Skip to content

Starmer set to feel the Burn-ham on Friday – politicalbetting.com

2

Comments

  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 72,565
    And we are off!! Republican US Senator from Ohio calls for Nobel peace prize for Trump having ended the US-Iran-Isreal war of 2026.

  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 43,572
    @chadbourn.bsky.social‬

    As it stands this is a crushing defeat for Trump. Iran got everything it wanted. The US ends up with a worse deal than Obama had, which Trump tore up, and it cost billions and lives to get there.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 28,898

    Peace deal reached.

    Shame on Trump. Failure.


    (narrator: if you're interested, that actress is Hannah Waddingham)
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 29,562

    Which humiliation was worse for the US?

    Vietnam or Iran (2026).

    We will see in the coming years.

    I suspect Iran has longer consequences.

    That's a ridiculous comparison.

    In Vietnam over 50k Americans died and its ally was overthrown.

    Whereas the USA has lost effectively nothing this year although Trump has failed to get his big win.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 72,565
    Scott_xP said:

    @chadbourn.bsky.social‬

    As it stands this is a crushing defeat for Trump. Iran got everything it wanted. The US ends up with a worse deal than Obama had, which Trump tore up, and it cost billions and lives to get there.

    Yeh, but we stopped talking about Epstein for three months.

  • Which humiliation was worse for the US?

    Vietnam or Iran (2026).

    We will see in the coming years.

    I suspect Iran has longer consequences.

    That's a ridiculous comparison.

    In Vietnam over 50k Americans died and its ally was overthrown.

    Whereas the USA has lost effectively nothing this year although Trump has failed to get his big win.
    Stop sucking his cock
  • glwglw Posts: 10,928

    And the point in the war was

    Epstein.
    Sadly it wasn't even something as abhorrent as a diversion. Donald Trump is simply so dumb that he bought the Israeli story over the protests of his own defence and intelligence people, and now he appears to be on the brink of capitulating to Iran.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 23,306

    Burnham has a human touch we’ve not seen of a Labour leader since early Blair.

    I think he’d be wise to go for an election, get a reduced majority before things hit the fan.

    I think that would be insane. He has a 150+ majority for three more years. Why risk it all for another two years?
  • solarflaresolarflare Posts: 4,882

    Which humiliation was worse for the US?

    Vietnam or Iran (2026).

    We will see in the coming years.

    I suspect Iran has longer consequences.

    That's a ridiculous comparison.

    In Vietnam over 50k Americans died and its ally was overthrown.

    Whereas the USA has lost effectively nothing this year although Trump has failed to get his big win.
    It's just dignity and credibility they've lost this year. It's no Vietnam, for sure, but I don't think many people will look at the USA the same way any longer.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 72,565

    HYUFD said:

    Which humiliation was worse for the US?

    Vietnam or Iran (2026).

    We will see in the coming years.

    I suspect Iran has longer consequences.

    Vietnam saw South Vietnam fall to the Communist North, Iran at least just leaves the status quo as was bar one old Ayatollah replaced by a younger one
    Iran is now emboldened and officially controlling the strait of Hormuz so it’s not the status quo. It’s worse.
    Exactly.

    My view is this is a far more consequential fuck up for US than Vietnam.

    No future POTUS is going to try US military force on Iran again - because you lose or you face quagmire - and so that threat has been taken off the table in the ME. It was always there in the background - now it has gone.

    The mullahs must be wetting themselves tonight.

    And Vietnam had no global resource implications. There 'aint no Strait of Homez type global shipping in the Mekong delta.


  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 28,898
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 14,358
    viewcode said:
    Not sure “finish the job” is the best way to phrase it tbh.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 40,262
    RIP Roy Jenkins. Sad news. He was one of my favourite Labour politicians.
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 29,562

    Which humiliation was worse for the US?

    Vietnam or Iran (2026).

    We will see in the coming years.

    I suspect Iran has longer consequences.

    That's a ridiculous comparison.

    In Vietnam over 50k Americans died and its ally was overthrown.

    Whereas the USA has lost effectively nothing this year although Trump has failed to get his big win.
    Stop sucking his cock
    Grow up.

    Where's the equivalent of this:

    'Saigon: The Final Hours'

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0BVRhsqHE5M

    Or for that matter this:

    "Desert One": Inside the failed 1980 hostage rescue in Iran

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-m7nZA-VllI

    Now what's happened this year ?

    Iran's been smashed up.

    The Arabs have had to sell some foreign assets to build alternative oil pipelines.

    Trump failed to get his big win.

    Everyone's energy bills went up a bit.

    Effectively everyone lost out to varying extents.

    And in a few weeks / months / years there will be another round of fighting.

    Now I know people hate Trump so much that they want to declare everything the greatest disaster in the history of everywhere at every time.

    But it isn't.

    Its a triviality compared to either Vietnam 1975 and Iran 1979/80 - now those were humiliations for the USA.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 72,565
    Meanwhile...



    Phil Stewart
    @phildstewart
    ·
    37m
    IRAN'S FARS: IT HAS BEEN DECIDED THAT MARINE TRAFFIC THROUGH THE GULF WILL BE REGULATED BY IRAN IN COORDINATION WITH OMAN

    https://x.com/phildstewart/status/2066277855860855035
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 29,562

    Which humiliation was worse for the US?

    Vietnam or Iran (2026).

    We will see in the coming years.

    I suspect Iran has longer consequences.

    That's a ridiculous comparison.

    In Vietnam over 50k Americans died and its ally was overthrown.

    Whereas the USA has lost effectively nothing this year although Trump has failed to get his big win.
    Stop sucking his cock
    Grow up.

    Where's the equivalent of this:

    'Saigon: The Final Hours'

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0BVRhsqHE5M

    Or for that matter this:

    "Desert One": Inside the failed 1980 hostage rescue in Iran

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-m7nZA-VllI

    Now what's happened this year ?

    Iran's been smashed up.

    The Arabs have had to sell some foreign assets to build alternative oil pipelines.

    Trump failed to get his big win.

    Everyone's energy bills went up a bit.

    Effectively everyone lost out to varying extents.

    And in a few weeks / months / years there will be another round of fighting.

    Now I know people hate Trump so much that they want to declare everything the greatest disaster in the history of everywhere at every time.

    But it isn't.

    Its a triviality compared to either Vietnam 1975 and Iran 1979/80 - now those were humiliations for the USA.
    And Trump is now watching his 'fighting spirit' display while the rest of the world watches football.

    In 1979 this was happening in the USA:

    Long lines, no gas: 1979's odd-even gas rationing

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFaQ_YXwuRI
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 40,262

    carnforth said:

    Roy Hattersley has died.

    A man my (left wing) mother once described as "a thug" for his role in trying to abolish grammar schools in the early 2000s.
    Shows the awfulness of grammar schools that it united the right and left such as Thatcher and Hattersley in wanting to abolish them.
    It's private schools that should have been abolished, not grammar schools.
  • Jim_MillerJim_Miller Posts: 3,905
    FPT: StillWaters asked: "It seems to me that Trump has united the Know Nothings and the Southern Democrats, which basically gives him the edge in politics.

    You seem a student of American politics - thoughts?"

    Have to think about that a bit (in my copious free time), but off hand I would say no. The Know Nothings were, above all, anti-Catholic.

    (For those unfamiliar with the party: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Know_Nothing )
  • ohnotnowohnotnow Posts: 6,073

    And we are off!! Republican US Senator from Ohio calls for Nobel peace prize for Trump having ended the US-Iran-Isreal war of 2026.

    I vote we give him at least three nobel peace prizes. Maybe seven. At this stage, why not?
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 29,562
    Andy_JS said:

    RIP Roy Jenkins. Sad news. He was one of my favourite Labour politicians.

    Its Roy Hattersley, aka the tub of lard, who has died.

    Roy Jenkins died over twenty years ago.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 40,262
    From one of the most respected newspapers in Australia.

    "Voters prefer Hanson as PM. Are they prepared for her to run the country?
    According to the latest Resolve Political Monitor, that’s exactly what they are asking for.
    James Massola" (£)

    https://www.smh.com.au/
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 40,262
    From one of the most respected newspapers in Australia.

    "Voters prefer Hanson as PM. Are they prepared for her to run the country?
    According to the latest Resolve Political Monitor, that’s exactly what they are asking for.
    James Massola" (£)

    https://www.smh.com.au/
  • boulayboulay Posts: 8,984
    Andy_JS said:

    carnforth said:

    Roy Hattersley has died.

    A man my (left wing) mother once described as "a thug" for his role in trying to abolish grammar schools in the early 2000s.
    Shows the awfulness of grammar schools that it united the right and left such as Thatcher and Hattersley in wanting to abolish them.
    It's private schools that should have been abolished, not grammar schools.
    What are you on about. Britain was the biggest empire ever when it was run by public schoolboys. I’m sure you could plot a graph with the demise of our position against the number of pleb MPs.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 28,898
    Andy_JS said:

    RIP Roy Jenkins. Sad news. He was one of my favourite Labour politicians.

    Hattersley, Andy, not Jenkins

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Hattersley
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Jenkins
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 28,898
    Andy_JS said:

    From one of the most respected newspapers in Australia.

    "Voters prefer Hanson as PM. Are they prepared for her to run the country?
    According to the latest Resolve Political Monitor, that’s exactly what they are asking for.
    James Massola" (£)

    https://www.smh.com.au/

    SMH, indeed

    :)
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 29,562

    Which humiliation was worse for the US?

    Vietnam or Iran (2026).

    We will see in the coming years.

    I suspect Iran has longer consequences.

    That's a ridiculous comparison.

    In Vietnam over 50k Americans died and its ally was overthrown.

    Whereas the USA has lost effectively nothing this year although Trump has failed to get his big win.
    Stop sucking his cock
    Grow up.

    Where's the equivalent of this:

    'Saigon: The Final Hours'

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0BVRhsqHE5M

    Or for that matter this:

    "Desert One": Inside the failed 1980 hostage rescue in Iran

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-m7nZA-VllI

    Now what's happened this year ?

    Iran's been smashed up.

    The Arabs have had to sell some foreign assets to build alternative oil pipelines.

    Trump failed to get his big win.

    Everyone's energy bills went up a bit.

    Effectively everyone lost out to varying extents.

    And in a few weeks / months / years there will be another round of fighting.

    Now I know people hate Trump so much that they want to declare everything the greatest disaster in the history of everywhere at every time.

    But it isn't.

    Its a triviality compared to either Vietnam 1975 and Iran 1979/80 - now those were humiliations for the USA.
    And Trump is now watching his 'fighting spirit' display while the rest of the world watches football.

    In 1979 this was happening in the USA:

    Long lines, no gas: 1979's odd-even gas rationing

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFaQ_YXwuRI
    That was from New York.

