Name one neighbour not at war with Israel, which is not a threat to it, which has been attacked by it.
Is anyone on Pb still of the view the UK should have joined the war?
We should have sent the RAF to attack Iranian missile sites as Kemi rightly said. If Trump commits ground troops we should join Israel and provide them with support from the air in my view too as that would be the only way to topple the regime.
However as Starmer is in power neither will happen as he is sticking to his line offensive actions in Iran are not authorised under international law
If we'd done that we'd be counting body bags in London, Birmingham, Glasgow, Cardiff, Belfast, Leeds, Liverpool, Newcastle, Edinburgh and any other town or city
Sleepers in our midst revenge lone rangers martyrs
Forget all that. That is not the reason we should not be doing this. If Iran was a genuine threat to us and we needed to change the regime there then attacks in the UK are simply part of that scenario and one we have to deal with.
The real issue here is we should not be attacking Iran or supporting the US and Israel in attacking them. They are not and were not a threat to ourselves, Europe or the US. They did not attack us. They did not attack the US or Israel. They were attacked and we should not be supporting or condoning the aggressors.
I think you can make an argument that they were attacking Israel fairly regularly via their proxies
Well yes, but by the same rote you could say Russia has been attacking us for decades. Nobody has suggested bombing St Petersburg in response.
Russia has been attacking us for decades
And bombing St Pete’s always been on the list of options.
But wiser heads have prevailed to date
Because Russia has nukes.
Iran does not, yet, and its better to have this conflict now than after a mushroom cloud appears above Tel Aviv.
Israel has had nukes for a long while, yet there has been no sign of mushroom clouds over Tehran, or anywhere else.
Israel is not led by deranged, religious nihilists.
As much as people claim they are.
Israel is not my ally. Iran is not my ally. They are both bad and I have little interest in discussing who is badder.
When it comes to setting fire to ambulances in the UK I have no tolerance for any kind of justification. Everyone has a right in this country to live free of fear and intimidation.
Have we identified the ethnicity of the Jewish ambulances arsonists yet?
Two British citizens is all i have seen yet i know the nutter with the vehicle bloke in Derby was a British citizen of Indian Origin
What governs when origin or ethnicity is revealed?
Hopefully they will find the perpetrators and put them behind bars. I am more concerned with the justifications from people who should know better: the ambulances were empty, not as bad as what Israel does to ambulances in Gaza etc. To be clear, this was a despicable act of intimidation as well as criminal damage.
What happens if it was a false flag incident?
No change to my comment. Everyone has a right in this country to live free of fear and intimidation.
Do we have a scintilla of evidence that it was a false flag incident? Seems unlikely.
Starmer needs to get ahead of this oil crisis. Do some unpopular stuff that people will come to appreciate and will signal this is a big deal.
Cut speed limits, mandate wfh where possible, introduce carpool lanes all over the place...
Tories and Reform will oppose on reflex and it will show he's the serious politician thinking about national interest.
Pure authoritarianism that will do nothing to fix the problems.
Serious politics means fixing what the politicians control.
The Australian Labor Government has had good ideas on this. The price of fuel is mostly tax anyway, and the fuel cost is controlled by HMG. Australia has halved fuel duty, we should do the same, or go one better and suspend it altogether.
If we halve fuel duty then people will use more of it, or at least not change their behaviour.
But if we are really running out then we need them to use less.
We are not really running out though, we are just paying a higher price as it is a global commodity.
Delivery of oil and & gas is substantially below the amount the world has been using up to now.
Demand for gas and oil is relatively inelastic. This is because they are so essential. So even if prices soar, demand will not go down enough in the short term, to match supply. Countries may actually run out of oil and gas.
For example, deliveries to the Philippines have been interrupted to the point that they may well run out of various oil products.
One of my centrist dads is well connected to the inner echelons of the Foreign Office.
Apparently Witkoff, Trump, Rubio nor Vance approve of this war. It’s a Trump only operation.
Whiskey Pete (and I understand Ambassador Mike Huckerbee) believe the war is the will of God, will lead to the Rapture and the return of Jesus to Earth.
Putting Pete in a quiet room with a glass and a case of Johnnie Walker Red Label would have been a cheaper and safer way to get Pete to meet up with Jesus. Elvis and Michael Jackson too if he consumes enough.
I met up with my friends: all “centrist dads”, whether in Law, Consulting, Advertising or IT.
They are now all ferociously anti-Israel, if not actively anti-Zionist.
We seem to have been on the same journey
And yet the deliberate planned horror of the brutal rapes of women on October 7 and the female hostages kept thereafter has not led to any journey by you - or apparently @Gardenwalker's friends - reflecting on why male violence against women is wrong and why those groups, states, cultures etc which promote it should be equally viewed with horror and distaste. Which is doubtless why we read you this morning proudly saying that you feel like punching an opportunistic female politician but never an opportunistic male politician, of which there are many.
