French polls generally over estimate the support for Le Pen.
Pensioners who as we’ve seen in the UK turnout in much higher numbers will finish off her chances . We see the reverse effect from the UK . In France pensioners are more pro EU and anti the far right .
As long as Philippe gets in the top 2 then I expect him to beat Le Pen .
But, as remainers love to inform us, pensioners are dying off...
He needed to to get the majority, but he still did it and won handsomely
Could Burnham even win ugly?
Boris did NOT call an election after he was appointed Prime Minister in July 2019. Instead he pro-rogued Parliament as soon as he was able, lost two or three MPs to the Lib Dems, then in September kicked out 20 MPs to leave the Conservatives 42 seats SHORT of a majority.
An election was forced upon him, not the other way around.
He still went to the people
There was no Divine Right, like Burnham appears to have
He had no option. Boris Johnson commanded just 288 MPs by the end of September 2019. He had to call an election. Whilst I completely agree that incoming Prime Ministers should go to the country, the fact is, they never do unless they are either forced to, or see huge political advantage in doing so.
Eden - took over in early 1955 - went for a spring election in 1955 following the usual four year cycle since 1951. MacMillan - same - Took over in 1957, waited till 1959. Home - Took over in late 1963 - waited till the death in 1964. Callaghan - Took over in March 1976, lost a vote of confidence in March 1979 and was forced to the country by the opposition. Was probably going to hang on till the autumn otherwise. Major - Took over in November 1990. Hung on to the death in April 1992. Brown - Took over in July 2007 - hung on to the death in May 2010. May - Took over in July 2016 but had a thredbare majority of about 10. Looked at polls saying Con 48, Lab 24 and rolled the dice. She wouldn't have done it otherwise. Still took her a year to decide that. Johnson - Took over in July 2019 without a majority. Made the situation worse by kicking out 20 MPs. Forced to the country - you can't govern with 288MPs. Truss - I'll give you Truss. I reckon she was about to announce a General Election, but she fucked it up and resigned in error. Sunak - Appointed in November 2022 and hung on to nearly the death in 2024.
Incoming PMs DON'T call GE. They should, but the history is they never do.
Burnham won't call a GE.
Johnson did not "make things worse" and "get forced" to go to the polls.
He opted to go to the polls. The opposition voted against it and was dragged kicking and screaming to the election.
Think what you want. You cannot govern with 288MPs. Labour didn't want an election, they knew Magic Grandpa's day was up and they'd lose. But just because Labour didn't want one, doesn't mean Johnson was some high and holy democratic champion who wanted the people to confirm his appointment. If Johnson had 388MPs on his appointment, you can damn well be sure he'd have hung on till 2022 like we were all talking about in 2019. Don't argue with me. Argue with Boris' namesake, Lyndon Baines Johnson.
You are separating the removal of the MPs and going to the polls as if they are separate events, they were not.
Boris could have chosen to keep the MPs that were in the party and govern as a minority like May did.
Instead he removed the 20 MPs and called an election at the exact same time. It was one action.
3rd September he booted the MPs out. The election was called on 29th October 2019. If that's 'the same time', six... seven weeks apart, you have a funny definition of the same time. In fact 10 of those MPs were reinstated just before the dissolution.
French polls generally over estimate the support for Le Pen.
Pensioners who as we’ve seen in the UK turnout in much higher numbers will finish off her chances . We see the reverse effect from the UK . In France pensioners are more pro EU and anti the far right .
As long as Philippe gets in the top 2 then I expect him to beat Le Pen .
The French system is designed such that the candidate people hate the least wins on the second round. So far more people have hated Le Pen more than any of her challengers. I would expect the same with Philippe who is an affable chap. But scope for things to go wrong.
He needed to to get the majority, but he still did it and won handsomely
Could Burnham even win ugly?
Boris did NOT call an election after he was appointed Prime Minister in July 2019. Instead he pro-rogued Parliament as soon as he was able, lost two or three MPs to the Lib Dems, then in September kicked out 20 MPs to leave the Conservatives 42 seats SHORT of a majority.
An election was forced upon him, not the other way around.
He still went to the people
There was no Divine Right, like Burnham appears to have
He had no option. Boris Johnson commanded just 288 MPs by the end of September 2019. He had to call an election. Whilst I completely agree that incoming Prime Ministers should go to the country, the fact is, they never do unless they are either forced to, or see huge political advantage in doing so.
Eden - took over in early 1955 - went for a spring election in 1955 following the usual four year cycle since 1951. MacMillan - same - Took over in 1957, waited till 1959. Home - Took over in late 1963 - waited till the death in 1964. Callaghan - Took over in March 1976, lost a vote of confidence in March 1979 and was forced to the country by the opposition. Was probably going to hang on till the autumn otherwise. Major - Took over in November 1990. Hung on to the death in April 1992. Brown - Took over in July 2007 - hung on to the death in May 2010. May - Took over in July 2016 but had a thredbare majority of about 10. Looked at polls saying Con 48, Lab 24 and rolled the dice. She wouldn't have done it otherwise. Still took her a year to decide that. Johnson - Took over in July 2019 without a majority. Made the situation worse by kicking out 20 MPs. Forced to the country - you can't govern with 288MPs. Truss - I'll give you Truss. I reckon she was about to announce a General Election, but she fucked it up and resigned in error. Sunak - Appointed in November 2022 and hung on to nearly the death in 2024.
Incoming PMs DON'T call GE. They should, but the history is they never do.
Burnham won't call a GE.
Johnson did not "make things worse" and "get forced" to go to the polls.
He opted to go to the polls. The opposition voted against it and was dragged kicking and screaming to the election.
Think what you want. You cannot govern with 288MPs. Labour didn't want an election, they knew Magic Grandpa's day was up and they'd lose. But just because Labour didn't want one, doesn't mean Johnson was some high and holy democratic champion who wanted the people to confirm his appointment. If Johnson had 388MPs on his appointment, you can damn well be sure he'd have hung on till 2022 like we were all talking about in 2019. Don't argue with me. Argue with Boris' namesake, Lyndon Baines Johnson.
You are separating the removal of the MPs and going to the polls as if they are separate events, they were not.
Boris could have chosen to keep the MPs that were in the party and govern as a minority like May did.
Instead he removed the 20 MPs and called an election at the exact same time. It was one action.
Brass tacks - he engineered an election to get a majority in parliament not to get a mandate from the public. If he already had a majority big enough to govern - including Getting Brexit Done - he wouldn't have needed the 2019 election and there wouldn't have been one.
Zeitgeist shift. About three minutes ago the reason why Burnham must stay at Manchester was because Reform would walk the Manchester mayor byelection. IMHO the shift is a straw in the wind about the future of Reform more generally.
@williamglenn informed is that it was a tactical masterstroke to lose Makerfield as it allowed Farage to win the mayoralty. I’m sure that’s still correct
I struggle with Roman Numerals until I get to 159.
Then it just CLIX.
I tend to MIX up my Roman numerals when I get to 1009.
I can't remember how to write 1, 1000, 51, 6 and 500 in Roman Numerals.
I M LIVID
That’s 1,1000, 50, 4 and 499
ID for 499 would be at best nonstandard. Subtractive numerals normally only go within the same order of magnitude - so IV, IX, XL, XC, CD and CM are the only standard subtractives.
Burnham gets the gig, and he didn't even have to get a single telephone line installed.
I didn't want him, but now we've got him I wish him well.