    Here's Portland:

    Gas Shortage - in June 1979 | KATU In The Archives

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0vFfU7GGgH8

    and Houston:

    Houston 1979 gas rationing

    Houston 1979 gas rationing

    and Boston:

    WBZ Archives: Combatting The 1979 Gasoline Shortage

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oDC2Ty5qfU8

    I've never heard that we had any shortages in this country.

    Can any PBer's remember back to how Britain / Europe was affected (beyond higher prices).
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 28,898
    Andy_JS said:

    From one of the most respected newspapers in Australia.

    "Voters prefer Hanson as PM. Are they prepared for her to run the country?
    According to the latest Resolve Political Monitor, that’s exactly what they are asking for.
    James Massola" (£)

    https://www.smh.com.au/

    https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/voters-prefer-hanson-as-pm-are-they-prepared-for-her-to-run-the-country-20260614-p606ll.html (paywall)
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 137,036

    HYUFD said:

    Which humiliation was worse for the US?

    Vietnam or Iran (2026).

    We will see in the coming years.

    I suspect Iran has longer consequences.

    Vietnam saw South Vietnam fall to the Communist North, Iran at least just leaves the status quo as was bar one old Ayatollah replaced by a younger one
    Iran is now emboldened and officially controlling the strait of Hormuz so it’s not the status quo. It’s worse.
    Though if Iran block the Strait Trump says the ceasefire is then over
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 59,936
    geoffw said:

    Yay! Japan2 Netherlands 2

    Great match!
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 72,565

    Robert Peston
    @Peston

    Roy Hattersley played an important and under-rated role in the rehabilitation of Labour after its near collapse in the early 1980s. He was also an accomplished historian and writer, and very funny.

    Roy was a dear friend and close colleague of my dad. He has been part of my de facto extended family most of my conscious life and I am deeply sad to learn of his death. Sincere condolences to Maggie and all his friends and relations

    https://x.com/Peston/status/2066286446789427229
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 22,052
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Which humiliation was worse for the US?

    Vietnam or Iran (2026).

    We will see in the coming years.

    I suspect Iran has longer consequences.

    Vietnam saw South Vietnam fall to the Communist North, Iran at least just leaves the status quo as was bar one old Ayatollah replaced by a younger one
    Iran is now emboldened and officially controlling the strait of Hormuz so it’s not the status quo. It’s worse.
    Though if Iran block the Strait Trump says the ceasefire is then over
    I’m talking about tolls/fees
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 137,036
    Andy_JS said:

    From one of the most respected newspapers in Australia.

    "Voters prefer Hanson as PM. Are they prepared for her to run the country?
    According to the latest Resolve Political Monitor, that’s exactly what they are asking for.
    James Massola" (£)

    https://www.smh.com.au/

    Labor still leads on most 2PP polls though

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_Australian_federal_election
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 34,566
    Cyclefree said:

    eek said:

    Great to see the Commons are bringing back an identical Assisted Dying law to that which was passed last term. Good!

    Hopefully the Commons passes it, and the Lords can stop dicking around and act like adults and either choose reasonable amendments that the Commons accepts to improve the bill, or the Parliament Act sees it go through unamended since the elected chamber has passed it twice by that point.

    It's a Private Mermbers Bill and not part of the Government's Manifesto - the Parliament Act doesn't apply...
    Parliament Act has bugger all to do with Government Manifesto's.

    Salisbury Convention does not apply. Parliament Act does.
    Yep. Parliament Act applies to all 'public bills'. That can be Government or Private.
    This is the Bill which gives a central role to psychiatrists whose professional body has said that, while neutral on the principle, they do not support this Bill. And which every other professional organisation looking at it - from every disabled charity to the former head of the NHS, the Chief Coroner, palliative care specialists, those dealing with anorexia, domestic violence and coercive behaviour, the anti-suicide Tsar etc etc - has said they do not support and/or the Bill as drafted is unsafe.

    Meanwhile my local hospice has to raise money through plant sales because government won't fund the sector properly. But, hey, it's only grannies like me - as per Henry Marsh - or the poor (as per Lord Falconer) - who'll get bumped off so that important people like him get what they want. So who cares.

    There was a time when Labour saw its mission as alleviating poverty not using it as a reason to offer suicide from a health service. They may as well call it the Useless Mouths (Abolition Of) Law.
    I actually agree with you on this. I was simply making a point of law since I know many are not clear on this. If it gets to that point and Starmer wants to force this through, the Parliament Act does apply and, for better or worse, the Lords cannot stop him
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 34,566
    edited June 14

    Which humiliation was worse for the US?

    Vietnam or Iran (2026).

    We will see in the coming years.

    I suspect Iran has longer consequences.

    That's a ridiculous comparison.

    In Vietnam over 50k Americans died and its ally was overthrown.

    Whereas the USA has lost effectively nothing this year although Trump has failed to get his big win.
    Stop sucking his cock
    Grow up.

    Where's the equivalent of this:

    'Saigon: The Final Hours'

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0BVRhsqHE5M

    Or for that matter this:

    "Desert One": Inside the failed 1980 hostage rescue in Iran

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-m7nZA-VllI

    Now what's happened this year ?

    Iran's been smashed up.

    The Arabs have had to sell some foreign assets to build alternative oil pipelines.

    Trump failed to get his big win.

    Everyone's energy bills went up a bit.

    Effectively everyone lost out to varying extents.

    And in a few weeks / months / years there will be another round of fighting.

    Now I know people hate Trump so much that they want to declare everything the greatest disaster in the history of everywhere at every time.

    But it isn't.

    Its a triviality compared to either Vietnam 1975 and Iran 1979/80 - now those were humiliations for the USA.
    And Trump is now watching his 'fighting spirit' display while the rest of the world watches football.

    In 1979 this was happening in the USA:

    Long lines, no gas: 1979's odd-even gas rationing

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFaQ_YXwuRI
    That was from New York.

    Here's Portland:

    Gas Shortage - in June 1979 | KATU In The Archives

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0vFfU7GGgH8

    and Houston:

    Houston 1979 gas rationing

    Houston 1979 gas rationing

    and Boston:

    WBZ Archives: Combatting The 1979 Gasoline Shortage

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oDC2Ty5qfU8

    I've never heard that we had any shortages in this country.

    Can any PBer's remember back to how Britain / Europe was affected (beyond higher prices).
    The UK was not really affected by the 1979 Oil Crisis because of North Sea Oil. However we were in the Middle of the Winter of Discontent and the Tanker Drivers went on strike so there were localised shortages.
  • TheValiantTheValiant Posts: 2,139

    I cannot see any advantage in Burnham delaying his coup and frankly the whole farce needs ending with Starmer and Reeves picking up their P45's

    And hopefully Starmer is not offered Foreign Secretary or any other posts - he needs to go altogether

    I absolutely agree with the first. The idea that you manage to convince an MP to stand down, publically run for the post yourself with a clear indication that you are only doing this to become PM; but then sit on your victory for three months is farcical.

    Assuming Burnham wins on Thursday, I expect a challenge to be announced by Monday morning at the latest. Anything else and he's just proved that the Labour party doesn't do leadership challenges......
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 28,898
    Cyclefree said:

    ...the Bill as drafted is unsafe...

    Well, yes. This reached its peak/nadir when somebody during the debate worried that the death method would be unsafe. Sometimes I just gaze in amazement.

    (oh, while I'm here: https://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2024/11/29/hell/ )

  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 89,940
    .

    Which humiliation was worse for the US?

    Vietnam or Iran (2026).

    We will see in the coming years.

    I suspect Iran has longer consequences.

    That's a ridiculous comparison.

    In Vietnam over 50k Americans died and its ally was overthrown.

    Whereas the USA has lost effectively nothing this year although Trump has failed to get his big win.
    It's just dignity and credibility they've lost this year. It's no Vietnam, for sure, but I don't think many people will look at the USA the same way any longer.
    In purely economic terms, Vietnam cost the U.S. far more, and it brought down a president. And Iran cost the rest of the world far more than it did the U.S.

    In strategic terms, it's a little early to tell, but Iran might prove more costly to U.S. hegemony than did Vietnam.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 89,940
    boulay said:

    Andy_JS said:

    carnforth said:

    Roy Hattersley has died.

    A man my (left wing) mother once described as "a thug" for his role in trying to abolish grammar schools in the early 2000s.
    Shows the awfulness of grammar schools that it united the right and left such as Thatcher and Hattersley in wanting to abolish them.
    It's private schools that should have been abolished, not grammar schools.
    What are you on about. Britain was the biggest empire ever when it was run by public schoolboys. I’m sure you could plot a graph with the demise of our position against the number of pleb MPs.
    I doubt that's true.
    The empire reached its zenith quite some was into the 19thC, long after Parliamentary reform had allowed in a slightly higher proportion of plebs.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 60,522
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Which humiliation was worse for the US?

    Vietnam or Iran (2026).

    We will see in the coming years.

    I suspect Iran has longer consequences.

    Vietnam saw South Vietnam fall to the Communist North, Iran at least just leaves the status quo as was bar one old Ayatollah replaced by a younger one
    Iran is now emboldened and officially controlling the strait of Hormuz so it’s not the status quo. It’s worse.
    Though if Iran block the Strait Trump says the ceasefire is then over
    And?
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 64,558

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Which humiliation was worse for the US?

    Vietnam or Iran (2026).

    We will see in the coming years.

    I suspect Iran has longer consequences.

    Vietnam saw South Vietnam fall to the Communist North, Iran at least just leaves the status quo as was bar one old Ayatollah replaced by a younger one
    Iran is now emboldened and officially controlling the strait of Hormuz so it’s not the status quo. It’s worse.
    Though if Iran block the Strait Trump says the ceasefire is then over
    And?
    I think you're missing the big picture here. If Iran block the Strait again, it gives Trump the ability to win yet another war.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 60,522
    edited 4:54AM

    Which humiliation was worse for the US?

    Vietnam or Iran (2026).

    We will see in the coming years.

    I suspect Iran has longer consequences.

    That's a ridiculous comparison.

    In Vietnam over 50k Americans died and its ally was overthrown.

    Whereas the USA has lost effectively nothing this year although Trump has failed to get his big win.
    It's just dignity and credibility they've lost this year. It's no Vietnam, for sure, but I don't think many people will look at the USA the same way any longer.
    It has lost huge respect from the Gulf nations - Saudi, Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait, UAE, Oman - whose hosting of US miltary bases made their hydrocarbon (and tourism) industries very exposed as targets. The US spent hundreds of billions "softening up" Iran - who more than absorbed the blow. The US then suffered huge (and as yet unacknowledged) damage to its regional bases. Radars were wiped out. Its aircraft were hit in large numbers. Its Reaper drones were lost in their dozens. Iran was then still able to reduce Qatar's LNG production by 16% for years with a single missile.

    The theoretical control of the Straits of Hormuz by Iran will be mitigated over time by pipelines. Meanwhile, the Gulf will have to reach accommodations with the Iranian thousand pound gorilla. Hard for them to swallow - especially the Saudis. Trump has said crass things - about the Saudis and the Omanis in particular - that will not be forgotten. The Gulf will instead look to China's clout with Iran to stop any further blockades.