Once we descend into punching a woman you disagree with as acceptable, then we really are in a very dangerous place, especially female politicians
Starmer needs to get ahead of this oil crisis. Do some unpopular stuff that people will come to appreciate and will signal this is a big deal.
Cut speed limits, mandate wfh where possible, introduce carpool lanes all over the place...
Tories and Reform will oppose on reflex and it will show he's the serious politician thinking about national interest.
Pure authoritarianism that will do nothing to fix the problems.
Serious politics means fixing what the politicians control.
The Australian Labor Government has had good ideas on this. The price of fuel is mostly tax anyway, and the fuel cost is controlled by HMG. Australia has halved fuel duty, we should do the same, or go one better and suspend it altogether.
If we halve fuel duty then people will use more of it, or at least not change their behaviour.
But if we are really running out then we need them to use less.
We are not really running out though, we are just paying a higher price as it is a global commodity.
Delivery of oil and & gas is substantially below the amount the world has been using up to now.
Demand for gas and oil is relatively inelastic. This is because they are so essential. So even if prices soar, demand will not go down enough in the short term, to match supply. Countries may actually run out of oil and gas.
For example, deliveries to the Philippines have been interrupted to the point that they may well run out of various oil products.
Yes, the Philippines and other nations may have a real shortage.
Starmer needs to get ahead of this oil crisis. Do some unpopular stuff that people will come to appreciate and will signal this is a big deal.
Cut speed limits, mandate wfh where possible, introduce carpool lanes all over the place...
Tories and Reform will oppose on reflex and it will show he's the serious politician thinking about national interest.
Pure authoritarianism that will do nothing to fix the problems.
Serious politics means fixing what the politicians control.
The Australian Labor Government has had good ideas on this. The price of fuel is mostly tax anyway, and the fuel cost is controlled by HMG. Australia has halved fuel duty, we should do the same, or go one better and suspend it altogether.
Australia has reacted faster as they are (like the Asian counties) affected earlier, as they import a larger percentage of their oil from the Gulf.
Indeed and we don't.
So we are more protected, besides fiscally.
So this can all be solved by slashing or abolishing fuel duty.
And how would you replace the tax revenue?
The state takes billions more from drivers than it spends on roads etc, there is no shortfall there.
Drivers should pay no more for transport than the cost of their transport.
General expenditure should come from general taxation, not drivers.
So specifically which tax would you increase instead?
I would start by merging Income Tax and National Insurance so everyone is paying the same tax rate.
I would also abolish subsidies on rail fares etc.
Drivers or rail passengers should pay their own transport costs, without extra taxes or subsidies.
You are cutting taxes now with a fix that is both electoral suicide and longer term.
So again where do you raise £xbn of taxes from today to subsidies car drivers who drive a lot..
You options are really VAT or National insurance BTW as both those can be changed with about 1 months notice..
Is anyone on Pb still of the view the UK should have joined the war?
We should have sent the RAF to attack Iranian missile sites as Kemi rightly said. If Trump commits ground troops we should join Israel and provide them with support from the air in my view too as that would be the only way to topple the regime.
However as Starmer is in power neither will happen as he is sticking to his line offensive actions in Iran are not authorised under international law
If we'd done that we'd be counting body bags in London, Birmingham, Glasgow, Cardiff, Belfast, Leeds, Liverpool, Newcastle, Edinburgh and any other town or city
Sleepers in our midst revenge lone rangers martyrs
Forget all that. That is not the reason we should not be doing this. If Iran was a genuine threat to us and we needed to change the regime there then attacks in the UK are simply part of that scenario and one we have to deal with.
The real issue here is we should not be attacking Iran or supporting the US and Israel in attacking them. They are not and were not a threat to ourselves, Europe or the US. They did not attack us. They did not attack the US or Israel. They were attacked and we should not be supporting or condoning the aggressors.
I think you can make an argument that they were attacking Israel fairly regularly via their proxies
Well yes, but by the same rote you could say Russia has been attacking us for decades. Nobody has suggested bombing St Petersburg in response.
Russia has been attacking us for decades
And bombing St Pete’s always been on the list of options.
But wiser heads have prevailed to date
Because Russia has nukes.
Iran does not, yet, and its better to have this conflict now than after a mushroom cloud appears above Tel Aviv.
Israel has had nukes for a long while, yet there has been no sign of mushroom clouds over Tehran, or anywhere else.
Israel is not led by deranged, religious nihilists.
As much as people claim they are.
Israel is not my ally. Iran is not my ally. They are both bad and I have little interest in discussing who is badder.
When it comes to setting fire to ambulances in the UK I have no tolerance for any kind of justification. Everyone has a right in this country to live free of fear and intimidation.
Have we identified the ethnicity of the Jewish ambulances arsonists yet?
Two British citizens is all i have seen yet i know the nutter with the vehicle bloke in Derby was a British citizen of Indian Origin
What governs when origin or ethnicity is revealed?