Yes he might disappoint and if he does let's all be disappointed. But given how much of life is taken up by disappointment it's perverse to embrace more of it before it's actually happened. The logical sentiment at this point for people of all persuasions is 'cmon Andy, you can do it'.
This is wild. Apparently firm NY Times story former Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was an Israeli agent prepped to be new ruler after Khamenei was knocked out. It all went wrong of course
Zeitgeist shift. About three minutes ago the reason why Burnham must stay at Manchester was because Reform would walk the Manchester mayor byelection. IMHO the shift is a straw in the wind about the future of Reform more generally.
@williamglenn informed is that it was a tactical masterstroke to lose Makerfield as it allowed Farage to win the mayoralty. I’m sure that’s still correct
Is he going to stand for Manc mayor after he loses Clacton then?
This is wild. Apparently firm NY Times story former Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was an Israeli agent prepped to be new ruler after Khamenei was knocked out. It all went wrong of course
He needed to to get the majority, but he still did it and won handsomely
Could Burnham even win ugly?
Boris did NOT call an election after he was appointed Prime Minister in July 2019. Instead he pro-rogued Parliament as soon as he was able, lost two or three MPs to the Lib Dems, then in September kicked out 20 MPs to leave the Conservatives 42 seats SHORT of a majority.
An election was forced upon him, not the other way around.
He still went to the people
There was no Divine Right, like Burnham appears to have
He had no option. Boris Johnson commanded just 288 MPs by the end of September 2019. He had to call an election. Whilst I completely agree that incoming Prime Ministers should go to the country, the fact is, they never do unless they are either forced to, or see huge political advantage in doing so.
Eden - took over in early 1955 - went for a spring election in 1955 following the usual four year cycle since 1951. MacMillan - same - Took over in 1957, waited till 1959. Home - Took over in late 1963 - waited till the death in 1964. Callaghan - Took over in March 1976, lost a vote of confidence in March 1979 and was forced to the country by the opposition. Was probably going to hang on till the autumn otherwise. Major - Took over in November 1990. Hung on to the death in April 1992. Brown - Took over in July 2007 - hung on to the death in May 2010. May - Took over in July 2016 but had a thredbare majority of about 10. Looked at polls saying Con 48, Lab 24 and rolled the dice. She wouldn't have done it otherwise. Still took her a year to decide that. Johnson - Took over in July 2019 without a majority. Made the situation worse by kicking out 20 MPs. Forced to the country - you can't govern with 288MPs. Truss - I'll give you Truss. I reckon she was about to announce a General Election, but she fucked it up and resigned in error. Sunak - Appointed in November 2022 and hung on to nearly the death in 2024.
Incoming PMs DON'T call GE. They should, but the history is they never do.
Burnham won't call a GE.
Johnson did not "make things worse" and "get forced" to go to the polls.
He opted to go to the polls. The opposition voted against it and was dragged kicking and screaming to the election.
Think what you want. You cannot govern with 288MPs. Labour didn't want an election, they knew Magic Grandpa's day was up and they'd lose. But just because Labour didn't want one, doesn't mean Johnson was some high and holy democratic champion who wanted the people to confirm his appointment. If Johnson had 388MPs on his appointment, you can damn well be sure he'd have hung on till 2022 like we were all talking about in 2019. Don't argue with me. Argue with Boris' namesake, Lyndon Baines Johnson.
You are separating the removal of the MPs and going to the polls as if they are separate events, they were not.
Boris could have chosen to keep the MPs that were in the party and govern as a minority like May did.
Instead he removed the 20 MPs and called an election at the exact same time. It was one action.
3rd September he booted the MPs out. The election was called on 29th October 2019. If that's 'the same time', six... seven weeks apart, you have a funny definition of the same time. In fact 10 of those MPs were reinstated just before the dissolution.
No you are totally misremembering.
He called for an election on 3 September, frit opposition MPs opposed it.
[Trump] has also formally notified Congress that fighting with Iran has resumed, a recognition that the cease-fire has broken down, and one that stokes a struggle over vital war powers. Congress has directed the president to either end the war or seek approval to continue it, but Mr. Trump insists he has the sole authority to make that call. The notification letter, dated Friday, was obtained by The New York Times on Monday.
[Trump] has also formally notified Congress that fighting with Iran has resumed, a recognition that the cease-fire has broken down, and one that stokes a struggle over vital war powers. Congress has directed the president to either end the war or seek approval to continue it, but Mr. Trump insists he has the sole authority to make that call. The notification letter, dated Friday, was obtained by The New York Times on Monday.
NY Times live blog
Yeah right, he'll taco again.
We need regime change in Iran.
Continual ceasefires and splashes of conflict that don't change anything, all while Hormuz remains closed is the worst of all outcomes.
He needed to to get the majority, but he still did it and won handsomely
Could Burnham even win ugly?
Boris did NOT call an election after he was appointed Prime Minister in July 2019. Instead he pro-rogued Parliament as soon as he was able, lost two or three MPs to the Lib Dems, then in September kicked out 20 MPs to leave the Conservatives 42 seats SHORT of a majority.
An election was forced upon him, not the other way around.
He still went to the people
There was no Divine Right, like Burnham appears to have
He had no option. Boris Johnson commanded just 288 MPs by the end of September 2019. He had to call an election. Whilst I completely agree that incoming Prime Ministers should go to the country, the fact is, they never do unless they are either forced to, or see huge political advantage in doing so.
Eden - took over in early 1955 - went for a spring election in 1955 following the usual four year cycle since 1951. MacMillan - same - Took over in 1957, waited till 1959. Home - Took over in late 1963 - waited till the death in 1964. Callaghan - Took over in March 1976, lost a vote of confidence in March 1979 and was forced to the country by the opposition. Was probably going to hang on till the autumn otherwise. Major - Took over in November 1990. Hung on to the death in April 1992. Brown - Took over in July 2007 - hung on to the death in May 2010. May - Took over in July 2016 but had a thredbare majority of about 10. Looked at polls saying Con 48, Lab 24 and rolled the dice. She wouldn't have done it otherwise. Still took her a year to decide that. Johnson - Took over in July 2019 without a majority. Made the situation worse by kicking out 20 MPs. Forced to the country - you can't govern with 288MPs. Truss - I'll give you Truss. I reckon she was about to announce a General Election, but she fucked it up and resigned in error. Sunak - Appointed in November 2022 and hung on to nearly the death in 2024.
Incoming PMs DON'T call GE. They should, but the history is they never do.
Burnham won't call a GE.
Johnson did not "make things worse" and "get forced" to go to the polls.
He opted to go to the polls. The opposition voted against it and was dragged kicking and screaming to the election.
Think what you want. You cannot govern with 288MPs. Labour didn't want an election, they knew Magic Grandpa's day was up and they'd lose. But just because Labour didn't want one, doesn't mean Johnson was some high and holy democratic champion who wanted the people to confirm his appointment. If Johnson had 388MPs on his appointment, you can damn well be sure he'd have hung on till 2022 like we were all talking about in 2019. Don't argue with me. Argue with Boris' namesake, Lyndon Baines Johnson.
You are separating the removal of the MPs and going to the polls as if they are separate events, they were not.
Boris could have chosen to keep the MPs that were in the party and govern as a minority like May did.
Instead he removed the 20 MPs and called an election at the exact same time. It was one action.
Brass tacks - he engineered an election to get a majority in parliament not to get a mandate from the public. If he already had a majority big enough to govern - including Getting Brexit Done - he wouldn't have needed the 2019 election and there wouldn't have been one.