    American might has been shown to be powerless to enforce the movement of world trade. This "excursion" wasn't about stopping Communist dominos falling. It was a much bigger projection of US power. That failed. Operation Epic Fury became Operation Epic Failure. The US will never be the same again.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 60,522
    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Which humiliation was worse for the US?

    Vietnam or Iran (2026).

    We will see in the coming years.

    I suspect Iran has longer consequences.

    Vietnam saw South Vietnam fall to the Communist North, Iran at least just leaves the status quo as was bar one old Ayatollah replaced by a younger one
    Iran is now emboldened and officially controlling the strait of Hormuz so it’s not the status quo. It’s worse.
    Though if Iran block the Strait Trump says the ceasefire is then over
    And?
    I think you're missing the big picture here. If Iran block the Strait again, it gives Trump the ability to win yet another war.
    His fluffers seem not to have read the Nobel Prize small print - you don't get awarded one for stopping wars you started.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 36,521

    Which humiliation was worse for the US?

    Vietnam or Iran (2026).

    We will see in the coming years.

    I suspect Iran has longer consequences.

    That's a ridiculous comparison.

    In Vietnam over 50k Americans died and its ally was overthrown.

    Whereas the USA has lost effectively nothing this year although Trump has failed to get his big win.
    It's just dignity and credibility they've lost this year. It's no Vietnam, for sure, but I don't think many people will look at the USA the same way any longer.
    It has lost huge respect from the Gulf nations - Saudi, Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait, UAE, Oman - whose hosting of US miltary bases made their hydrocarbon (and tourism) industries very exposed as targets. The US spent hundreds of billions "softening up" Iran - who more than absorbed the blow. The US then suffered huge (and as yet unacknowledged) damage to its regional bases. Radars were wiped out. Its aircraft were hit in large numbers. Its Reaper drones were lost in their dozens. Iran was then still able to reduce Qatar's LNG production by 16% for years with a single missile.

    The theoretical control of the Straits of Hormuz by Iran will be mitigated over time by pipelines. Meanwhile, the Gulf will have to reach accommodations with the Iranian thousand pound gorilla. Hard for them to swallow - especially the Saudis. Trump has said crass things - about the Saudis and the Omanis in particular - that will not be forgotten. The Gulf will instead look to China's clout with Iran to stop any further blockades.

    American might has been shown to be powerless to enforce the movement of world trade. This "excursion" wasn't about stopping Communist dominos falling. It was a much bigger projection of US power. That failed. Operation Epic Fury became Operatio Epic Failure. The US will never be the same again.
    It also showed the limits of America's influence on Israel, and has empowered hotheads on any side to reignite the conflagration. Further, it has cemented in power Iran's theocratic and murderous regime, who can get on with their business of suppressing and killing those working for openness and democracy.

    On the positive side, de facto control of the Strait of Hormuz gives Iran a new income stream and reasons to give up its nuclear ambitions.
  • nico67nico67 Posts: 8,362
    Iran knows that Trump can’t go back to a bombing campaign with the mid -terms coming so they can get a preferential deal which will be much worse for the USA than the one the moron ripped up in 2017 .

    The Trump lickspittles can spin as much as they like but those with a functioning brain know that this has been an abject failure . Only those intellectually challenged can call re-opening the Strait of Hormuz which was open before Trumps war any sort of win .
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 26,305

    Which humiliation was worse for the US?

    Vietnam or Iran (2026).

    We will see in the coming years.

    I suspect Iran has longer consequences.

    That's a ridiculous comparison.

    In Vietnam over 50k Americans died and its ally was overthrown.

    Whereas the USA has lost effectively nothing this year although Trump has failed to get his big win.
    It's just dignity and credibility they've lost this year. It's no Vietnam, for sure, but I don't think many people will look at the USA the same way any longer.
    It has lost huge respect from the Gulf nations - Saudi, Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait, UAE, Oman - whose hosting of US miltary bases made their hydrocarbon (and tourism) industries very exposed as targets. The US spent hundreds of billions "softening up" Iran - who more than absorbed the blow. The US then suffered huge (and as yet unacknowledged) damage to its regional bases. Radars were wiped out. Its aircraft were hit in large numbers. Its Reaper drones were lost in their dozens. Iran was then still able to reduce Qatar's LNG production by 16% for years with a single missile.

    The theoretical control of the Straits of Hormuz by Iran will be mitigated over time by pipelines. Meanwhile, the Gulf will have to reach accommodations with the Iranian thousand pound gorilla. Hard for them to swallow - especially the Saudis. Trump has said crass things - about the Saudis and the Omanis in particular - that will not be forgotten. The Gulf will instead look to China's clout with Iran to stop any further blockades.

    American might has been shown to be powerless to enforce the movement of world trade. This "excursion" wasn't about stopping Communist dominos falling. It was a much bigger projection of US power. That failed. Operation Epic Fury became Operatio Epic Failure. The US will never be the same again.
    It also showed the limits of America's influence on Israel, and has empowered hotheads on any side to reignite the conflagration. Further, it has cemented in power Iran's theocratic and murderous regime, who can get on with their business of suppressing and killing those working for openness and democracy.

    On the positive side, de facto control of the Strait of Hormuz gives Iran a new income stream and reasons to give up its nuclear ambitions.
    Iran has no money.

    It's economy is screwed and it needs to spend a fortune to rebuild

    Tolls if charged just arent big enough to pay for it all

    And of course the US can do this all over again if it wants
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 63,952
    Good morning, everyone.

    F1: splendid result in the race.

    Hamilton's 5.5 for the title, not much off Russell at 4.5. Antonelli 1.44 (too short). Those are Ladbrokes. Tempted to lay Antonelli on Betfair, although he's out to 1.68 (lay) there.

    Put a small sum on Norris at 11 each way in Austria. He was very close to Antonelli in qualifying at Spain, and usually does very well in Austria.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 43,572

    Which humiliation was worse for the US?

    Vietnam or Iran (2026).

    We will see in the coming years.

    I suspect Iran has longer consequences.

    That's a ridiculous comparison.

    In Vietnam over 50k Americans died and its ally was overthrown.

    Whereas the USA has lost effectively nothing this year although Trump has failed to get his big win.
    It's just dignity and credibility they've lost this year. It's no Vietnam, for sure, but I don't think many people will look at the USA the same way any longer.
    It has lost huge respect from the Gulf nations - Saudi, Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait, UAE, Oman - whose hosting of US miltary bases made their hydrocarbon (and tourism) industries very exposed as targets. The US spent hundreds of billions "softening up" Iran - who more than absorbed the blow. The US then suffered huge (and as yet unacknowledged) damage to its regional bases. Radars were wiped out. Its aircraft were hit in large numbers. Its Reaper drones were lost in their dozens. Iran was then still able to reduce Qatar's LNG production by 16% for years with a single missile.

    The theoretical control of the Straits of Hormuz by Iran will be mitigated over time by pipelines. Meanwhile, the Gulf will have to reach accommodations with the Iranian thousand pound gorilla. Hard for them to swallow - especially the Saudis. Trump has said crass things - about the Saudis and the Omanis in particular - that will not be forgotten. The Gulf will instead look to China's clout with Iran to stop any further blockades.

    American might has been shown to be powerless to enforce the movement of world trade. This "excursion" wasn't about stopping Communist dominos falling. It was a much bigger projection of US power. That failed. Operation Epic Fury became Operatio Epic Failure. The US will never be the same again.
    It also showed the limits of America's influence on Israel, and has empowered hotheads on any side to reignite the conflagration. Further, it has cemented in power Iran's theocratic and murderous regime, who can get on with their business of suppressing and killing those working for openness and democracy.

    On the positive side, de facto control of the Strait of Hormuz gives Iran a new income stream and reasons to give up its nuclear ambitions.
    Iran has no money.

    It's economy is screwed and it needs to spend a fortune to rebuild

    Tolls if charged just arent big enough to pay for it all

    And of course the US can do this all over again if it wants
    @vcdgf555.bsky.social‬

    How else to interpret giving the Iranian regime $324B USD besides saying with dollars "we fucked up, our bad"

    https://bsky.app/profile/vcdgf555.bsky.social/post/3moby46cixc23
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 9,368
    Cyclefree said:

    eek said:

    Great to see the Commons are bringing back an identical Assisted Dying law to that which was passed last term. Good!

    Hopefully the Commons passes it, and the Lords can stop dicking around and act like adults and either choose reasonable amendments that the Commons accepts to improve the bill, or the Parliament Act sees it go through unamended since the elected chamber has passed it twice by that point.

    It's a Private Mermbers Bill and not part of the Government's Manifesto - the Parliament Act doesn't apply...
    Parliament Act has bugger all to do with Government Manifesto's.

    Salisbury Convention does not apply. Parliament Act does.
    Yep. Parliament Act applies to all 'public bills'. That can be Government or Private.
    This is the Bill which gives a central role to psychiatrists whose professional body has said that, while neutral on the principle, they do not support this Bill. And which every other professional organisation looking at it - from every disabled charity to the former head of the NHS, the Chief Coroner, palliative care specialists, those dealing with anorexia, domestic violence and coercive behaviour, the anti-suicide Tsar etc etc - has said they do not support and/or the Bill as drafted is unsafe.

    Quite misleading. Most professional organizations in healthcare have stayed neutral.

    50%/39% of doctors in favour of assisted dying.

    https://www.bma.org.uk/media/3367/bma-physician-assisted-dying-survey-report-oct-2020.pdf
  • nico67nico67 Posts: 8,362
    This is the Iranians view of the MOU and the main provisions so of course be sceptical . It will be interesting to see what the final document shows .

    https://en.mehrnews.com/news/245284/What-do-we-know-about-details-of-anticipated-Iran-US-MoU
  • scampi25scampi25 Posts: 589
    edited 5:41AM

    Which humiliation was worse for the US?

    Vietnam or Iran (2026).

    We will see in the coming years.

    I suspect Iran has longer consequences.

    That's a ridiculous comparison.

    In Vietnam over 50k Americans died and its ally was overthrown.

    Whereas the USA has lost effectively nothing this year although Trump has failed to get his big win.
    It's just dignity and credibility they've lost this year. It's no Vietnam, for sure, but I don't think many people will look at the USA the same way any longer.
    It has lost huge respect from the Gulf nations - Saudi, Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait, UAE, Oman - whose hosting of US miltary bases made their hydrocarbon (and tourism) industries very exposed as targets. The US spent hundreds of billions "softening up" Iran - who more than absorbed the blow. The US then suffered huge (and as yet unacknowledged) damage to its regional bases. Radars were wiped out. Its aircraft were hit in large numbers. Its Reaper drones were lost in their dozens. Iran was then still able to reduce Qatar's LNG production by 16% for years with a single missile.