Hopefully they will find the perpetrators and put them behind bars. I am more concerned with the justifications from people who should know better: the ambulances were empty, not as bad as what Israel does to ambulances in Gaza etc. To be clear, this was a despicable act of intimidation as well as criminal damage.
Sky News yesterday showed row upon row of burnt out ambulances in Lebanon, hit by Israel.
I met up with my friends: all “centrist dads”, whether in Law, Consulting, Advertising or IT.
They are now all ferociously anti-Israel, if not actively anti-Zionist.
Are they people who are usually political, or not?
Good question. I would say yes.
Although, it begs the question are there centrist dads in such professions, in London, who aren’t really political in some way?
Well, some people have actual opinions, and some people just say (or nod along to) what's generally considered sophisticated, and some people stay quiet and have opinions they are ashamed of and some stay quiet and have no opinions.
Groups 1,3 there are political, groups 2,4 not roughly.
I met up with my friends: all “centrist dads”, whether in Law, Consulting, Advertising or IT.
They are now all ferociously anti-Israel, if not actively anti-Zionist.
We seem to have been on the same journey
And yet the deliberate planned horror of the brutal rapes of women on October 7 and the female hostages kept thereafter has not led to any journey by you - or apparently @Gardenwalker's friends - reflecting on why male violence against women is wrong and why those groups, states, cultures etc which promote it should be equally viewed with horror and distaste. Which is doubtless why we read you this morning proudly saying that you feel like punching an opportunistic female politician but never an opportunistic male politician, of which there are many.
Once we descend into punching a woman you disagree with as acceptable, then we really are in a very dangerous place, especially female politicians
Has everyone forgotten Jo Cox and David Amess ?
Haud the front page, Amess was a woman?!
They were both killed through preudice and violence
Starmer needs to get ahead of this oil crisis. Do some unpopular stuff that people will come to appreciate and will signal this is a big deal.
Cut speed limits, mandate wfh where possible, introduce carpool lanes all over the place...
Tories and Reform will oppose on reflex and it will show he's the serious politician thinking about national interest.
And Labour will be decimated.
Nigel and Kemi have it sewn up. If the Government issued new North Sea drilling licences for 2030 there would be no fuel crisis now. It is a compelling argument supported by Donald Trump, GB News, the Telegraph, the Mail, the Express and Nick Ferrari.
It does kind of ignore a lot of things.
The problem is not just licences. It is the taxation and electricfication as well. Companies were pulling out of the North Sea well before Miliband's loony drilling ban. Why spend your investment money in the UK North Sea where you get taxed a huge amount when you can pop over to Norway and get tax relief on many of your drlling operations? Or go to Africa, Brazil, Mexico or the Far East and get a much bigger return on your investment? So the rot started well before Labour crawled into power. They have just made it so much worse. The nail in the coffin.
And we could get wells online and producing in well under a year (3 months to drill, 1 month to complete, 2 months to tie back). But we have no rigs. Whilst we have sat around virtue signalling, the rigs and people have all buggered off to other parts of the world or hopped over the boder to Norway on long term contracts. The oil industry is booming in the rest of the world and countries are reaping the benefit. Just not us.
Yes we need to lift the exploration ban and yes we need to reduce the idiotic tax burden but that won't make things any better here and now. It just means we won't be having this same conversation in 3 or 4 years.
Is anyone on Pb still of the view the UK should have joined the war?
We should have sent the RAF to attack Iranian missile sites as Kemi rightly said. If Trump commits ground troops we should join Israel and provide them with support from the air in my view too as that would be the only way to topple the regime.
However as Starmer is in power neither will happen as he is sticking to his line offensive actions in Iran are not authorised under international law
If we'd done that we'd be counting body bags in London, Birmingham, Glasgow, Cardiff, Belfast, Leeds, Liverpool, Newcastle, Edinburgh and any other town or city
Sleepers in our midst revenge lone rangers martyrs
Forget all that. That is not the reason we should not be doing this. If Iran was a genuine threat to us and we needed to change the regime there then attacks in the UK are simply part of that scenario and one we have to deal with.
The real issue here is we should not be attacking Iran or supporting the US and Israel in attacking them. They are not and were not a threat to ourselves, Europe or the US. They did not attack us. They did not attack the US or Israel. They were attacked and we should not be supporting or condoning the aggressors.
I think you can make an argument that they were attacking Israel fairly regularly via their proxies
Well yes, but by the same rote you could say Russia has been attacking us for decades. Nobody has suggested bombing St Petersburg in response.
Russia has been attacking us for decades
And bombing St Pete’s always been on the list of options.
But wiser heads have prevailed to date
Because Russia has nukes.
Iran does not, yet, and its better to have this conflict now than after a mushroom cloud appears above Tel Aviv.
Israel has had nukes for a long while, yet there has been no sign of mushroom clouds over Tehran, or anywhere else.
Israel is not led by deranged, religious nihilists.
As much as people claim they are.
Israel is not my ally. Iran is not my ally. They are both bad and I have little interest in discussing who is badder.