That's true, by getting rid of MPs from his own side who were technically part of his majority (inc DUP) yet were obstructionist in Parliament, and calling an election he was able to get a big enough majority to actually govern.
Starmer may have a majority but he's not been able to govern. Every major decision he's had to back down on due to an inability to carry Parliament.
Perhaps that's what Burnham needs then too, to avoid Starmer's fate? Kick out any MPs who rebel against a three line whip, then call an election to get MPs who will actually pass the legislation needed.
What's clearly untrue is Valiants timeline trying to separate the actions on 3 September and the decision to go for an early election which was announced on 3 September.
Aaron Rupar @atrupar · 1m Trump just now in the Oval Office confirmed the war with Iran is back on and said of the Strait of Hormuz, "I think in the end we'll end up controlling the whole thing."
[Trump] has also formally notified Congress that fighting with Iran has resumed, a recognition that the cease-fire has broken down, and one that stokes a struggle over vital war powers. Congress has directed the president to either end the war or seek approval to continue it, but Mr. Trump insists he has the sole authority to make that call. The notification letter, dated Friday, was obtained by The New York Times on Monday.
NY Times live blog
The guy is an imbecile.
We don't need control of Hormuz, nor can we have it so long as the Mullahs survive.
We need regime change. Nothing more, nothing less.
[Trump] has also formally notified Congress that fighting with Iran has resumed, a recognition that the cease-fire has broken down, and one that stokes a struggle over vital war powers. Congress has directed the president to either end the war or seek approval to continue it, but Mr. Trump insists he has the sole authority to make that call. The notification letter, dated Friday, was obtained by The New York Times on Monday.
NY Times live blog
Yeah right, he'll taco again.
We need regime change in Iran.
Continual ceasefires and splashes of conflict that don't change anything, all while Hormuz remains closed is the worst of all outcomes.
Trump daren't go all the way and try boots of the ground regime change because he knows the mid-terms are just around the corner.
Very few voters in America want boots on the ground never mind the on/off air war we have now.
[Trump] has also formally notified Congress that fighting with Iran has resumed, a recognition that the cease-fire has broken down, and one that stokes a struggle over vital war powers. Congress has directed the president to either end the war or seek approval to continue it, but Mr. Trump insists he has the sole authority to make that call. The notification letter, dated Friday, was obtained by The New York Times on Monday.
NY Times live blog
Yeah right, he'll taco again.
We need regime change in Iran.
Continual ceasefires and splashes of conflict that don't change anything, all while Hormuz remains closed is the worst of all outcomes.
Trump daren't go all the way and try boots of the ground regime change because he knows the mid-terms are just around the corner.
Very few voters in America want boots on the ground never mind the on/off air war we have now.
The whole thing is deeply unpopular.
Shit or get off the pot.
No point continuing to lob missiles every few weekends all the while Hormuz remains closed. Its been months of this shit now, where they've not been fighting Iran but nor has Hormuz reopened. Dumb, dumb, dumb.
Boots on the ground would be my preference, failing that a much heavier bombardment of Iran until they surrender unconditionally or get rendered incapable of fighting anymore. Destroy their military and energy facilities for starters.
[Trump] has also formally notified Congress that fighting with Iran has resumed, a recognition that the cease-fire has broken down, and one that stokes a struggle over vital war powers. Congress has directed the president to either end the war or seek approval to continue it, but Mr. Trump insists he has the sole authority to make that call. The notification letter, dated Friday, was obtained by The New York Times on Monday.
NY Times live blog
Yeah right, he'll taco again.
We need regime change in Iran.
Continual ceasefires and splashes of conflict that don't change anything, all while Hormuz remains closed is the worst of all outcomes.
Trump daren't go all the way and try boots of the ground regime change because he knows the mid-terms are just around the corner.
Very few voters in America want boots on the ground never mind the on/off air war we have now.
The whole thing is deeply unpopular.
The United States doesn't actually have sufficient soldiers (like they don't have sufficient ships) to invade in a ground war. Iran is a populace of 90 million, many of whom hate their own government ALMOST as much as they hate the United States. They will take up arms if invasion comes.
It's estimated the US needs 450,000 grounds troops minimum to invade Iran.... and that's touch and go as to whether it would truly be enough. A few more hundred thousand should do it. The US has 450,000 ground troops. Hurrah! But that means stripping everything, everywhere. Every base, every barracks, emptied. No idea if the US has the sea and air lift capacity (probably not).
And even this is going to take months to plan and arrange.
Alternatively, the US introduces conscription and moves to a wartime footing......
Alternatively, Trump doesn't worry about the fallout (literally) and just uses nukes. Lots of them. Hit Iran 100 times. They'll surrender then...... not sure I think that's a great plan.
[Trump] has also formally notified Congress that fighting with Iran has resumed, a recognition that the cease-fire has broken down, and one that stokes a struggle over vital war powers. Congress has directed the president to either end the war or seek approval to continue it, but Mr. Trump insists he has the sole authority to make that call. The notification letter, dated Friday, was obtained by The New York Times on Monday.
NY Times live blog
Yeah right, he'll taco again.
We need regime change in Iran.
Continual ceasefires and splashes of conflict that don't change anything, all while Hormuz remains closed is the worst of all outcomes.
Trump daren't go all the way and try boots of the ground regime change because he knows the mid-terms are just around the corner.
Very few voters in America want boots on the ground never mind the on/off air war we have now.
The whole thing is deeply unpopular.
The United States doesn't actually have sufficient soldiers (like they don't have sufficient ships) to invade in a ground war. Iran is a populace of 90 million, many of whom hate their own government ALMOST as much as they hate the United States. They will take up arms if invasion comes.
It's estimated the US needs 450,000 grounds troops minimum to invade Iran.... and that's touch and go as to whether it would truly be enough. A few more hundred thousand should do it. The US has 450,000 ground troops. Hurrah! But that means stripping everything, everywhere. Every base, every barracks, emptied. No idea if the US has the sea and air lift capacity (probably not).
And even this is going to take months to plan and arrange.
Alternatively, the US introduces conscription and moves to a wartime footing......
Alternatively, Trump doesn't worry about the fallout (literally) and just uses nukes. Lots of them. Hit Iran 100 times. They'll surrender then...... not sure I think that's a great plan.
The US is fucked. All Trump can do is surrender.
In some senses this is an unusual one.
The US has lost this war and yet we continue in groundhog day mode.
[Trump] has also formally notified Congress that fighting with Iran has resumed, a recognition that the cease-fire has broken down, and one that stokes a struggle over vital war powers. Congress has directed the president to either end the war or seek approval to continue it, but Mr. Trump insists he has the sole authority to make that call. The notification letter, dated Friday, was obtained by The New York Times on Monday.
NY Times live blog
Yeah right, he'll taco again.
We need regime change in Iran.
Continual ceasefires and splashes of conflict that don't change anything, all while Hormuz remains closed is the worst of all outcomes.
Trump daren't go all the way and try boots of the ground regime change because he knows the mid-terms are just around the corner.
Very few voters in America want boots on the ground never mind the on/off air war we have now.
The whole thing is deeply unpopular.
Shit or get off the pot.
No point continuing to lob missiles every few weekends all the while Hormuz remains closed. Its been months of this shit now, where they've not been fighting Iran but nor has Hormuz reopened. Dumb, dumb, dumb.
Boots on the ground would be my preference, failing that a much heavier bombardment of Iran until they surrender unconditionally or get rendered incapable of fighting anymore. Destroy their military and energy facilities for starters.
Or just go home and accept this is the greatest US foreign policy disaster in at least a hundred years.