    The theoretical control of the Straits of Hormuz by Iran will be mitigated over time by pipelines. Meanwhile, the Gulf will have to reach accommodations with the Iranian thousand pound gorilla. Hard for them to swallow - especially the Saudis. Trump has said crass things - about the Saudis and the Omanis in particular - that will not be forgotten. The Gulf will instead look to China's clout with Iran to stop any further blockades.

    American might has been shown to be powerless to enforce the movement of world trade. This "excursion" wasn't about stopping Communist dominos falling. It was a much bigger projection of US power. That failed. Operation Epic Fury became Operatio Epic Failure. The US will never be the same again.
    It also showed the limits of America's influence on Israel, and has empowered hotheads on any side to reignite the conflagration. Further, it has cemented in power Iran's theocratic and murderous regime, who can get on with their business of suppressing and killing those working for openness and democracy.

    On the positive side, de facto control of the Strait of Hormuz gives Iran a new income stream and reasons to give up its nuclear ambitions.
    Iran has no money.

    It's economy is screwed and it needs to spend a fortune to rebuild

    Tolls if charged just arent big enough to pay for it all

    And of course the US can do this all over again if it wants
    Finally some balance to the dull and repetitive criticism of the US. It's a defeat for the west in general and the Trump hating tries to obscure,but fails to cover up, the abject weakness and irrelevance of UK and Europe on the world stage. But heigh ho we've now got Burnham to save the day .....triple lock, nationalisation, defence cuts...plus ca change.....
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 66,714
    On topic, 7 working days probably isn't anything like enough time for the nomination and election process to complete in the Labour Party, even if it's just Burnham, but at 75/1 I'm not going to be too picky about overanalysing it.

    There's definitely a scenario where Starmer just folds.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 66,714
    Andy_JS said:

    carnforth said:

    Roy Hattersley has died.

    A man my (left wing) mother once described as "a thug" for his role in trying to abolish grammar schools in the early 2000s.
    Shows the awfulness of grammar schools that it united the right and left such as Thatcher and Hattersley in wanting to abolish them.
    It's private schools that should have been abolished, not grammar schools.
    Why?
  • nico67nico67 Posts: 8,362

    On topic, 7 working days probably isn't anything like enough time for the nomination and election process to complete in the Labour Party, even if it's just Burnham, but at 75/1 I'm not going to be too picky about overanalysing it.

    There's definitely a scenario where Starmer just folds.

    Despite Starmers protestations I expect him to fold quickly . The defence debacle really means even the slimmest chance he would survive has been erased .
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 39,985

    Roy Hattersley has died.

    Oh Lard! I mean Lord!
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 79,592
    Starmer is Macbeth. Cowering in his castle while everything implodes around him.

    And Burnham would, as he's dunsome inane stuff before.

    I fear however he'll be less Macduff than just plain duff.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 63,952
    edited 6:02AM
    ydoethur said:

    Starmer is Macbeth. Cowering in his castle while everything implodes around him.

    And Burnham would, as he's dunsome inane stuff before.

    I fear however he'll be less Macduff than just plain duff.

    MacBeth didn't cower.

    "I'll fight till from my bones my flesh be hack'd; give me my armour."

    Edited: It's been a long time since I read it, so may be misremembering.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 39,985

    Andy_JS said:

    carnforth said:

    Roy Hattersley has died.

    A man my (left wing) mother once described as "a thug" for his role in trying to abolish grammar schools in the early 2000s.
    Shows the awfulness of grammar schools that it united the right and left such as Thatcher and Hattersley in wanting to abolish them.
    It's private schools that should have been abolished, not grammar schools.
    Why?
    Unusually Casino on this I am with you here. I don't want my taxes paying for a superior education for other people's children and not my own. On the other hand if you choose to pay for a private education, that is your business.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 36,521

    Which humiliation was worse for the US?

    Vietnam or Iran (2026).

    We will see in the coming years.

    I suspect Iran has longer consequences.

    That's a ridiculous comparison.

    In Vietnam over 50k Americans died and its ally was overthrown.

    Whereas the USA has lost effectively nothing this year although Trump has failed to get his big win.
    It's just dignity and credibility they've lost this year. It's no Vietnam, for sure, but I don't think many people will look at the USA the same way any longer.
    It has lost huge respect from the Gulf nations - Saudi, Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait, UAE, Oman - whose hosting of US miltary bases made their hydrocarbon (and tourism) industries very exposed as targets. The US spent hundreds of billions "softening up" Iran - who more than absorbed the blow. The US then suffered huge (and as yet unacknowledged) damage to its regional bases. Radars were wiped out. Its aircraft were hit in large numbers. Its Reaper drones were lost in their dozens. Iran was then still able to reduce Qatar's LNG production by 16% for years with a single missile.

    The theoretical control of the Straits of Hormuz by Iran will be mitigated over time by pipelines. Meanwhile, the Gulf will have to reach accommodations with the Iranian thousand pound gorilla. Hard for them to swallow - especially the Saudis. Trump has said crass things - about the Saudis and the Omanis in particular - that will not be forgotten. The Gulf will instead look to China's clout with Iran to stop any further blockades.

    American might has been shown to be powerless to enforce the movement of world trade. This "excursion" wasn't about stopping Communist dominos falling. It was a much bigger projection of US power. That failed. Operation Epic Fury became Operatio Epic Failure. The US will never be the same again.
    It also showed the limits of America's influence on Israel, and has empowered hotheads on any side to reignite the conflagration. Further, it has cemented in power Iran's theocratic and murderous regime, who can get on with their business of suppressing and killing those working for openness and democracy.

    On the positive side, de facto control of the Strait of Hormuz gives Iran a new income stream and reasons to give up its nuclear ambitions.
    Iran has no money.

    It's economy is screwed and it needs to spend a fortune to rebuild

    Tolls if charged just arent big enough to pay for it all

    And of course the US can do this all over again if it wants
    Yes it can. That's what I keep saying. Extremists on any side can provoke any other side into restarting hostilities. Welcome to the Middle East. We must hope that now Iran has another path besides nuclear power, it will take it.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 21,107

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Which humiliation was worse for the US?

    Vietnam or Iran (2026).

    We will see in the coming years.

    I suspect Iran has longer consequences.

    Vietnam saw South Vietnam fall to the Communist North, Iran at least just leaves the status quo as was bar one old Ayatollah replaced by a younger one
    Iran is now emboldened and officially controlling the strait of Hormuz so it’s not the status quo. It’s worse.
    Though if Iran block the Strait Trump says the ceasefire is then over
    And?
    I think you're missing the big picture here. If Iran block the Strait again, it gives Trump the ability to win yet another war.
    His fluffers seem not to have read the Nobel Prize small print - you don't get awarded one for stopping wars you started.
    Do you recall the winners in 1973?
  • TazTaz Posts: 28,482

    Which humiliation was worse for the US?

    Vietnam or Iran (2026).

    We will see in the coming years.

    I suspect Iran has longer consequences.

    That's a ridiculous comparison.

    In Vietnam over 50k Americans died and its ally was overthrown.

    Whereas the USA has lost effectively nothing this year although Trump has failed to get his big win.
    It's just dignity and credibility they've lost this year. It's no Vietnam, for sure, but I don't think many people will look at the USA the same way any longer.
    It has lost huge respect from the Gulf nations - Saudi, Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait, UAE, Oman - whose hosting of US miltary bases made their hydrocarbon (and tourism) industries very exposed as targets. The US spent hundreds of billions "softening up" Iran - who more than absorbed the blow. The US then suffered huge (and as yet unacknowledged) damage to its regional bases. Radars were wiped out. Its aircraft were hit in large numbers. Its Reaper drones were lost in their dozens. Iran was then still able to reduce Qatar's LNG production by 16% for years with a single missile.

    The theoretical control of the Straits of Hormuz by Iran will be mitigated over time by pipelines. Meanwhile, the Gulf will have to reach accommodations with the Iranian thousand pound gorilla. Hard for them to swallow - especially the Saudis. Trump has said crass things - about the Saudis and the Omanis in particular - that will not be forgotten. The Gulf will instead look to China's clout with Iran to stop any further blockades.

    American might has been shown to be powerless to enforce the movement of world trade. This "excursion" wasn't about stopping Communist dominos falling. It was a much bigger projection of US power. That failed. Operation Epic Fury became Operatio Epic Failure. The US will never be the same again.
    It also showed the limits of America's influence on Israel, and has empowered hotheads on any side to reignite the conflagration. Further, it has cemented in power Iran's theocratic and murderous regime, who can get on with their business of suppressing and killing those working for openness and democracy.

    On the positive side, de facto control of the Strait of Hormuz gives Iran a new income stream and reasons to give up its nuclear ambitions.
    Iran has no money.

    It's economy is screwed and it needs to spend a fortune to rebuild

    Tolls if charged just arent big enough to pay for it all

    And of course the US can do this all over again if it wants
    Blocking Hormuz may have been tactically a smart move but strategically a poor one.

    Now the race will be on to get pipelines and other means of getting oil out other than via Hormuz.
  • MikeLMikeL Posts: 8,005
    Re some earlier posts note the Commons isn’t even sitting on Friday 19 June.
    So earliest Burnham can be sworn in and become an MP is Monday 22 June.
  • TazTaz Posts: 28,482
    Nigelb said:

    .

    Which humiliation was worse for the US?

    Vietnam or Iran (2026).

    We will see in the coming years.

    I suspect Iran has longer consequences.

    That's a ridiculous comparison.

    In Vietnam over 50k Americans died and its ally was overthrown.

    Whereas the USA has lost effectively nothing this year although Trump has failed to get his big win.
    It's just dignity and credibility they've lost this year. It's no Vietnam, for sure, but I don't think many people will look at the USA the same way any longer.
    In purely economic terms, Vietnam cost the U.S. far more, and it brought down a president. And Iran cost the rest of the world far more than it did the U.S.

    In strategic terms, it's a little early to tell, but Iran might prove more costly to U.S. hegemony than did Vietnam.
    Also the Israeli regime and Bibi, who were trying to derail the agreement yesterday and may well over the coming days.

    They talked Trump into this.

    They’re the big losers too, as it stands.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 66,714

    Andy_JS said:

    carnforth said:

    Roy Hattersley has died.

    A man my (left wing) mother once described as "a thug" for his role in trying to abolish grammar schools in the early 2000s.
    Shows the awfulness of grammar schools that it united the right and left such as Thatcher and Hattersley in wanting to abolish them.
    It's private schools that should have been abolished, not grammar schools.
    Why?
    Unusually Casino on this I am with you here. I don't want my taxes paying for a superior education for other people's children and not my own. On the other hand if you choose to pay for a private education, that is your business.
    My wife and I had a (serious) conversation about pulling our kids out of private school at the weekend, and going for the local CofE primary, maybe with private tutoring on top.

    This would of course mean we start taking two average funded state school places (c.£12k a year) for our two kids, and no longer pay the VAT on the fees (c.£7.2k a year) with a net cost to taxpayers of our decision of £19.2k per year.