When it comes to setting fire to ambulances in the UK I have no tolerance for any kind of justification. Everyone has a right in this country to live free of fear and intimidation.
Have we identified the ethnicity of the Jewish ambulances arsonists yet?
Two British citizens is all i have seen yet i know the nutter with the vehicle bloke in Derby was a British citizen of Indian Origin
What governs when origin or ethnicity is revealed?
Hopefully they will find the perpetrators and put them behind bars. I am more concerned with the justifications from people who should know better: the ambulances were empty, not as bad as what Israel does to ambulances in Gaza etc. To be clear, this was a despicable act of intimidation as well as criminal damage.
What happens if it was a false flag incident?
No change to my comment. Everyone has a right in this country to live free of fear and intimidation.
Do we have a scintilla of evidence that it was a false flag incident? Seems unlikely.
No evidence at all apart from conspiracy theories on X
In fact exactly the same amount of evidence as that it was an imbedded Iranian undercover cell ie zero
Didnt stop the press running with the latter though.
I hope we find out and the perpetrators are identified and brought to justice
Starmer needs to get ahead of this oil crisis. Do some unpopular stuff that people will come to appreciate and will signal this is a big deal.
Cut speed limits, mandate wfh where possible, introduce carpool lanes all over the place...
Tories and Reform will oppose on reflex and it will show he's the serious politician thinking about national interest.
Pure authoritarianism that will do nothing to fix the problems.
Serious politics means fixing what the politicians control.
The Australian Labor Government has had good ideas on this. The price of fuel is mostly tax anyway, and the fuel cost is controlled by HMG. Australia has halved fuel duty, we should do the same, or go one better and suspend it altogether.
If we halve fuel duty then people will use more of it, or at least not change their behaviour.
But if we are really running out then we need them to use less.
We are not really running out though, we are just paying a higher price as it is a global commodity.
Delivery of oil and & gas is substantially below the amount the world has been using up to now.
Demand for gas and oil is relatively inelastic. This is because they are so essential. So even if prices soar, demand will not go down enough in the short term, to match supply. Countries may actually run out of oil and gas.
For example, deliveries to the Philippines have been interrupted to the point that they may well run out of various oil products.
And that's just oil. Similarly for bulk LNG and fertiliser.
Barty's insouciance at the potential global economic catastrophe we're facing is remarkable.
The pain is already starting to be experienced in the far east. It will slowly spread around the globe, and will get steadily worse.
If the conflict ends in the next month, without significant further large scale damage to production facilities, and a resumption of shipping, then we might dodge the bullet (with a significant inflationary blip).
I met up with my friends: all “centrist dads”, whether in Law, Consulting, Advertising or IT.
They are now all ferociously anti-Israel, if not actively anti-Zionist.
Are they people who are usually political, or not?
Good question. I would say yes.
Although, it begs the question are there centrist dads in such professions, in London, who aren’t really political in some way?
Well, some people have actual opinions, and some people just say (or nod along to) what's generally considered sophisticated, and some people stay quiet and have opinions they are ashamed of and some stay quiet and have no opinions.
Groups 1,3 there are political, groups 2,4 not roughly.
I change the subject.
Politics isn't worth falling out over.
There is a poster on here who I have never met, but would like to kick the shit out of me because I was rude about Boris once.*
I met up with my friends: all “centrist dads”, whether in Law, Consulting, Advertising or IT.
They are now all ferociously anti-Israel, if not actively anti-Zionist.
What policies do they want as a result? The removal of Israel? If so, where do its Jewish citizens go? Or do they want them killed? Or some other policy and, if so, what?
I did not ask. I pass on the anecdote just because I think it’s interesting and - to me - new. I would have assumed most would have been unthinkingly pro Israel historically.
The difficulty with precisely what you describe is the failure to say what they would like to see done. I have heard quite a few people say that they wish Israel did not exist. But there is tumbleweed when I ask what they want done with its Jewish citizens. Unless people have an answer to that - something more realistic than kumbaya-let's-all-sing-together - then a country's destruction usually involves at a minimum ethnic cleansing and usually the killing of many of its inhabitants.
Quite a few seem to have no issue with doing that to Jews . It does not matter what description you give it. Such a view is utterly vile.
I would like to see the US pressure Israel (under threat of the withdrawal of political and military support) to give up its expansionist aggression in the West Bank and further afield and engage seriously with the only route to its long term peace and security, the creation of a viable Palestinian state. This should be accompanied by similar pressure on the Palestinians and their allies to accept the existence of the state of Israel and stop the violence against it. It seems a pipedream right now but it needn't always be. It just needs different and better leadership in place for the main players - which shouldn't be too hard when you look at who's there now. The only way is up on that front.
Yes, I agree with that. Israel's behaviour in the West Bank is indefensible. Israel's enemies, on the other hand, are pretty terrible.
WRT this particular war, there has been a state of undeclared war between the USA/Israel and Iran, since 1979, in much the same way as between this country and Libya under Gadaffi. It's not the fact of attacking Iran that bothers me. It's the ineptitude of it.