At that point sounder minds can decide how to proceed.
Why are Reform members/supporters struggling so much with comprehension of the english language?
You would have thought as the supposedly England First party they could do the actual language.
But no.
So we have:
Police: "Assistant Chief Constable (ACC) Matt Longman had said officers remained "open-minded" about a potential motive" - BBC News
Reform supporter*: Why have they not said all avenues are open?
* In this case Essex PR but they are all at the same thing
This is disingenuous or stupid.
The police have been at pains to stress their view that the murder was not terror or politically motivated - of course there was some couching - they cannot pre-empt a trial, but they gave as strong an indication that there was no political motive as they possibly could.
That has now been found to be foolish and quite improper.
I can think of two reasons why they might have made such statements so rashly.
1. Culturally, leftist terrorism (if it was that) has no place in the police world view. Muslim terrorism cannot be denied, right-wing terrorism is a lesser factor but receives a great deal of attention and is trumpeted across the media. Leftist terrorism simply cannot be. The police culture regards left wing activists as allies in creating their new society. They were simply saying what they hoped was the truth.
2. It was a high profile investigation and they wanted to keep the overall responsibility and not give it up to counter terrorism.
3. There was no evidence that it was political and the victim was not a high profile serving politician so would not be considered an immediate target for such a political killing.
As such the police statements were neither couched nor pre-emptive. They were an accurate representation of the facts as understood at the time. When the facts changed so did the approach.
Not everything in this life has to be a conspiracy.
Saying "no evidence of political motive" is un-necessary though. One can just omit it. Except for public order management.
Not really. As soon as it was announced it was murder there was a huge amount of speculation that it was politically motivated - at least from the Right. As such it seems perfectly normal for the police to say they have found no evidence of that at that point in the enquiry.
You've rather stupidly blown up your own argument there. Your initial claim was that the police just gave the bald facts, but you have now acknowledged that the indication they gave as to the lack of a political motive was necessary to combat right wing speculation. So clearly you do think it was an intervention aimed at managing public opinion.
Of course, the inner monologue you've failed to conceal is correct. The police did try to promote a particular view of this crime and it was extremely foolish.
I note that Jonathan Hall KC, the Independent Reviewer of State Threats Legislation and Terrorism Legislation for the UK government has said that the police should not have made such comments - 'I don't understand why Devon and Cornwall police were steering the public away from the idea that this was a terrorist case...they broke one of the golden rules of a live investigation which is not to comment on live investigations in case new facts emerge...regrettable'
But I'm sure you know more than him about it.
tbh it sounds like the eminent KC has not thought it through unless he expects the public to solve cases for them. Sure there may be reasons for not releasing information but this is not one of them.
I don't understand your comment.
I'm saying that Hall is wrong and it does not matter if you tell the public one set of facts and then some more emerge because the public are not the detectives working on the case.
They didn't tell the public a set of facts. They presented the public with an unwarrantable assumption. They had no facts upon which to base that assumption, as has now become clear.
No, they did not present the public with an unwarrantable assumption. The narrative you are presenting is fundamentally flawed. The unwarrantable assumption is entirely yours.
In their statement on Friday afternoon the police said that the incident was not being treated as terrorism. That was a true statement about the way the investigation was progressing. The fact it is now being treated as terrorism does not in any way make that statement incorrect. The Sky journalist at that statement asked if they had any information that the murder was politically motivated, in response to which they said that they remained open minded but they had no information to indicate it was a politically motivated offence. Again, nothing that has happened since renders that statement in any way incorrect and it was a reasonable response to the question asked. Perhaps you think they should have refused to answer that question. But, contrary to the narrative you are trying to push, saying they had no information to indicate it was politically motivated is very different from saying definitively that it was not politically motivated.
[Trump] has also formally notified Congress that fighting with Iran has resumed, a recognition that the cease-fire has broken down, and one that stokes a struggle over vital war powers. Congress has directed the president to either end the war or seek approval to continue it, but Mr. Trump insists he has the sole authority to make that call. The notification letter, dated Friday, was obtained by The New York Times on Monday.
NY Times live blog
Yeah right, he'll taco again.
We need regime change in Iran.
Continual ceasefires and splashes of conflict that don't change anything, all while Hormuz remains closed is the worst of all outcomes.
Trump daren't go all the way and try boots of the ground regime change because he knows the mid-terms are just around the corner.
Very few voters in America want boots on the ground never mind the on/off air war we have now.
The whole thing is deeply unpopular.
Shit or get off the pot.
No point continuing to lob missiles every few weekends all the while Hormuz remains closed. Its been months of this shit now, where they've not been fighting Iran but nor has Hormuz reopened. Dumb, dumb, dumb.
Boots on the ground would be my preference, failing that a much heavier bombardment of Iran until they surrender unconditionally or get rendered incapable of fighting anymore. Destroy their military and energy facilities for starters.
It sounds so simple. So why doesn't the US do this?
Well, they can't. They haven't the munitions or the doctrine. They're fighting the last war but one now. Missles that cost millions of dollars to fire one. Planes that cost 10s of millions.
And Iran (and Ukraine) make drones, lots of them for a tenth of the cost. And with up to 2000 mile range for the better ones.
Drones are the weapons now. Not bombs or rockets or missiles. Drones. Does the US have much in the way of drone making capacity? Genuine question? I don't know. But even if they do, the Pentagon love their multimillion dollar defence contracts for one plane which can fly once before needing another multimillion dollar service package.
Wrong weapons, wrong doctrine. Now the US knows what France must've felt in 1940. More troops, better tanks.... but doctrine totally unsuited to what they faced.
And of course, there is no way, no way, the US population would stomach the alternative of a ground invasion. No way at all.
[Trump] has also formally notified Congress that fighting with Iran has resumed, a recognition that the cease-fire has broken down, and one that stokes a struggle over vital war powers. Congress has directed the president to either end the war or seek approval to continue it, but Mr. Trump insists he has the sole authority to make that call. The notification letter, dated Friday, was obtained by The New York Times on Monday.
NY Times live blog
Yeah right, he'll taco again.
We need regime change in Iran.
Continual ceasefires and splashes of conflict that don't change anything, all while Hormuz remains closed is the worst of all outcomes.
Trump daren't go all the way and try boots of the ground regime change because he knows the mid-terms are just around the corner.
Very few voters in America want boots on the ground never mind the on/off air war we have now.
The whole thing is deeply unpopular.
The United States doesn't actually have sufficient soldiers (like they don't have sufficient ships) to invade in a ground war. Iran is a populace of 90 million, many of whom hate their own government ALMOST as much as they hate the United States. They will take up arms if invasion comes.
It's estimated the US needs 450,000 grounds troops minimum to invade Iran.... and that's touch and go as to whether it would truly be enough. A few more hundred thousand should do it. The US has 450,000 ground troops. Hurrah! But that means stripping everything, everywhere. Every base, every barracks, emptied. No idea if the US has the sea and air lift capacity (probably not). .
The US has theoretical amphibious landing ship capacity for around 60k soldiers and their equipment. 9 Amphibious Assault Ships, capacity about 2k soldiers each, 14 Amphibious Transport Docks, capacity 7-800 each, and 10 Dock Landing ships, about 500 men each.
So even if the US used everything it had and could get all those ships into place without the Iranians sinking any with drones (both extremely unlikely, because ships constantly need maintenance and Iranian drones are pretty good), it could get just over a tenth of the forces it would need for an invasion into place. And, more realistically, it could only use about half or two thirds of those, so 40k men at the most, or well under a tenth of the forces needed.