    But it's too expensive and we're not sure we can do it or justify it anymore.

    I wonder how many others are in our position.
  • TazTaz Posts: 28,482

    HYUFD said:

    Which humiliation was worse for the US?

    Vietnam or Iran (2026).

    We will see in the coming years.

    I suspect Iran has longer consequences.

    Vietnam saw South Vietnam fall to the Communist North, Iran at least just leaves the status quo as was bar one old Ayatollah replaced by a younger one
    Iran is now emboldened and officially controlling the strait of Hormuz so it’s not the status quo. It’s worse.
    Well done Bibi, well done Trump.

    Played a blinder.
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 12,916

    Andy_JS said:

    carnforth said:

    Roy Hattersley has died.

    A man my (left wing) mother once described as "a thug" for his role in trying to abolish grammar schools in the early 2000s.
    Shows the awfulness of grammar schools that it united the right and left such as Thatcher and Hattersley in wanting to abolish them.
    It's private schools that should have been abolished, not grammar schools.
    Why?
    Unusually Casino on this I am with you here. I don't want my taxes paying for a superior education for other people's children and not my own. On the other hand if you choose to pay for a private education, that is your business.
    My wife and I had a (serious) conversation about pulling our kids out of private school at the weekend, and going for the local CofE primary, maybe with private tutoring on top.

    This would of course mean we start taking two average funded state school places (c.£12k a year) for our two kids, and no longer pay the VAT on the fees (c.£7.2k a year) with a net cost to taxpayers of our decision of £19.2k per year.

    But it's too expensive and we're not sure we can do it or justify it anymore.

    I wonder how many others are in our position.
    Assuming that the education your children currently receive is better than that which the state offers there's also a long-term cost in that our future workforce will be less well educated.

    (The whole policy is daft. We should if anything be giving some money towards private schools.)
  • TazTaz Posts: 28,482

    Well the USA lost the war

    The USA and Israel lost.

    Israel duped Trump into this. Bibi and the Israeli regime are massive losers too.

    The attempt by the IDF to scupper the talks yesterday may well have speeded up the conclusion.

    It may hasten a confrontation with the USA too.


    “ Therefore, Israeli attempts to undermine the diplomatic move are not merely a maneuver against Iran; they could quickly turn into a confrontation with the White House itself. The more Israel is perceived as an obstacle on the path to the deal, the more the American pressure is expected to intensify—both toward the Israeli government and toward Prime Minister Netanyahu personally. In the current reality, this is a strategic risk that Jerusalem cannot afford to ignore.”


    https://x.com/citrinowicz/status/2066255362508951607?s=61

    https://x.com/ronenbergman/status/2066249024253084010?s=61
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 26,305
    Taz said:

    Which humiliation was worse for the US?

    Vietnam or Iran (2026).

    We will see in the coming years.

    I suspect Iran has longer consequences.

    That's a ridiculous comparison.

    In Vietnam over 50k Americans died and its ally was overthrown.

    Whereas the USA has lost effectively nothing this year although Trump has failed to get his big win.
    It's just dignity and credibility they've lost this year. It's no Vietnam, for sure, but I don't think many people will look at the USA the same way any longer.
    It has lost huge respect from the Gulf nations - Saudi, Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait, UAE, Oman - whose hosting of US miltary bases made their hydrocarbon (and tourism) industries very exposed as targets. The US spent hundreds of billions "softening up" Iran - who more than absorbed the blow. The US then suffered huge (and as yet unacknowledged) damage to its regional bases. Radars were wiped out. Its aircraft were hit in large numbers. Its Reaper drones were lost in their dozens. Iran was then still able to reduce Qatar's LNG production by 16% for years with a single missile.

    The theoretical control of the Straits of Hormuz by Iran will be mitigated over time by pipelines. Meanwhile, the Gulf will have to reach accommodations with the Iranian thousand pound gorilla. Hard for them to swallow - especially the Saudis. Trump has said crass things - about the Saudis and the Omanis in particular - that will not be forgotten. The Gulf will instead look to China's clout with Iran to stop any further blockades.

    American might has been shown to be powerless to enforce the movement of world trade. This "excursion" wasn't about stopping Communist dominos falling. It was a much bigger projection of US power. That failed. Operation Epic Fury became Operatio Epic Failure. The US will never be the same again.
    It also showed the limits of America's influence on Israel, and has empowered hotheads on any side to reignite the conflagration. Further, it has cemented in power Iran's theocratic and murderous regime, who can get on with their business of suppressing and killing those working for openness and democracy.

    On the positive side, de facto control of the Strait of Hormuz gives Iran a new income stream and reasons to give up its nuclear ambitions.
    Iran has no money.

    It's economy is screwed and it needs to spend a fortune to rebuild

    Tolls if charged just arent big enough to pay for it all

    And of course the US can do this all over again if it wants
    Blocking Hormuz may have been tactically a smart move but strategically a poor one.

    Now the race will be on to get pipelines and other means of getting oil out other than via Hormuz.
    And not just that

    Venezuala has the worlds largest oil reserves. The kleptocracy that ran it is now ( mostly )out of the way.

    When Venezula comes fully on stream there will be less demand for Middle East oil And as you say what oil does come out the strait of Hormuz will get diverted to via pipelines elsewhere. Eventually the biggest victim of a blockade will be Iran itself.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 59,078
    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Which humiliation was worse for the US?

    Vietnam or Iran (2026).

    We will see in the coming years.

    I suspect Iran has longer consequences.

    Vietnam saw South Vietnam fall to the Communist North, Iran at least just leaves the status quo as was bar one old Ayatollah replaced by a younger one
    Iran is now emboldened and officially controlling the strait of Hormuz so it’s not the status quo. It’s worse.
    Though if Iran block the Strait Trump says the ceasefire is then over
    And?
    I think you're missing the big picture here. If Iran block the Strait again, it gives Trump the ability to win yet another war.
    And then negotiate yet another peace. And get another prize.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 36,521
    Taz said:

    Nigelb said:

    .

    Which humiliation was worse for the US?

    Vietnam or Iran (2026).

    We will see in the coming years.

    I suspect Iran has longer consequences.

    That's a ridiculous comparison.

    In Vietnam over 50k Americans died and its ally was overthrown.

    Whereas the USA has lost effectively nothing this year although Trump has failed to get his big win.
    It's just dignity and credibility they've lost this year. It's no Vietnam, for sure, but I don't think many people will look at the USA the same way any longer.
    In purely economic terms, Vietnam cost the U.S. far more, and it brought down a president. And Iran cost the rest of the world far more than it did the U.S.

    In strategic terms, it's a little early to tell, but Iran might prove more costly to U.S. hegemony than did Vietnam.
    Also the Israeli regime and Bibi, who were trying to derail the agreement yesterday and may well over the coming days.

    They talked Trump into this.

    They’re the big losers too, as it stands.
    I'm not sure Israel has lost, at least in terms of realpolitik. The American government is not happy but will come round and aid and assistance will continue. Hamas is gone, Hezbollah weakened.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 36,521
    edited 6:57AM
    Duplicate deleted.
  • DopermeanDopermean Posts: 3,193
    Omnium said:

    Andy_JS said:

    carnforth said:

    Roy Hattersley has died.

    A man my (left wing) mother once described as "a thug" for his role in trying to abolish grammar schools in the early 2000s.
    Shows the awfulness of grammar schools that it united the right and left such as Thatcher and Hattersley in wanting to abolish them.
    It's private schools that should have been abolished, not grammar schools.
    Why?
    Unusually Casino on this I am with you here. I don't want my taxes paying for a superior education for other people's children and not my own. On the other hand if you choose to pay for a private education, that is your business.
    My wife and I had a (serious) conversation about pulling our kids out of private school at the weekend, and going for the local CofE primary, maybe with private tutoring on top.

    This would of course mean we start taking two average funded state school places (c.£12k a year) for our two kids, and no longer pay the VAT on the fees (c.£7.2k a year) with a net cost to taxpayers of our decision of £19.2k per year.

    But it's too expensive and we're not sure we can do it or justify it anymore.

    I wonder how many others are in our position.
    Assuming that the education your children currently receive is better than that which the state offers there's also a long-term cost in that our future workforce will be less well educated.

    (The whole policy is daft. We should if anything be giving some money towards private schools.)
    Taking a right wing position, if you can't afford it, tough.
    The economic case isn't that simple, the cost of additional children to a class that isn't full won't be the mean cost of a state school place.
    Plus the massive saving to the economy of people not being promoted far beyond their ability due to the advantages provided by their private education.
  • DopermeanDopermean Posts: 3,193
    Omnium said:

    Andy_JS said:

    carnforth said:

    Roy Hattersley has died.

    A man my (left wing) mother once described as "a thug" for his role in trying to abolish grammar schools in the early 2000s.
    Shows the awfulness of grammar schools that it united the right and left such as Thatcher and Hattersley in wanting to abolish them.
    It's private schools that should have been abolished, not grammar schools.
    Why?
    Unusually Casino on this I am with you here. I don't want my taxes paying for a superior education for other people's children and not my own. On the other hand if you choose to pay for a private education, that is your business.
    My wife and I had a (serious) conversation about pulling our kids out of private school at the weekend, and going for the local CofE primary, maybe with private tutoring on top.

    This would of course mean we start taking two average funded state school places (c.£12k a year) for our two kids, and no longer pay the VAT on the fees (c.£7.2k a year) with a net cost to taxpayers of our decision of £19.2k per year.

    But it's too expensive and we're not sure we can do it or justify it anymore.

    I wonder how many others are in our position.
    Assuming that the education your children currently receive is better than that which the state offers there's also a long-term cost in that our future workforce will be less well educated.

    (The whole policy is daft. We should if anything be giving some money towards private schools.)
    Taking a right wing position, if you can't afford it, tough.
    The economic case isn't that simple, the cost of additional children to a class that isn't full won't be the mean cost of a state school place.
    Plus the massive saving to the economy of people not being promoted far beyond their ability due to the advantages provided by their private education.
  • eekeek Posts: 33,996
    edited 7:03AM
    Duplicate
  • eekeek Posts: 33,996

    Andy_JS said:

    carnforth said:

    Roy Hattersley has died.

    A man my (left wing) mother once described as "a thug" for his role in trying to abolish grammar schools in the early 2000s.
    Shows the awfulness of grammar schools that it united the right and left such as Thatcher and Hattersley in wanting to abolish them.
    It's private schools that should have been abolished, not grammar schools.
    Why?
    Unusually Casino on this I am with you here. I don't want my taxes paying for a superior education for other people's children and not my own. On the other hand if you choose to pay for a private education, that is your business.
    My wife and I had a (serious) conversation about pulling our kids out of private school at the weekend, and going for the local CofE primary, maybe with private tutoring on top.