I met up with my friends: all “centrist dads”, whether in Law, Consulting, Advertising or IT.
They are now all ferociously anti-Israel, if not actively anti-Zionist.
We seem to have been on the same journey
And yet the deliberate planned horror of the brutal rapes of women on October 7 and the female hostages kept thereafter has not led to any journey by you - or apparently @Gardenwalker's friends - reflecting on why male violence against women is wrong and why those groups, states, cultures etc which promote it should be equally viewed with horror and distaste. Which is doubtless why we read you this morning proudly saying that you feel like punching an opportunistic female politician but never an opportunistic male politician, of which there are many.
It is not necessary to balance every criticism of Israel with a criticism of Islam, or Hamas or whatever.
When a man talks about inflicting violence against a woman but then claims to have been on a journey because of his distaste about why Israel has done then it is worth noting how selective his outrage is and how he has never, as far as I can see, condemned male violence against women.
I am not often here anymore but it strikes me that it the preponderance of criticism here has been against Israel rather than Iran or Hamas and there has been very little talk or reflection on or criticism of the those attacking Jews in this country which, unlike the Middle East, is something we can actually do something about.
I am a big fan of Cyclefree but I wonder if the bit I have italicised comes under Brandolini's law
(Which is when, in my version: The amount of energy needed to refute a brief, general and contentious assertion is an order of magnitude bigger than that needed to produce it)
Almost all the charges of outrageous behaviour by the Iranian government could equally be laid at the door of Saudi Arabia. Which is even less democratic. Would it be right to bomb them to achieve regime change?
I am not a great fan of the Saudi regime but Iran executed 5 times the number Saudi did in 2023 for instance and Saudi is not actively funding terrorism now against Israel and the West as Iran is
If you have time, buy "World Order" by Henry Kissinger. Chapter 3 describes the ongoing conflict between the Sunni bloc (led by Saudi Arabia) and the Shiite bloc (led by Iran), both wishing to export their brand of Islam. It's ten years old now, and Trump has remade the world, but it's still useful.
I have often, and occasionally been abused for doing so, likened the current situation in the Islamic world to that in the Western Christian one in the 16th Century, when the Catholics and Protestants were knocking lumps out of each other. And it's about as long from the founding of Islam and it was then since the founding of Christianity.
I met up with my friends: all “centrist dads”, whether in Law, Consulting, Advertising or IT.
They are now all ferociously anti-Israel, if not actively anti-Zionist.
We seem to have been on the same journey
And yet the deliberate planned horror of the brutal rapes of women on October 7 and the female hostages kept thereafter has not led to any journey by you - or apparently @Gardenwalker's friends - reflecting on why male violence against women is wrong and why those groups, states, cultures etc which promote it should be equally viewed with horror and distaste. Which is doubtless why we read you this morning proudly saying that you feel like punching an opportunistic female politician but never an opportunistic male politician, of which there are many.
It is not necessary to balance every criticism of Israel with a criticism of Islam, or Hamas or whatever.
When a man talks about inflicting violence against a woman but then claims to have been on a journey because of his distaste about why Israel has done then it is worth noting how selective his outrage is and how he has never, as far as I can see, condemned male violence against women.
I am not often here anymore but it strikes me that it the preponderance of criticism here has been against Israel rather than Iran or Hamas and there has been very little talk or reflection on or criticism of the those attacking Jews in this country which, unlike the Middle East, is something we can actually do something about.
None of my friends talked about inflicting violence on women. And I’m not sure Roger did, did he?
I met up with my friends: all “centrist dads”, whether in Law, Consulting, Advertising or IT.
They are now all ferociously anti-Israel, if not actively anti-Zionist.
What policies do they want as a result? The removal of Israel? If so, where do its Jewish citizens go? Or do they want them killed? Or some other policy and, if so, what?
I did not ask. I pass on the anecdote just because I think it’s interesting and - to me - new. I would have assumed most would have been unthinkingly pro Israel historically.
The difficulty with precisely what you describe is the failure to say what they would like to see done. I have heard quite a few people say that they wish Israel did not exist. But there is tumbleweed when I ask what they want done with its Jewish citizens. Unless people have an answer to that - something more realistic than kumbaya-let's-all-sing-together - then a country's destruction usually involves at a minimum ethnic cleansing and usually the killing of many of its inhabitants.
Quite a few seem to have no issue with doing that to Jews . It does not matter what description you give it. Such a view is utterly vile.
I would like to see the US pressure Israel (under threat of the withdrawal of political and military support) to give up its expansionist aggression in the West Bank and further afield and engage seriously with the only route to its long term peace and security, the creation of a viable Palestinian state. This should be accompanied by similar pressure on the Palestinians and their allies to accept the existence of the state of Israel and stop the violence against it. It seems a pipedream right now but it needn't always be. It just needs different and better leadership in place for the main players - which shouldn't be too hard when you look at who's there now. The only way is up on that front.