Not sure the Iranians would bother to send their army - with an American invasion force that small, they could probably just use their police to arrest them.
Worth reading: William Kristol explains why — if you want the Epstein files released — you will oppose Todd Blanche’s confirmation:
A year ago, on July 17, 2025, Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche hurried to an emergency evening meeting in the White House Situation Room with his fellow Trump administration apparatchiks. Its location might suggest it had to do with national security. It didn’t. It was about the political security of Donald Trump.
Ten days earlier, the Trump administration had tried to close the door on the Jeffrey Epstein matter. The Justice Department and the FBI had announced that the Epstein investigation was complete, that nothing further could or should be done, and no new documents would be made public. But that effort to stonewall was already falling apart. Now it had to be replaced with a more elaborate coverup.
Worth reading: William Kristol explains why — if you want the Epstein files released — you will oppose Todd Blanche’s confirmation:
A year ago, on July 17, 2025, Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche hurried to an emergency evening meeting in the White House Situation Room with his fellow Trump administration apparatchiks. Its location might suggest it had to do with national security. It didn’t. It was about the political security of Donald Trump.
Ten days earlier, the Trump administration had tried to close the door on the Jeffrey Epstein matter. The Justice Department and the FBI had announced that the Epstein investigation was complete, that nothing further could or should be done, and no new documents would be made public. But that effort to stonewall was already falling apart. Now it had to be replaced with a more elaborate coverup.
ALERT: More trouble for Todd Blanche today. Attorneys for @katiephang.bsky.social ask Judge Emmet Sullivan to issue a $1000/day fine against Blanche until Blanche adheres to court order to release more Epstein files
Is anyone else worried about the fate of the 50 or so Labour MPs who have not done the North Korean thing and backed Burnham?
No
I'd be FAR more worried abbout the 50% of Tory MP's who are unable to accept the 5 C's that Kemi has laid down for Membership of the Kemunism Cult, especially those sitting MP's who face near certain defenestration in the very near future when they are told they will not be reselected as prospective Conservative Candidates.
This is wild. Apparently firm NY Times story former Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was an Israeli agent prepped to be new ruler after Khamenei was knocked out. It all went wrong of course
He needed to to get the majority, but he still did it and won handsomely
Could Burnham even win ugly?
Boris did NOT call an election after he was appointed Prime Minister in July 2019. Instead he pro-rogued Parliament as soon as he was able, lost two or three MPs to the Lib Dems, then in September kicked out 20 MPs to leave the Conservatives 42 seats SHORT of a majority.
An election was forced upon him, not the other way around.
He still went to the people
There was no Divine Right, like Burnham appears to have
He had no option. Boris Johnson commanded just 288 MPs by the end of September 2019. He had to call an election. Whilst I completely agree that incoming Prime Ministers should go to the country, the fact is, they never do unless they are either forced to, or see huge political advantage in doing so.
Eden - took over in early 1955 - went for a spring election in 1955 following the usual four year cycle since 1951. MacMillan - same - Took over in 1957, waited till 1959. Home - Took over in late 1963 - waited till the death in 1964. Callaghan - Took over in March 1976, lost a vote of confidence in March 1979 and was forced to the country by the opposition. Was probably going to hang on till the autumn otherwise. Major - Took over in November 1990. Hung on to the death in April 1992. Brown - Took over in July 2007 - hung on to the death in May 2010. May - Took over in July 2016 but had a thredbare majority of about 10. Looked at polls saying Con 48, Lab 24 and rolled the dice. She wouldn't have done it otherwise. Still took her a year to decide that. Johnson - Took over in July 2019 without a majority. Made the situation worse by kicking out 20 MPs. Forced to the country - you can't govern with 288MPs. Truss - I'll give you Truss. I reckon she was about to announce a General Election, but she fucked it up and resigned in error. Sunak - Appointed in November 2022 and hung on to nearly the death in 2024.
Incoming PMs DON'T call GE. They should, but the history is they never do.
Burnham won't call a GE.
Johnson did not "make things worse" and "get forced" to go to the polls.
He opted to go to the polls. The opposition voted against it and was dragged kicking and screaming to the election.
Think what you want. You cannot govern with 288MPs. Labour didn't want an election, they knew Magic Grandpa's day was up and they'd lose. But just because Labour didn't want one, doesn't mean Johnson was some high and holy democratic champion who wanted the people to confirm his appointment. If Johnson had 388MPs on his appointment, you can damn well be sure he'd have hung on till 2022 like we were all talking about in 2019. Don't argue with me. Argue with Boris' namesake, Lyndon Baines Johnson.
You are separating the removal of the MPs and going to the polls as if they are separate events, they were not.
Boris could have chosen to keep the MPs that were in the party and govern as a minority like May did.
Instead he removed the 20 MPs and called an election at the exact same time. It was one action.
3rd September he booted the MPs out. The election was called on 29th October 2019. If that's 'the same time', six... seven weeks apart, you have a funny definition of the same time. In fact 10 of those MPs were reinstated just before the dissolution.
No you are totally misremembering.
He called for an election on 3 September, frit opposition MPs opposed it.
This is wild. Apparently firm NY Times story former Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was an Israeli agent prepped to be new ruler after Khamenei was knocked out. It all went wrong of course
Mahmoud "Israel should be wiped from the pages of history" Ahmedinejad???
Seriously??
Apparently. He is reported to have been angry to be prevented from standing for presidency again, thought the Iranian regime had no future, and that US would inevitably attempt regime change so it might as well be him.
The even stranger detail is Ahmadinejad was still alive a few days ago attending Khamanei's funeral, surrounded by ranks of heavies.
[Trump] has also formally notified Congress that fighting with Iran has resumed, a recognition that the cease-fire has broken down, and one that stokes a struggle over vital war powers. Congress has directed the president to either end the war or seek approval to continue it, but Mr. Trump insists he has the sole authority to make that call. The notification letter, dated Friday, was obtained by The New York Times on Monday.
NY Times live blog
Yeah right, he'll taco again.
We need regime change in Iran.
Continual ceasefires and splashes of conflict that don't change anything, all while Hormuz remains closed is the worst of all outcomes.
Trump daren't go all the way and try boots of the ground regime change because he knows the mid-terms are just around the corner.
Very few voters in America want boots on the ground never mind the on/off air war we have now.
The whole thing is deeply unpopular.
The United States doesn't actually have sufficient soldiers (like they don't have sufficient ships) to invade in a ground war. Iran is a populace of 90 million, many of whom hate their own government ALMOST as much as they hate the United States. They will take up arms if invasion comes.
It's estimated the US needs 450,000 grounds troops minimum to invade Iran.... and that's touch and go as to whether it would truly be enough. A few more hundred thousand should do it. The US has 450,000 ground troops. Hurrah! But that means stripping everything, everywhere. Every base, every barracks, emptied. No idea if the US has the sea and air lift capacity (probably not).
And even this is going to take months to plan and arrange.
Alternatively, the US introduces conscription and moves to a wartime footing......
Alternatively, Trump doesn't worry about the fallout (literally) and just uses nukes. Lots of them. Hit Iran 100 times. They'll surrender then...... not sure I think that's a great plan.
The US is fucked. All Trump can do is surrender.
In some senses this is an unusual one.
The US has lost this war and yet we continue in groundhog day mode.
Trump cannot accept failure.
He could fire and blame Hegseth. Which may have some partial justification. But he was solely a Trump appointment, albeit approved by craven Republicans.