    This would of course mean we start taking two average funded state school places (c.£12k a year) for our two kids, and no longer pay the VAT on the fees (c.£7.2k a year) with a net cost to taxpayers of our decision of £19.2k per year.

    But it's too expensive and we're not sure we can do it or justify it anymore.

    I wonder how many others are in our position.
    My only question is the maybe on private tutoring on top. If the local education is good enough (and you can get into those schools, check and get confirmed places before you leave) - going private is a waste of money.

    Equally other parents are likely in a similar position so it’s very likely the private school you are going to may close anyway and you don’t want to be the last to know with all places at the local good schools gone - although I suspect you’ve already thought of that version of the prisoners dilemma
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 128,776
    edited 7:05AM

    Andy_JS said:

    carnforth said:

    Roy Hattersley has died.

    A man my (left wing) mother once described as "a thug" for his role in trying to abolish grammar schools in the early 2000s.
    Shows the awfulness of grammar schools that it united the right and left such as Thatcher and Hattersley in wanting to abolish them.
    It's private schools that should have been abolished, not grammar schools.
    Why?
    Unusually Casino on this I am with you here. I don't want my taxes paying for a superior education for other people's children and not my own. On the other hand if you choose to pay for a private education, that is your business.
    My wife and I had a (serious) conversation about pulling our kids out of private school at the weekend, and going for the local CofE primary, maybe with private tutoring on top.

    This would of course mean we start taking two average funded state school places (c.£12k a year) for our two kids, and no longer pay the VAT on the fees (c.£7.2k a year) with a net cost to taxpayers of our decision of £19.2k per year.

    But it's too expensive and we're not sure we can do it or justify it anymore.

    I wonder how many others are in our position.
    Quite a few, my eldest is currently doing his exams, a few of his friends won't be back to do their A-Levels.

    A friend absolutely hates himself that his kid has been taken away from his friends and gone into a school with nearly double class sizes.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 59,078
    edited 7:07AM

    Andy_JS said:

    carnforth said:

    Roy Hattersley has died.

    A man my (left wing) mother once described as "a thug" for his role in trying to abolish grammar schools in the early 2000s.
    Shows the awfulness of grammar schools that it united the right and left such as Thatcher and Hattersley in wanting to abolish them.
    It's private schools that should have been abolished, not grammar schools.
    Why?
    Unusually Casino on this I am with you here. I don't want my taxes paying for a superior education for other people's children and not my own. On the other hand if you choose to pay for a private education, that is your business.
    My wife and I had a (serious) conversation about pulling our kids out of private school at the weekend, and going for the local CofE primary, maybe with private tutoring on top.

    This would of course mean we start taking two average funded state school places (c.£12k a year) for our two kids, and no longer pay the VAT on the fees (c.£7.2k a year) with a net cost to taxpayers of our decision of £19.2k per year.

    But it's too expensive and we're not sure we can do it or justify it anymore.

    I wonder how many others are in our position.
    We put 3 kids through private school to varying degrees (they started at different times in primary school). It was a serious financial commitment and probably the main reason I am not retired yet (well, that and being a boring old fart who wouldn't know what to do with himself).

    I don't think we could have afforded to do it at current prices. When our eldest started the fees were under £6k a year. Even allowing for inflation that is a hell of a difference. Was it worth it? Undoubtedly. So much more valuable to them than a few extra quid when we get put to sleep under the new legislation.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 128,776
    Andy_JS said:

    carnforth said:

    Roy Hattersley has died.

    A man my (left wing) mother once described as "a thug" for his role in trying to abolish grammar schools in the early 2000s.
    Shows the awfulness of grammar schools that it united the right and left such as Thatcher and Hattersley in wanting to abolish them.
    It's private schools that should have been abolished, not grammar schools.
    The politics of envy is not nice.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 128,776
    Huzzah for Starmer & the French.

    France stopped two thirds of migrant boats bound for UK last month

    A higher proportion of illegal crossings were stopped last month, which ministers said showed the value of April’s £660m deal to pay for more beach patrols


    https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/france-stopped-two-thirds-of-migrant-boats-bound-for-uk-last-month-dkld7qnmx
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 59,078

    Andy_JS said:

    carnforth said:

    Roy Hattersley has died.

    A man my (left wing) mother once described as "a thug" for his role in trying to abolish grammar schools in the early 2000s.
    Shows the awfulness of grammar schools that it united the right and left such as Thatcher and Hattersley in wanting to abolish them.
    It's private schools that should have been abolished, not grammar schools.
    Why?
    Unusually Casino on this I am with you here. I don't want my taxes paying for a superior education for other people's children and not my own. On the other hand if you choose to pay for a private education, that is your business.
    My wife and I had a (serious) conversation about pulling our kids out of private school at the weekend, and going for the local CofE primary, maybe with private tutoring on top.

    This would of course mean we start taking two average funded state school places (c.£12k a year) for our two kids, and no longer pay the VAT on the fees (c.£7.2k a year) with a net cost to taxpayers of our decision of £19.2k per year.

    But it's too expensive and we're not sure we can do it or justify it anymore.

    I wonder how many others are in our position.
    Quite a few, my eldest is currently doing his exams, a few of his friends won't be back to do their A-Levels.

    A friend absolutely hates himself that his kid has been taken away from his friends and gone into a school with nearly double class sizes.
    I think most parents would scrimp and save to let a kid finish at a school they are already at. Its simply too disruptive to do anything else. The real impact will be on those who are never started there and will feed in over the next decade.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 63,722
    eek said:

    Andy_JS said:

    carnforth said:

    Roy Hattersley has died.

    A man my (left wing) mother once described as "a thug" for his role in trying to abolish grammar schools in the early 2000s.
    Shows the awfulness of grammar schools that it united the right and left such as Thatcher and Hattersley in wanting to abolish them.
    It's private schools that should have been abolished, not grammar schools.
    Why?
    Unusually Casino on this I am with you here. I don't want my taxes paying for a superior education for other people's children and not my own. On the other hand if you choose to pay for a private education, that is your business.
    My wife and I had a (serious) conversation about pulling our kids out of private school at the weekend, and going for the local CofE primary, maybe with private tutoring on top.

    This would of course mean we start taking two average funded state school places (c.£12k a year) for our two kids, and no longer pay the VAT on the fees (c.£7.2k a year) with a net cost to taxpayers of our decision of £19.2k per year.

    But it's too expensive and we're not sure we can do it or justify it anymore.

    I wonder how many others are in our position.
    My only question is the maybe on private tutoring on top. If the local education is good enough (and you can get into those schools, check and get confirmed places before you leave) - going private is a waste of money.

    Equally other parents are likely in a similar position so it’s very likely the private school you are going to may close anyway and you don’t want to be the last to know with all places at the local good schools gone - although I suspect you’ve already thought of that version of the prisoners dilemma
    The latest fashion among the rich, round here, is going state school for sixth form.

    The money is then spent on tutors.

    This allows the kids to claim that they are state educated at the universities that are looking at such things, saves a bunch of money. The schools get children who are already predicted his grades and will get into good universities (mostly) - and don't need much effort in teaching. So the schools *apparently* succeed in getting children into Oxbridge etc.

    The universities, of course, are well aware of what is going on.

    The Chinese know that we know. But we make-believe that we don't know and the Chinese make-believe that they believe that we don't know, but know that we know. Everybody knows.

    At least one family saved some money by doing the tuition jointly - several kids to one tutor, using the garden room/office. That made me LOL.
  • TheValiantTheValiant Posts: 2,139

    Which humiliation was worse for the US?

    Vietnam or Iran (2026).

    We will see in the coming years.

    I suspect Iran has longer consequences.

    That's a ridiculous comparison.

    In Vietnam over 50k Americans died and its ally was overthrown.

    Whereas the USA has lost effectively nothing this year although Trump has failed to get his big win.
    It's just dignity and credibility they've lost this year. It's no Vietnam, for sure, but I don't think many people will look at the USA the same way any longer.
    It has lost huge respect from the Gulf nations - Saudi, Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait, UAE, Oman - whose hosting of US miltary bases made their hydrocarbon (and tourism) industries very exposed as targets. The US spent hundreds of billions "softening up" Iran - who more than absorbed the blow. The US then suffered huge (and as yet unacknowledged) damage to its regional bases. Radars were wiped out. Its aircraft were hit in large numbers. Its Reaper drones were lost in their dozens. Iran was then still able to reduce Qatar's LNG production by 16% for years with a single missile.

    The theoretical control of the Straits of Hormuz by Iran will be mitigated over time by pipelines. Meanwhile, the Gulf will have to reach accommodations with the Iranian thousand pound gorilla. Hard for them to swallow - especially the Saudis. Trump has said crass things - about the Saudis and the Omanis in particular - that will not be forgotten. The Gulf will instead look to China's clout with Iran to stop any further blockades.

    American might has been shown to be powerless to enforce the movement of world trade. This "excursion" wasn't about stopping Communist dominos falling. It was a much bigger projection of US power. That failed. Operation Epic Fury became Operation Epic Failure. The US will never be the same again.
    The United States has been an empire in decline for many years now, perhaps not necessarily because they are in decline but because other powers (China mostly) have been rapidly catching them and overtaking them.

    Under Trump however, this is the first time they've gone backwards. Just like Russia four years ago, their military has been shown up. Sure, they're good at killing women and children (like Russia is) and also good at killing the leadership (unlike Russia) but they've shown they can't defend allies, can't guarantee freedom of navigation (if they wanted too, I suspect Trump doesn't really care about that) and can't deal with an enemy who adopts a 'mosaic' defence. Trump has also managed to alienate every possible ally in NATO in the twelve months leading up to this attack and has found no support anywhere else in the world for his stupid adventure. US military stocks of munitions have been depleted and unlike Russia who had thirty years worth of Soviet crap to burn through (or find out didn't exist), they've got to restock all this.

    Higher prices, inflation and higher taxes for the average American to pay for all this.

    What a fucking idiot Trump is.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 59,078

    Which humiliation was worse for the US?

    Vietnam or Iran (2026).

    We will see in the coming years.

    I suspect Iran has longer consequences.

    That's a ridiculous comparison.

    In Vietnam over 50k Americans died and its ally was overthrown.

    Whereas the USA has lost effectively nothing this year although Trump has failed to get his big win.
    It's just dignity and credibility they've lost this year. It's no Vietnam, for sure, but I don't think many people will look at the USA the same way any longer.
    It has lost huge respect from the Gulf nations - Saudi, Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait, UAE, Oman - whose hosting of US miltary bases made their hydrocarbon (and tourism) industries very exposed as targets. The US spent hundreds of billions "softening up" Iran - who more than absorbed the blow. The US then suffered huge (and as yet unacknowledged) damage to its regional bases. Radars were wiped out. Its aircraft were hit in large numbers. Its Reaper drones were lost in their dozens. Iran was then still able to reduce Qatar's LNG production by 16% for years with a single missile.