Yes, I agree with that. Israel's behaviour in the West Bank is indefensible. Israel's enemies, on the other hand, are pretty terrible.
WRT this particular war, there has been a state of undeclared war between the USA/Israel and Iran, since 1979, in much the same way as between this country and Libya under Gadaffi. It's not the fact of attacking Iran that bothers me. It's the ineptitude of it.
The murder of Iran’s leaders and their families, mid-way through peace negotiations, doesn’t really have precedence in the West, in modern times.
Starmer needs to get ahead of this oil crisis. Do some unpopular stuff that people will come to appreciate and will signal this is a big deal.
Cut speed limits, mandate wfh where possible, introduce carpool lanes all over the place...
Tories and Reform will oppose on reflex and it will show he's the serious politician thinking about national interest.
Pure authoritarianism that will do nothing to fix the problems.
Serious politics means fixing what the politicians control.
The Australian Labor Government has had good ideas on this. The price of fuel is mostly tax anyway, and the fuel cost is controlled by HMG. Australia has halved fuel duty, we should do the same, or go one better and suspend it altogether.
If we halve fuel duty then people will use more of it, or at least not change their behaviour.
But if we are really running out then we need them to use less.
We are not really running out though, we are just paying a higher price as it is a global commodity.
Delivery of oil and & gas is substantially below the amount the world has been using up to now.
Demand for gas and oil is relatively inelastic. This is because they are so essential. So even if prices soar, demand will not go down enough in the short term, to match supply. Countries may actually run out of oil and gas.
For example, deliveries to the Philippines have been interrupted to the point that they may well run out of various oil products.
I think we need to rely on the market here - a price signal to say “stop using it ffs!” so that essential services can continue. Ideally we would have separate fuel duty rates for such services.
In the short term that can happen at a UK level; in the medium term we’re in trouble because it would rely on the world not doing what Australia has done by shifting the supply curve back down with a tax cut. It will quickly become a race to the bottom.
Is anyone on Pb still of the view the UK should have joined the war?
We should have sent the RAF to attack Iranian missile sites as Kemi rightly said. If Trump commits ground troops we should join Israel and provide them with support from the air in my view too as that would be the only way to topple the regime.
However as Starmer is in power neither will happen as he is sticking to his line offensive actions in Iran are not authorised under international law
If we'd done that we'd be counting body bags in London, Birmingham, Glasgow, Cardiff, Belfast, Leeds, Liverpool, Newcastle, Edinburgh and any other town or city
Sleepers in our midst revenge lone rangers martyrs
Forget all that. That is not the reason we should not be doing this. If Iran was a genuine threat to us and we needed to change the regime there then attacks in the UK are simply part of that scenario and one we have to deal with.
The real issue here is we should not be attacking Iran or supporting the US and Israel in attacking them. They are not and were not a threat to ourselves, Europe or the US. They did not attack us. They did not attack the US or Israel. They were attacked and we should not be supporting or condoning the aggressors.
I think you can make an argument that they were attacking Israel fairly regularly via their proxies
Well yes, but by the same rote you could say Russia has been attacking us for decades. Nobody has suggested bombing St Petersburg in response.
Russia has been attacking us for decades
And bombing St Pete’s always been on the list of options.
But wiser heads have prevailed to date
Because Russia has nukes.
Iran does not, yet, and its better to have this conflict now than after a mushroom cloud appears above Tel Aviv.
Israel has had nukes for a long while, yet there has been no sign of mushroom clouds over Tehran, or anywhere else.
Israel is not led by deranged, religious nihilists.
As much as people claim they are.
Israel is not my ally. Iran is not my ally. They are both bad and I have little interest in discussing who is badder.
When it comes to setting fire to ambulances in the UK I have no tolerance for any kind of justification. Everyone has a right in this country to live free of fear and intimidation.
Israel are America's ally, so if it is legitimate for the UK to act against a threat to us (it is), then it is legitimate for Israel to act against a threat to them (it is) and it is legitimate for America to assist their ally (it is).
I don't understand your logic.
The UK might engage or oppose other countries who are not allies in its self interest. Examples of the first are a number of engagements with China. My point is just because Israel has an argument with Iran, we owe that country no favours and are not obliged to intervene on Israel's behalf.
We don't, but America do. And we are America's ally so have every right to act on that basis.
Yet for some reason America and Israel are being criticised on the basis that Iran was no threat to the United Kingdom.
The US is an ally (of sorts, these days) and we do have some conditional obligations towards it. Supporting Israel in destroying Iran isn't one of them.
Comments
I think it a bit complacent to assume that there is no problem. Iran has form in using proxies to attack Jewish sites all round the world. This dates back to the 1990's when they attacked an embassy and a Jewish community centre in Buenos Aires, killing over a hundred people. In the last few weeks, two men – one British, one British-Iranian – have been charged with spying on various Jewish sites, including the Bevis Marks synagogue and its community centre, the oldest continuously used synagogue in the UK. In the last week 2 Torahs were stolen from a Salford synagogue.