But Trump is more likely to turn to - at least threatening - nukes than turning his troops round.
One factor to bear in mind is that the Gulf states are realising that US bases give no security. Quiyte the reverse - they paint them with a great big target. Which the Iranians can unerringly hit (using Russian targeting assistance).
[Trump] has also formally notified Congress that fighting with Iran has resumed, a recognition that the cease-fire has broken down, and one that stokes a struggle over vital war powers. Congress has directed the president to either end the war or seek approval to continue it, but Mr. Trump insists he has the sole authority to make that call. The notification letter, dated Friday, was obtained by The New York Times on Monday.
NY Times live blog
Yeah right, he'll taco again.
We need regime change in Iran.
Continual ceasefires and splashes of conflict that don't change anything, all while Hormuz remains closed is the worst of all outcomes.
Trump daren't go all the way and try boots of the ground regime change because he knows the mid-terms are just around the corner.
Very few voters in America want boots on the ground never mind the on/off air war we have now.
The whole thing is deeply unpopular.
Shit or get off the pot.
No point continuing to lob missiles every few weekends all the while Hormuz remains closed. Its been months of this shit now, where they've not been fighting Iran but nor has Hormuz reopened. Dumb, dumb, dumb.
I think you are missing the futures trading opportunities that are being generated by the current policy.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cg4w6wqye32o is a good news piece this morning explaining the Farage/Reform links to, and apparent lobbying for, Harborne and the stablecoin company he has a stake in.
French polls generally over estimate the support for Le Pen.
Pensioners who as we’ve seen in the UK turnout in much higher numbers will finish off her chances . We see the reverse effect from the UK . In France pensioners are more pro EU and anti the far right .
As long as Philippe gets in the top 2 then I expect him to beat Le Pen .
But, as remainers love to inform us, pensioners are dying off...
He needed to to get the majority, but he still did it and won handsomely
Could Burnham even win ugly?
Boris did NOT call an election after he was appointed Prime Minister in July 2019. Instead he pro-rogued Parliament as soon as he was able, lost two or three MPs to the Lib Dems, then in September kicked out 20 MPs to leave the Conservatives 42 seats SHORT of a majority.
An election was forced upon him, not the other way around.
He still went to the people
There was no Divine Right, like Burnham appears to have
He had no option. Boris Johnson commanded just 288 MPs by the end of September 2019. He had to call an election. Whilst I completely agree that incoming Prime Ministers should go to the country, the fact is, they never do unless they are either forced to, or see huge political advantage in doing so.
Eden - took over in early 1955 - went for a spring election in 1955 following the usual four year cycle since 1951. MacMillan - same - Took over in 1957, waited till 1959. Home - Took over in late 1963 - waited till the death in 1964. Callaghan - Took over in March 1976, lost a vote of confidence in March 1979 and was forced to the country by the opposition. Was probably going to hang on till the autumn otherwise. Major - Took over in November 1990. Hung on to the death in April 1992. Brown - Took over in July 2007 - hung on to the death in May 2010. May - Took over in July 2016 but had a thredbare majority of about 10. Looked at polls saying Con 48, Lab 24 and rolled the dice. She wouldn't have done it otherwise. Still took her a year to decide that. Johnson - Took over in July 2019 without a majority. Made the situation worse by kicking out 20 MPs. Forced to the country - you can't govern with 288MPs. Truss - I'll give you Truss. I reckon she was about to announce a General Election, but she fucked it up and resigned in error. Sunak - Appointed in November 2022 and hung on to nearly the death in 2024.
Incoming PMs DON'T call GE. They should, but the history is they never do.
Burnham won't call a GE.
Johnson did not "make things worse" and "get forced" to go to the polls.
He opted to go to the polls. The opposition voted against it and was dragged kicking and screaming to the election.
Think what you want. You cannot govern with 288MPs. Labour didn't want an election, they knew Magic Grandpa's day was up and they'd lose. But just because Labour didn't want one, doesn't mean Johnson was some high and holy democratic champion who wanted the people to confirm his appointment. If Johnson had 388MPs on his appointment, you can damn well be sure he'd have hung on till 2022 like we were all talking about in 2019. Don't argue with me. Argue with Boris' namesake, Lyndon Baines Johnson.
You are separating the removal of the MPs and going to the polls as if they are separate events, they were not.
Boris could have chosen to keep the MPs that were in the party and govern as a minority like May did.
Instead he removed the 20 MPs and called an election at the exact same time. It was one action.
3rd September he booted the MPs out. The election was called on 29th October 2019. If that's 'the same time', six... seven weeks apart, you have a funny definition of the same time. In fact 10 of those MPs were reinstated just before the dissolution.
No you are totally misremembering.
He called for an election on 3 September, frit opposition MPs opposed it.
A few days after a former MP was brutally slaughtered in her own home we have Green Party councillors gleefully stabbing an effigy of Andy Burnham. All over so called trans rights. But then aggression and violence are the hallmark of the trans rights brigade. Must be all that toxic masculinity.
These are the people the Lib Dem’s don’t oppose but love bomb.
This really is not acceptable. Imagine the furore on here if this was a Reform meeting and Reform candidates.
“Green Party councillors attended a transgender rights rally where some protesters repeatedly stabbed darts into an effigy of Andy Burnham, The Times can reveal“
One factor to bear in mind is that the Gulf states are realising that US bases give no security. Quiyte the reverse - they paint them with a great big target. Which the Iranians can unerringly hit (using Russian targeting assistance).
I wonder if Russian intelligence gets it from their asset in the White House? I wouldn't be surprised.
[Trump] has also formally notified Congress that fighting with Iran has resumed, a recognition that the cease-fire has broken down, and one that stokes a struggle over vital war powers. Congress has directed the president to either end the war or seek approval to continue it, but Mr. Trump insists he has the sole authority to make that call. The notification letter, dated Friday, was obtained by The New York Times on Monday.
NY Times live blog
Yeah right, he'll taco again.
We need regime change in Iran.
Continual ceasefires and splashes of conflict that don't change anything, all while Hormuz remains closed is the worst of all outcomes.
Trump daren't go all the way and try boots of the ground regime change because he knows the mid-terms are just around the corner.
Very few voters in America want boots on the ground never mind the on/off air war we have now.
The whole thing is deeply unpopular.
Shit or get off the pot.
No point continuing to lob missiles every few weekends all the while Hormuz remains closed. Its been months of this shit now, where they've not been fighting Iran but nor has Hormuz reopened. Dumb, dumb, dumb.
I think you are missing the futures trading opportunities that are being generated by the current policy.
Bart’s to obsessed with war and big explosions to see that.
The basis of the claim is a disclosure by an employee of the IRS of Trump's tax records (that employee is in jail). Amongst other highlights there is a statutory protection that means that the IRS is not vicariously liable for the actions of its employees that it has not authorised; that where there is such authorisation there is a statutory limit of $1000 per incident; that the claim was lodged months beyond the timebar but the IRS weirdly never took the point; that the "deal" purported to give Trump immunity from tax evasion and even extended that immunity to members of his family... It is beyond corrupt, it is a contrivance to defraud the American taxpayer.
The attorneys responsible for this attempted fraud include Todd Blanche, acting AG of the United States, who has hearings this week to confirm his appointment. His conduct has been referred to the New York bar for disciplinary action. Is the Senate really going to appoint an AG who is on the cusp of being disbarred?
Blanche deserves all that is coming to him for his part in this but what about his boss? This is an utter disgrace. But such is the collapse of the rule of law in the US it barely seems to be generating a weary sigh.