    The theoretical control of the Straits of Hormuz by Iran will be mitigated over time by pipelines. Meanwhile, the Gulf will have to reach accommodations with the Iranian thousand pound gorilla. Hard for them to swallow - especially the Saudis. Trump has said crass things - about the Saudis and the Omanis in particular - that will not be forgotten. The Gulf will instead look to China's clout with Iran to stop any further blockades.

    American might has been shown to be powerless to enforce the movement of world trade. This "excursion" wasn't about stopping Communist dominos falling. It was a much bigger projection of US power. That failed. Operation Epic Fury became Operation Epic Failure. The US will never be the same again.
    The United States has been an empire in decline for many years now, perhaps not necessarily because they are in decline but because other powers (China mostly) have been rapidly catching them and overtaking them.

    Under Trump however, this is the first time they've gone backwards. Just like Russia four years ago, their military has been shown up. Sure, they're good at killing women and children (like Russia is) and also good at killing the leadership (unlike Russia) but they've shown they can't defend allies, can't guarantee freedom of navigation (if they wanted too, I suspect Trump doesn't really care about that) and can't deal with an enemy who adopts a 'mosaic' defence. Trump has also managed to alienate every possible ally in NATO in the twelve months leading up to this attack and has found no support anywhere else in the world for his stupid adventure. US military stocks of munitions have been depleted and unlike Russia who had thirty years worth of Soviet crap to burn through (or find out didn't exist), they've got to restock all this.

    Higher prices, inflation and higher taxes for the average American to pay for all this.

    What a fucking idiot Trump is.
    These truths we hold to be self evident.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 128,776
    DavidL said:

    Andy_JS said:

    carnforth said:

    Roy Hattersley has died.

    A man my (left wing) mother once described as "a thug" for his role in trying to abolish grammar schools in the early 2000s.
    Shows the awfulness of grammar schools that it united the right and left such as Thatcher and Hattersley in wanting to abolish them.
    It's private schools that should have been abolished, not grammar schools.
    Why?
    Unusually Casino on this I am with you here. I don't want my taxes paying for a superior education for other people's children and not my own. On the other hand if you choose to pay for a private education, that is your business.
    My wife and I had a (serious) conversation about pulling our kids out of private school at the weekend, and going for the local CofE primary, maybe with private tutoring on top.

    This would of course mean we start taking two average funded state school places (c.£12k a year) for our two kids, and no longer pay the VAT on the fees (c.£7.2k a year) with a net cost to taxpayers of our decision of £19.2k per year.

    But it's too expensive and we're not sure we can do it or justify it anymore.

    I wonder how many others are in our position.
    Quite a few, my eldest is currently doing his exams, a few of his friends won't be back to do their A-Levels.

    A friend absolutely hates himself that his kid has been taken away from his friends and gone into a school with nearly double class sizes.
    I think most parents would scrimp and save to let a kid finish at a school they are already at. Its simply too disruptive to do anything else. The real impact will be on those who are never started there and will feed in over the next decade.
    That's what I thought too but for some people it's not just possible, one parent I know owns a few restaurants, he's getting absolutely pummelled there (thanks Rachel) and there's only so much you can juggle particularly if you've got lots of kids.

    I've said it many times but one of the main reasons I am successful in life was having a private education.
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 13,508

    Is Starmer determined to have this as his legacy?

    https://x.com/PolitlcsUK/status/2066253868170694817

    The Assisted Dying Bill will be reintroduced to Parliament next week by Labour MP Lauren Edwards

    It’ll be voluntarily killed off?
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 36,521

    Huzzah for Starmer & the French.

    France stopped two thirds of migrant boats bound for UK last month

    A higher proportion of illegal crossings were stopped last month, which ministers said showed the value of April’s £660m deal to pay for more beach patrols


    https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/france-stopped-two-thirds-of-migrant-boats-bound-for-uk-last-month-dkld7qnmx

    Wouldn't it be easier to let 660 migrants cross then give them a million quid each to go back home?
  • DopermeanDopermean Posts: 3,193

    Burnham has a human touch we’ve not seen of a Labour leader since early Blair.

    I think he’d be wise to go for an election, get a reduced majority before things hit the fan.

    Facepalm
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 37,096

    Huzzah for Starmer & the French.

    France stopped two thirds of migrant boats bound for UK last month

    A higher proportion of illegal crossings were stopped last month, which ministers said showed the value of April’s £660m deal to pay for more beach patrols


    https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/france-stopped-two-thirds-of-migrant-boats-bound-for-uk-last-month-dkld7qnmx

    Wouldn't it be easier to let 660 migrants cross then give them a million quid each to go back home?
    Duh! And stop all the other migrants how exactly?
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 13,508

    Have stuck some money on Starmer to be replaced by the end of June which I reckon will come in a lot when he’s challenged.

    Also stuck a load on SKS exit this year which feels like free money.

    Is there enough time for June?

    Burnham elected 18. Seated (I assume you need to be an MP to challenge) 22 at the earliest.

    Challenge 23… requires Starmer to agree to resign.

    July more plausible

  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 72,285
    DavidL said:

    Andy_JS said:

    carnforth said:

    Roy Hattersley has died.

    A man my (left wing) mother once described as "a thug" for his role in trying to abolish grammar schools in the early 2000s.
    Shows the awfulness of grammar schools that it united the right and left such as Thatcher and Hattersley in wanting to abolish them.
    It's private schools that should have been abolished, not grammar schools.
    Why?
    Unusually Casino on this I am with you here. I don't want my taxes paying for a superior education for other people's children and not my own. On the other hand if you choose to pay for a private education, that is your business.
    My wife and I had a (serious) conversation about pulling our kids out of private school at the weekend, and going for the local CofE primary, maybe with private tutoring on top.

    This would of course mean we start taking two average funded state school places (c.£12k a year) for our two kids, and no longer pay the VAT on the fees (c.£7.2k a year) with a net cost to taxpayers of our decision of £19.2k per year.

    But it's too expensive and we're not sure we can do it or justify it anymore.

    I wonder how many others are in our position.
    Quite a few, my eldest is currently doing his exams, a few of his friends won't be back to do their A-Levels.

    A friend absolutely hates himself that his kid has been taken away from his friends and gone into a school with nearly double class sizes.
    I think most parents would scrimp and save to let a kid finish at a school they are already at. Its simply too disruptive to do anything else. The real impact will be on those who are never started there and will feed in over the next decade.
    Good morning

    A private school in Bangor announced it's closer due to vat and other ffinancial changes just as some of it's pupils were going into their exams causing anger and tears

    Our son, who works in the sector but not at this school, was incredulous that the school were so insensitive

    https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/welsh-private-school-close-after-33999452
  • TheValiantTheValiant Posts: 2,139

    Which humiliation was worse for the US?

    Vietnam or Iran (2026).

    We will see in the coming years.

    I suspect Iran has longer consequences.

    That's a ridiculous comparison.

    In Vietnam over 50k Americans died and its ally was overthrown.

    Whereas the USA has lost effectively nothing this year although Trump has failed to get his big win.
    It's just dignity and credibility they've lost this year. It's no Vietnam, for sure, but I don't think many people will look at the USA the same way any longer.
    It has lost huge respect from the Gulf nations - Saudi, Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait, UAE, Oman - whose hosting of US miltary bases made their hydrocarbon (and tourism) industries very exposed as targets. The US spent hundreds of billions "softening up" Iran - who more than absorbed the blow. The US then suffered huge (and as yet unacknowledged) damage to its regional bases. Radars were wiped out. Its aircraft were hit in large numbers. Its Reaper drones were lost in their dozens. Iran was then still able to reduce Qatar's LNG production by 16% for years with a single missile.

    The theoretical control of the Straits of Hormuz by Iran will be mitigated over time by pipelines. Meanwhile, the Gulf will have to reach accommodations with the Iranian thousand pound gorilla. Hard for them to swallow - especially the Saudis. Trump has said crass things - about the Saudis and the Omanis in particular - that will not be forgotten. The Gulf will instead look to China's clout with Iran to stop any further blockades.

    American might has been shown to be powerless to enforce the movement of world trade. This "excursion" wasn't about stopping Communist dominos falling. It was a much bigger projection of US power. That failed. Operation Epic Fury became Operatio Epic Failure. The US will never be the same again.
    It also showed the limits of America's influence on Israel, and has empowered hotheads on any side to reignite the conflagration. Further, it has cemented in power Iran's theocratic and murderous regime, who can get on with their business of suppressing and killing those working for openness and democracy.

    On the positive side, de facto control of the Strait of Hormuz gives Iran a new income stream and reasons to give up its nuclear ambitions.
    Iran has no money.

    It's economy is screwed and it needs to spend a fortune to rebuild

    Tolls if charged just arent big enough to pay for it all

    And of course the US can do this all over again if it wants
    With what? The US did shock and awe. It didn't work. Now they're trying to replenish those stocks, but with an administration that's more interested in running WWE venues in the White House back garden and a Fox News presenter as War Secretary.

    Honestly, the only way the US can win now, same with Russia in Ukraine, is to crack out the nukes (lots of them). Then they win. The radiation clouds, international pariah status and destroyed Middle East.... well.......
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 89,940
    edited 7:30AM

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Which humiliation was worse for the US?

    Vietnam or Iran (2026).

    We will see in the coming years.

    I suspect Iran has longer consequences.

    Vietnam saw South Vietnam fall to the Communist North, Iran at least just leaves the status quo as was bar one old Ayatollah replaced by a younger one
    Iran is now emboldened and officially controlling the strait of Hormuz so it’s not the status quo. It’s worse.
    Though if Iran block the Strait Trump says the ceasefire is then over
    And?
    I think you're missing the big picture here. If Iran block the Strait again, it gives Trump the ability to win yet another war.
    His fluffers seem not to have read the Nobel Prize small print - you don't get awarded one for stopping wars you started.
    Do you recall the winners in 1973?
    Yes.
    They didn't start the war.

    Or at least Kissinger didn't, and Lê Đức Thọ refuse the award.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 37,096

    DavidL said:

    Andy_JS said:

    carnforth said:

    Roy Hattersley has died.

    A man my (left wing) mother once described as "a thug" for his role in trying to abolish grammar schools in the early 2000s.
    Shows the awfulness of grammar schools that it united the right and left such as Thatcher and Hattersley in wanting to abolish them.
    It's private schools that should have been abolished, not grammar schools.
    Why?
    Unusually Casino on this I am with you here. I don't want my taxes paying for a superior education for other people's children and not my own. On the other hand if you choose to pay for a private education, that is your business.
    My wife and I had a (serious) conversation about pulling our kids out of private school at the weekend, and going for the local CofE primary, maybe with private tutoring on top.

    This would of course mean we start taking two average funded state school places (c.£12k a year) for our two kids, and no longer pay the VAT on the fees (c.£7.2k a year) with a net cost to taxpayers of our decision of £19.2k per year.

    But it's too expensive and we're not sure we can do it or justify it anymore.