In regard to the arson of the ambulances, it might be relevant to note that the ambulances were parked in front of a synagogue very near to a wall where there were posters of the hostages taken on October 7. That wall now has photos of Iranian protestors killed by the IRGC, the very IRGC which the EU (plus Iceland, Moldova, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Montenegro, North Macedonia and Liechtenstein) have proscribed as a terror organisation: something which the UK government has so far failed to do.
We do not know yet who carried out the attacks on the 4 ambulances but dismissing the terror and anxiety attacks like these - and the others there have been - causes Jews is despicable. This is how anti-Jewish hatred and indifference to how Jews are being treated has become normalised in this country. It is utterly shameful.
Groups 1,3 there are political, groups 2,4 not roughly.
The issue facing us isn't so much that fuel will become more expensive, but that fuel won't be available in the quantities we want at any realistic cost for a meaningful period of time. It's going to be horrible, but demand needs to be destroyed, at least for a while.
(See also the Rosebank etc debate. Even if EdM gave permission today, the lead time for a project like that surely makes it irrelevant for this crisis.)
As much as people claim they are.
I walked past the Siege of Chiswick Park on the way to the gym quite a few times.
My point was that there is no particular difference in the level of this stuff in the UK. And that sleeper cells of undercover Iranian agents are basically non-existent.
Heads-up: Pre-market so-called “news” or “Truth” is often just a setup for profit-taking. Basically, it’s a reverse indicator.
Do the opposite: If they pump it, short it. If they dump it, go long.
See something tomorrow? You know the drill.
https://x.com/mb_ghalibaf/status/2038348581535425002#m
Humans, on average, are very poor at understanding non-linear scenarios where there is a 'tipping point' where a small change has a disproportionate impact.
No reason to think AI would be any better at it unless specifically prompted otherwise.
(As to AI's ability to foresee the future better than humans, if it is found to be better at picking winners at Plumpton than any human intelligence, PB contributors will be among the first to know. And until it can do something simple like who is going to win a race with only a handful of possible winners or a football match with only three possible outcomes I won't believe anything else much about its predictive powers.)
The problem is when it (Israel, US, Iran - pick your loon) drags the rest of the world into the verge of economic crisis. To say nothing of the humanitarian tragedies.
When it comes to setting fire to ambulances in the UK I have no tolerance for any kind of justification. Everyone has a right in this country to live free of fear and intimidation.
As far as I am concerned Israel can no longer have a future with its current mindset.
Who is missing from that list - and why?
Bad/worst case scenario, the Americans land on Kharg Island and get pushed off, with heavy casualties. What would that do to Republican polling?
Two British citizens is all i have seen yet i know the nutter with the vehicle bloke in Derby was a British citizen of Indian Origin
What governs when origin or ethnicity is revealed?
Quite a few seem to have no issue with doing that to Jews . It does not matter what description you give it. Such a view is utterly vile.
The US military has war gamed conflicts with Iran for decades. The administration ignored every lesson from those, as we can see from their surprise at Iran's capacity to respond, the fact that they didn't inform a single ally in advance.
There was no clear US war aim, so there was nothing for the military to plan anyway, other than air strikes.
The planning for this conflict was done by Israel, which has its own war aims, and Netentahu persuaded Trump to come onboard.
Fuel is going to be available, just at a more expensive price.
Some who can't afford higher prices may be unable to pay it, but there is absolutely no reason why that should be the UK given both our wealth and geography.
So what matters is the price and the state controls that via fuel duty. Stop plucking the golden goose until this is resolved.
Apparently Witkoff, Trump, Rubio nor Vance approve of this war.
It’s a Trump only operation.
I am not often here anymore but it strikes me that it the preponderance of criticism here has been against Israel rather than Iran or Hamas and there has been very little talk or reflection on or criticism of the those attacking Jews in this country which, unlike the Middle East, is something we can actually do something about.
At the moment 2 people have been arrested but then released on bail.
But the arson attack is known to have been done by 3 people ..
Which means the police still don't know who did the attack - and it's rather hard to identify people wearing masks when that's all you've got to go on...
And I’m not sure Roger did, did he?
And the rest of your post is absurd whataboutery.
I expect the fields between J57 and J58 towards Darlington will be full of housing by 2050...
So we are more protected, besides fiscally.
So this can all be solved by slashing or abolishing fuel duty.
Do you really take Trump's accounts of how the negotiations are progressing at face value ?
Israel and US interests are now legitimate targets and £2/litre fuel inevitable?
According to the info I can find, it's not only less than the conventional non-Trump US system, it barely scrapes the surface:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2026/mar/14/reform-uk-government-replace-top-civil-servants-people-aligned-policies
It seems inconceivable to me that the elected PM cannot and does not replace the Permanent Secretaries.
2. Britain’s constitutional norms were formed well before Northcote Trevelyan, and many have argued (notably Truss and Cummings) that it was this Act that created the rot that has consumed the British State. Certainly the timings correlate.