[Trump] has also formally notified Congress that fighting with Iran has resumed, a recognition that the cease-fire has broken down, and one that stokes a struggle over vital war powers. Congress has directed the president to either end the war or seek approval to continue it, but Mr. Trump insists he has the sole authority to make that call. The notification letter, dated Friday, was obtained by The New York Times on Monday.
NY Times live blog
Yeah right, he'll taco again.
We need regime change in Iran.
Continual ceasefires and splashes of conflict that don't change anything, all while Hormuz remains closed is the worst of all outcomes.
Trump daren't go all the way and try boots of the ground regime change because he knows the mid-terms are just around the corner.
Very few voters in America want boots on the ground never mind the on/off air war we have now.
The whole thing is deeply unpopular.
The United States doesn't actually have sufficient soldiers (like they don't have sufficient ships) to invade in a ground war. Iran is a populace of 90 million, many of whom hate their own government ALMOST as much as they hate the United States. They will take up arms if invasion comes.
It's estimated the US needs 450,000 grounds troops minimum to invade Iran.... and that's touch and go as to whether it would truly be enough. A few more hundred thousand should do it. The US has 450,000 ground troops. Hurrah! But that means stripping everything, everywhere. Every base, every barracks, emptied. No idea if the US has the sea and air lift capacity (probably not).
And even this is going to take months to plan and arrange.
Alternatively, the US introduces conscription and moves to a wartime footing......
Alternatively, Trump doesn't worry about the fallout (literally) and just uses nukes. Lots of them. Hit Iran 100 times. They'll surrender then...... not sure I think that's a great plan.
The US is fucked. All Trump can do is surrender.
In some senses this is an unusual one.
The US has lost this war and yet we continue in groundhog day mode.
Trump cannot accept failure.
He could fire and blame Hegseth. Which may have some partial justification. But he was solely a Trump appointment, albeit approved by craven Republicans.
But Trump is more likely to turn to - at least threatening - nukes than turning his troops round.
One factor to bear in mind is that the Gulf states are realising that US bases give no security. Quiyte the reverse - they paint them with a great big target. Which the Iranians can unerringly hit (using Russian targeting assistance).
The Iranian regime has been emboldened. This is a foreign policy disaster and will define Trump 2. He would never have a great legacy but this is a shambles.
Iran were even hitting US bases in Jordan.
If I was a Gulf nation I’d be looking at US bases on my territory under attack and looking at the enfeebled US unable to protect them.
A prolonged war is not in the interest of Trump or the IRGC but I cannot see Hormuz or the Gulf going back to how it was prior to the foolish war. Trump is going to have to accept a new reality.
Why are Reform members/supporters struggling so much with comprehension of the english language?
You would have thought as the supposedly England First party they could do the actual language.
But no.
So we have:
Police: "Assistant Chief Constable (ACC) Matt Longman had said officers remained "open-minded" about a potential motive" - BBC News
Reform supporter*: Why have they not said all avenues are open?
* In this case Essex PR but they are all at the same thing
This is disingenuous or stupid.
The police have been at pains to stress their view that the murder was not terror or politically motivated - of course there was some couching - they cannot pre-empt a trial, but they gave as strong an indication that there was no political motive as they possibly could.
That has now been found to be foolish and quite improper.
I can think of two reasons why they might have made such statements so rashly.
1. Culturally, leftist terrorism (if it was that) has no place in the police world view. Muslim terrorism cannot be denied, right-wing terrorism is a lesser factor but receives a great deal of attention and is trumpeted across the media. Leftist terrorism simply cannot be. The police culture regards left wing activists as allies in creating their new society. They were simply saying what they hoped was the truth.
2. It was a high profile investigation and they wanted to keep the overall responsibility and not give it up to counter terrorism.
3. There was no evidence that it was political and the victim was not a high profile serving politician so would not be considered an immediate target for such a political killing.
As such the police statements were neither couched nor pre-emptive. They were an accurate representation of the facts as understood at the time. When the facts changed so did the approach.
Not everything in this life has to be a conspiracy.
Saying "no evidence of political motive" is un-necessary though. One can just omit it. Except for public order management.
Not really. As soon as it was announced it was murder there was a huge amount of speculation that it was politically motivated - at least from the Right. As such it seems perfectly normal for the police to say they have found no evidence of that at that point in the enquiry.
You've rather stupidly blown up your own argument there. Your initial claim was that the police just gave the bald facts, but you have now acknowledged that the indication they gave as to the lack of a political motive was necessary to combat right wing speculation. So clearly you do think it was an intervention aimed at managing public opinion.
Of course, the inner monologue you've failed to conceal is correct. The police did try to promote a particular view of this crime and it was extremely foolish.
I note that Jonathan Hall KC, the Independent Reviewer of State Threats Legislation and Terrorism Legislation for the UK government has said that the police should not have made such comments - 'I don't understand why Devon and Cornwall police were steering the public away from the idea that this was a terrorist case...they broke one of the golden rules of a live investigation which is not to comment on live investigations in case new facts emerge...regrettable'
But I'm sure you know more than him about it.
tbh it sounds like the eminent KC has not thought it through unless he expects the public to solve cases for them. Sure there may be reasons for not releasing information but this is not one of them.
I don't understand your comment.
I'm saying that Hall is wrong and it does not matter if you tell the public one set of facts and then some more emerge because the public are not the detectives working on the case.
They didn't tell the public a set of facts. They presented the public with an unwarrantable assumption. They had no facts upon which to base that assumption, as has now become clear.
No, they did not present the public with an unwarrantable assumption. The narrative you are presenting is fundamentally flawed. The unwarrantable assumption is entirely yours.
In their statement on Friday afternoon the police said that the incident was not being treated as terrorism. That was a true statement about the way the investigation was progressing. The fact it is now being treated as terrorism does not in any way make that statement incorrect. The Sky journalist at that statement asked if they had any information that the murder was politically motivated, in response to which they said that they remained open minded but they had no information to indicate it was a politically motivated offence. Again, nothing that has happened since renders that statement in any way incorrect and it was a reasonable response to the question asked. Perhaps you think they should have refused to answer that question. But, contrary to the narrative you are trying to push, saying they had no information to indicate it was politically motivated is very different from saying definitively that it was not politically motivated.
The paranoid style of political thought is so exhausting to listen to. I can only imagine what it must be like to have it going off in your head 24/7. Let's just let the police get on with it.
F1: there was a desire/plan, I think, to try and get at least one missed race put later in the year. Always very difficult, now looking impossible. Azerbaijan isn't that far off (mid-September) and might go ahead but Abu Dhabi and Qatar are looking dubious unless things actually get resolved.
If things are still going by the end of the year, this then raises question marks about those four (potentially five if Azerbaijan is affected) events.
Malmesbury and others will be greatly cheered by this from the excellent Joshua Rozenberg showing that the gigantic process and regulatory state not only provides a decent number of comfortable jobs for the boys but has the added attraction that it doesn't work, leading to further investigation into the regulators (answering Juvenal's great question 'quis custodiet ipsos custodes' namely, an infinite regress of regulators) which will surely result in further and better paid and worse regulatory structures.
The spider diagram is one to send the thoughtful reader into a state of trance.
One factor to bear in mind is that the Gulf states are realising that US bases give no security. Quiyte the reverse - they paint them with a great big target. Which the Iranians can unerringly hit (using Russian targeting assistance).
I wonder if Russian intelligence gets it from their asset in the White House? I wouldn't be surprised.
The bases in question are large and fixed. You can see them from space. Literally.