    I wonder how many others are in our position.
    Quite a few, my eldest is currently doing his exams, a few of his friends won't be back to do their A-Levels.

    A friend absolutely hates himself that his kid has been taken away from his friends and gone into a school with nearly double class sizes.
    I think most parents would scrimp and save to let a kid finish at a school they are already at. Its simply too disruptive to do anything else. The real impact will be on those who are never started there and will feed in over the next decade.
    That's what I thought too but for some people it's not just possible, one parent I know owns a few restaurants, he's getting absolutely pummelled there (thanks Rachel) and there's only so much you can juggle particularly if you've got lots of kids.

    I've said it many times but one of the main reasons I am successful in life was having a private education.
    I very much doubt that's true in your case TSE, but throughout my career I met quite a few 'high-flyers' who were utter numpties straight off the private school > Oxbridge > management consultants conveyer who knew f*ck all about anything beyond their own sense of entitlement to tell others what to do. They are a drain on the country.
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 22,994

    eek said:

    Andy_JS said:

    carnforth said:

    Roy Hattersley has died.

    A man my (left wing) mother once described as "a thug" for his role in trying to abolish grammar schools in the early 2000s.
    Shows the awfulness of grammar schools that it united the right and left such as Thatcher and Hattersley in wanting to abolish them.
    It's private schools that should have been abolished, not grammar schools.
    Why?
    Unusually Casino on this I am with you here. I don't want my taxes paying for a superior education for other people's children and not my own. On the other hand if you choose to pay for a private education, that is your business.
    My wife and I had a (serious) conversation about pulling our kids out of private school at the weekend, and going for the local CofE primary, maybe with private tutoring on top.

    This would of course mean we start taking two average funded state school places (c.£12k a year) for our two kids, and no longer pay the VAT on the fees (c.£7.2k a year) with a net cost to taxpayers of our decision of £19.2k per year.

    But it's too expensive and we're not sure we can do it or justify it anymore.

    I wonder how many others are in our position.
    My only question is the maybe on private tutoring on top. If the local education is good enough (and you can get into those schools, check and get confirmed places before you leave) - going private is a waste of money.

    Equally other parents are likely in a similar position so it’s very likely the private school you are going to may close anyway and you don’t want to be the last to know with all places at the local good schools gone - although I suspect you’ve already thought of that version of the prisoners dilemma
    The latest fashion among the rich, round here, is going state school for sixth form.

    The money is then spent on tutors.

    This allows the kids to claim that they are state educated at the universities that are looking at such things, saves a bunch of money. The schools get children who are already predicted his grades and will get into good universities (mostly) - and don't need much effort in teaching. So the schools *apparently* succeed in getting children into Oxbridge etc.

    The universities, of course, are well aware of what is going on.

    The Chinese know that we know. But we make-believe that we don't know and the Chinese make-believe that they believe that we don't know, but know that we know. Everybody knows.

    At least one family saved some money by doing the tuition jointly - several kids to one tutor, using the garden room/office. That made me LOL.
    Remember- the most efficient way to get brilliant results as a school is to select pupils who are going to do.well anyway. Sometimes that's by house price, sometimes it's by entrance exam, sometimes it's by clergy reference, sometimes it's by developing a fearsome public reputation.

    A very good school can add half a grade per subject or so, an exceptional one more- though often by statistical quirk.

    The things private schools can do better is tend to be the intangibles.
  • CookieCookie Posts: 17,603

    DavidL said:

    Andy_JS said:

    carnforth said:

    Roy Hattersley has died.

    A man my (left wing) mother once described as "a thug" for his role in trying to abolish grammar schools in the early 2000s.
    Shows the awfulness of grammar schools that it united the right and left such as Thatcher and Hattersley in wanting to abolish them.
    It's private schools that should have been abolished, not grammar schools.
    Why?
    Unusually Casino on this I am with you here. I don't want my taxes paying for a superior education for other people's children and not my own. On the other hand if you choose to pay for a private education, that is your business.
    My wife and I had a (serious) conversation about pulling our kids out of private school at the weekend, and going for the local CofE primary, maybe with private tutoring on top.

    This would of course mean we start taking two average funded state school places (c.£12k a year) for our two kids, and no longer pay the VAT on the fees (c.£7.2k a year) with a net cost to taxpayers of our decision of £19.2k per year.

    But it's too expensive and we're not sure we can do it or justify it anymore.

    I wonder how many others are in our position.
    Quite a few, my eldest is currently doing his exams, a few of his friends won't be back to do their A-Levels.

    A friend absolutely hates himself that his kid has been taken away from his friends and gone into a school with nearly double class sizes.
    I think most parents would scrimp and save to let a kid finish at a school they are already at. Its simply too disruptive to do anything else. The real impact will be on those who are never started there and will feed in over the next decade.
    That's what I thought too but for some people it's not just possible, one parent I know owns a few restaurants, he's getting absolutely pummelled there (thanks Rachel) and there's only so much you can juggle particularly if you've got lots of kids.

    I've said it many times but one of the main reasons I am successful in life was having a private education.
    It shouldn't really need pointing out, but that private schools lead to good outcomes for those able to afford them isn't really an argument for private schools and against grammar schools.
    Casino's argument is rather better.
  • eekeek Posts: 33,996

    DavidL said:

    Andy_JS said:

    carnforth said:

    Roy Hattersley has died.

    A man my (left wing) mother once described as "a thug" for his role in trying to abolish grammar schools in the early 2000s.
    Shows the awfulness of grammar schools that it united the right and left such as Thatcher and Hattersley in wanting to abolish them.
    It's private schools that should have been abolished, not grammar schools.
    Why?
    Unusually Casino on this I am with you here. I don't want my taxes paying for a superior education for other people's children and not my own. On the other hand if you choose to pay for a private education, that is your business.
    My wife and I had a (serious) conversation about pulling our kids out of private school at the weekend, and going for the local CofE primary, maybe with private tutoring on top.

    This would of course mean we start taking two average funded state school places (c.£12k a year) for our two kids, and no longer pay the VAT on the fees (c.£7.2k a year) with a net cost to taxpayers of our decision of £19.2k per year.

    But it's too expensive and we're not sure we can do it or justify it anymore.

    I wonder how many others are in our position.
    Quite a few, my eldest is currently doing his exams, a few of his friends won't be back to do their A-Levels.

    A friend absolutely hates himself that his kid has been taken away from his friends and gone into a school with nearly double class sizes.
    I think most parents would scrimp and save to let a kid finish at a school they are already at. Its simply too disruptive to do anything else. The real impact will be on those who are never started there and will feed in over the next decade.
    Good morning

    A private school in Bangor announced it's closer due to vat and other ffinancial changes just as some of it's pupils were going into their exams causing anger and tears

    Our son, who works in the sector but not at this school, was incredulous that the school were so insensitive

    https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/welsh-private-school-close-after-33999452
    Thursday before half term - granted it’s not the greatest time but your suggestion of keeping quiet for another month until the exams are over wouldn’t work.

    It’s also the appropriate time to let staff know given them a whole half term to find another job in September.

  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 32,365

    Have stuck some money on Starmer to be replaced by the end of June which I reckon will come in a lot when he’s challenged.

    Also stuck a load on SKS exit this year which feels like free money.

    Is there enough time for June?

    Burnham elected 18. Seated (I assume you need to be an MP to challenge) 22 at the earliest.

    Challenge 23… requires Starmer to agree to resign.

    July more plausible

    I expect two things:
    1) Burnham to have way more than 81 names as soon as he gets there. MPs will be falling over themselves to pledge fealty, as they were when Brown took over. This will include some cabinet members.
    2) Nobody else to be remotely close to having 81 names

    Starmer then is faced with overwhelming numbers for Burnham with chunks of his cabinet quitting and others saying they will publicly remain loyal but the game is up. I know he says he will fight, but nobody wants to lose. As soon as its clear he would, he walks.

    The problem for Horse is that getting all that done in June is pushing it. Certainly could happen, but all it takes is Starmer wobbling for a few days, quitting on say 25th and then a 7 day window for nominations and the bet is lost.
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 13,508

    eek said:

    Great to see the Commons are bringing back an identical Assisted Dying law to that which was passed last term. Good!

    Hopefully the Commons passes it, and the Lords can stop dicking around and act like adults and either choose reasonable amendments that the Commons accepts to improve the bill, or the Parliament Act sees it go through unamended since the elected chamber has passed it twice by that point.

    It's a Private Mermbers Bill and not part of the Government's Manifesto - the Parliament Act doesn't apply...
    Parliament Act has bugger all to do with Government Manifesto's.

    Salisbury Convention does not apply. Parliament Act does.
    Not trying to get into a debate on the substance of the Bill. You and I disagree.

    However I do have concerns about the use of the Parliament Act. There were some real practical concerns about the Bill and meaningful improvements made in the Lords (ignoring those you define as wrecking amendments). But the parliament act requires that it be passed unchanged.

    That’s a real issue. It was poorly drafted originally and the supporters walked back from many of the promises they made to get through the second reading. I seem to remember you complaining about the dangerous dogs act as being poor legislation - why should substandard legislation about such an important topic be forced through when they can’t convince a majority of both house?
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 22,994

    DavidL said:

    Andy_JS said:

    carnforth said:

    Roy Hattersley has died.

    A man my (left wing) mother once described as "a thug" for his role in trying to abolish grammar schools in the early 2000s.
    Shows the awfulness of grammar schools that it united the right and left such as Thatcher and Hattersley in wanting to abolish them.
    It's private schools that should have been abolished, not grammar schools.
    Why?
    Unusually Casino on this I am with you here. I don't want my taxes paying for a superior education for other people's children and not my own. On the other hand if you choose to pay for a private education, that is your business.
    My wife and I had a (serious) conversation about pulling our kids out of private school at the weekend, and going for the local CofE primary, maybe with private tutoring on top.

    This would of course mean we start taking two average funded state school places (c.£12k a year) for our two kids, and no longer pay the VAT on the fees (c.£7.2k a year) with a net cost to taxpayers of our decision of £19.2k per year.

    But it's too expensive and we're not sure we can do it or justify it anymore.

    I wonder how many others are in our position.
    Quite a few, my eldest is currently doing his exams, a few of his friends won't be back to do their A-Levels.

    A friend absolutely hates himself that his kid has been taken away from his friends and gone into a school with nearly double class sizes.
    I think most parents would scrimp and save to let a kid finish at a school they are already at. Its simply too disruptive to do anything else. The real impact will be on those who are never started there and will feed in over the next decade.
    Good morning

    A private school in Bangor announced it's closer due to vat and other ffinancial changes just as some of it's pupils were going into their exams causing anger and tears

    Our son, who works in the sector but not at this school, was incredulous that the school were so insensitive

    https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/welsh-private-school-close-after-33999452
    Privately run can mean very very badly run.

    What's the line from Decline and Fall? "Very much a school"?
Sign In or Register to comment.