The norms I am talking about are things like the supremacy of parliament over the courts, with the judiciary sitting within parliament via the Lord Chancellor (this fell victim to Blair's Consitutional Reform Act). I want the British State to prioritise the safety and welfare of British citizens, which it cannot do under the Human Rights Act. I want all British citizens to be equal before the law - a vital part of our constitution that is undermined by the Equality Act, which makes protected groups more equal than the rest. UK in 1997 worked OK.
But if we are really running out then we need them to use less.
The UK might engage or oppose other countries who are not allies in its self interest. Examples of the first are a number of engagements with China. My point is just because Israel has an argument with Iran, we owe that country no favours and are not obliged to intervene on Israel's behalf.
Drivers should pay no more for transport than the cost of their transport.
General expenditure should come from general taxation, not drivers.
Yet for some reason America and Israel are being criticised on the basis that Iran was no threat to the United Kingdom.
But equally on the flip side the pro Israel lobby are outraged when people revulsed by October 7th condemn 80,000 dead Gazans. Two wrongs don't make a right.
Condemning the IDF destruction of Gaza, Lebanon and the West Bank is not direct or tacit support for Hamas or Hezbollah.
But at the same time we have Israeli cabinet ministers, and PBers, openly discussing the desirability of precisely that for Gaza.
Which perhaps goes some way to explain why many of us are reluctant to take a side.
I would also abolish subsidies on rail fares etc.
Drivers or rail passengers should pay their own transport costs, without extra taxes or subsidies.
Has everyone forgotten Jo Cox and David Amess ?
Name one neighbour not at war with Israel, which is not a threat to it, which has been attacked by it.
Do we have a scintilla of evidence that it was a false flag incident? Seems unlikely.
Demand for gas and oil is relatively inelastic. This is because they are so essential. So even if prices soar, demand will not go down enough in the short term, to match supply. Countries may actually run out of oil and gas.
For example, deliveries to the Philippines have been interrupted to the point that they may well run out of various oil products.
Putting Pete in a quiet room with a glass and a case of Johnnie Walker Red Label would have been a cheaper and safer way to get Pete to meet up with Jesus. Elvis and Michael Jackson too if he consumes enough.
34p a litre at my nearest petrol station on diesel
So again where do you raise £xbn of taxes from today to subsidies car drivers who drive a lot..
You options are really VAT or National insurance BTW as both those can be changed with about 1 months notice..
That subject never comes up with my friends.
Politics isn't worth falling out over.
The problem is not just licences. It is the taxation and electricfication as well. Companies were pulling out of the North Sea well before Miliband's loony drilling ban. Why spend your investment money in the UK North Sea where you get taxed a huge amount when you can pop over to Norway and get tax relief on many of your drlling operations? Or go to Africa, Brazil, Mexico or the Far East and get a much bigger return on your investment? So the rot started well before Labour crawled into power. They have just made it so much worse. The nail in the coffin.
And we could get wells online and producing in well under a year (3 months to drill, 1 month to complete, 2 months to tie back). But we have no rigs. Whilst we have sat around virtue signalling, the rigs and people have all buggered off to other parts of the world or hopped over the boder to Norway on long term contracts. The oil industry is booming in the rest of the world and countries are reaping the benefit. Just not us.
Yes we need to lift the exploration ban and yes we need to reduce the idiotic tax burden but that won't make things any better here and now. It just means we won't be having this same conversation in 3 or 4 years.
Number one, I think we'd get on. And number two, I'd give a different view.
People tend to be much more nuanced and graded in real life.
In fact exactly the same amount of evidence as that it was an imbedded Iranian undercover cell ie zero
Didnt stop the press running with the latter though.
I hope we find out and the perpetrators are identified and brought to justice
Similarly for bulk LNG and fertiliser.
Barty's insouciance at the potential global economic catastrophe we're facing is remarkable.
The pain is already starting to be experienced in the far east. It will slowly spread around the globe, and will get steadily worse.
If the conflict ends in the next month, without significant further large scale damage to production facilities, and a resumption of shipping, then we might dodge the bullet (with a significant inflationary blip).
If not, then it will get very ugly indeed.
*OK not just once but just the 38,404 times.
WRT this particular war, there has been a state of undeclared war between the USA/Israel and Iran, since 1979, in much the same way as between this country and Libya under Gadaffi. It's not the fact of attacking Iran that bothers me. It's the ineptitude of it.
(Which is when, in my version: The amount of energy needed to refute a brief, general and contentious assertion is an order of magnitude bigger than that needed to produce it)
And it's about as long from the founding of Islam and it was then since the founding of Christianity.
What is it about Abrahamic religions?
https://vf.politicalbetting.com/discussion/comment/5501311#Comment_5501311
In the short term that can happen at a UK level; in the medium term we’re in trouble because it would rely on the world not doing what Australia has done by shifting the supply curve back down with a tax cut. It will quickly become a race to the bottom.