But the Russians are pretty nearly out of the space recon business. Their program has collapsed.
Thos will be from commercial imagery - you can buy 60cm resolution coverage of anywhere you want. And so the locations will have been fixed by the Iranians decades ago.
In an age where CEP is measured in metres, you can target the individual handstands (parking space for aircraft).
All you need then, is someone within a few miles to tell you when a handstand is occupied. Binoculars and a mobile phone, puts a random looking message on Snapchat or similar.
[Trump] has also formally notified Congress that fighting with Iran has resumed, a recognition that the cease-fire has broken down, and one that stokes a struggle over vital war powers. Congress has directed the president to either end the war or seek approval to continue it, but Mr. Trump insists he has the sole authority to make that call. The notification letter, dated Friday, was obtained by The New York Times on Monday.
NY Times live blog
Yeah right, he'll taco again.
We need regime change in Iran.
Continual ceasefires and splashes of conflict that don't change anything, all while Hormuz remains closed is the worst of all outcomes.
Trump daren't go all the way and try boots of the ground regime change because he knows the mid-terms are just around the corner.
Very few voters in America want boots on the ground never mind the on/off air war we have now.
The whole thing is deeply unpopular.
Shit or get off the pot.
No point continuing to lob missiles every few weekends all the while Hormuz remains closed. Its been months of this shit now, where they've not been fighting Iran but nor has Hormuz reopened. Dumb, dumb, dumb.
Boots on the ground would be my preference, failing that a much heavier bombardment of Iran until they surrender unconditionally or get rendered incapable of fighting anymore. Destroy their military and energy facilities for starters.
It sounds so simple. So why doesn't the US do this?
Well, they can't. They haven't the munitions or the doctrine. They're fighting the last war but one now. Missles that cost millions of dollars to fire one. Planes that cost 10s of millions.
And Iran (and Ukraine) make drones, lots of them for a tenth of the cost. And with up to 2000 mile range for the better ones.
Drones are the weapons now. Not bombs or rockets or missiles. Drones. Does the US have much in the way of drone making capacity? Genuine question? I don't know. But even if they do, the Pentagon love their multimillion dollar defence contracts for one plane which can fly once before needing another multimillion dollar service package.
Wrong weapons, wrong doctrine. Now the US knows what France must've felt in 1940. More troops, better tanks.... but doctrine totally unsuited to what they faced.
And of course, there is no way, no way, the US population would stomach the alternative of a ground invasion. No way at all.
The US did use sea drones in one of their recent attacks, and they hit a target deep inside a port - Iranian defences against sea drones are even worse than Russian's!
There seem to be lots of problems with the US military, but they seem capable of learning, and Ukraine is willing to help them do so if they will provide a few Patriot interceptors in return.
[Trump] has also formally notified Congress that fighting with Iran has resumed, a recognition that the cease-fire has broken down, and one that stokes a struggle over vital war powers. Congress has directed the president to either end the war or seek approval to continue it, but Mr. Trump insists he has the sole authority to make that call. The notification letter, dated Friday, was obtained by The New York Times on Monday.
NY Times live blog
Yeah right, he'll taco again.
We need regime change in Iran.
Continual ceasefires and splashes of conflict that don't change anything, all while Hormuz remains closed is the worst of all outcomes.
Trump daren't go all the way and try boots of the ground regime change because he knows the mid-terms are just around the corner.
Very few voters in America want boots on the ground never mind the on/off air war we have now.
The whole thing is deeply unpopular.
The United States doesn't actually have sufficient soldiers (like they don't have sufficient ships) to invade in a ground war. Iran is a populace of 90 million, many of whom hate their own government ALMOST as much as they hate the United States. They will take up arms if invasion comes.
It's estimated the US needs 450,000 grounds troops minimum to invade Iran.... and that's touch and go as to whether it would truly be enough. A few more hundred thousand should do it. The US has 450,000 ground troops. Hurrah! But that means stripping everything, everywhere. Every base, every barracks, emptied. No idea if the US has the sea and air lift capacity (probably not).
And even this is going to take months to plan and arrange.
Alternatively, the US introduces conscription and moves to a wartime footing......
Alternatively, Trump doesn't worry about the fallout (literally) and just uses nukes. Lots of them. Hit Iran 100 times. They'll surrender then...... not sure I think that's a great plan.
The US is fucked. All Trump can do is surrender.
In some senses this is an unusual one.
The US has lost this war and yet we continue in groundhog day mode.
Possibly the only way this will be brought to an end is when Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, etc, come to terms with Iran and tell the US to pack up and go home.
The Fox is pulling out of the Clacton by-election. I think that leaves us with three joke candidates.
Laurence Fox, or the guy dressed as a fox?
Lozza has important public duties defending libel actions for general entertainment. Paragraphs 7 and 8 of this 100 paragraph interlocutory judgment give the gist. Underwear or its absence comes into it.
Having completely failed to bomb Iran into submission, the new plan is to (checks notes) “bomb them into submission”
Yes, but this time fingers on both hands will be crossed. It's bound to work.
On a more serious note, the prolonged nature of the conflict may force the US to develop not just drone manufacturing (and more R&D) but the tactics necessary to make use of them. As someone else noted earlier in the thread, the French had better tanks than the Germans in early WWII, but the latter made way better use of them.
Malmesbury and others will be greatly cheered by this from the excellent Joshua Rozenberg showing that the gigantic process and regulatory state not only provides a decent number of comfortable jobs for the boys but has the added attraction that it doesn't work, leading to further investigation into the regulators (answering Juvenal's great question 'quis custodiet ipsos custodes' namely, an infinite regress of regulators) which will surely result in further and better paid and worse regulatory structures.
The spider diagram is one to send the thoughtful reader into a state of trance.
It is one of the differences that I have with the estimable @Cyclefree. She appears to believe more regulation is the way forward, my experience is that regulation, and the creation of quasi autonomous bureaucracies like the LSB and many others in that diagram, often makes things worse. It emphasises form over substance and creates lots of additional cost with minimal reward. Our regulatory sector is, in my view, a serious and underrated impediment to growth in this country.
[Trump] has also formally notified Congress that fighting with Iran has resumed, a recognition that the cease-fire has broken down, and one that stokes a struggle over vital war powers. Congress has directed the president to either end the war or seek approval to continue it, but Mr. Trump insists he has the sole authority to make that call. The notification letter, dated Friday, was obtained by The New York Times on Monday.
NY Times live blog
Yeah right, he'll taco again.
We need regime change in Iran.
Continual ceasefires and splashes of conflict that don't change anything, all while Hormuz remains closed is the worst of all outcomes.
Trump daren't go all the way and try boots of the ground regime change because he knows the mid-terms are just around the corner.
Very few voters in America want boots on the ground never mind the on/off air war we have now.
The whole thing is deeply unpopular.
The United States doesn't actually have sufficient soldiers (like they don't have sufficient ships) to invade in a ground war. Iran is a populace of 90 million, many of whom hate their own government ALMOST as much as they hate the United States. They will take up arms if invasion comes.
It's estimated the US needs 450,000 grounds troops minimum to invade Iran.... and that's touch and go as to whether it would truly be enough. A few more hundred thousand should do it. The US has 450,000 ground troops. Hurrah! But that means stripping everything, everywhere. Every base, every barracks, emptied. No idea if the US has the sea and air lift capacity (probably not).
And even this is going to take months to plan and arrange.
Alternatively, the US introduces conscription and moves to a wartime footing......
Alternatively, Trump doesn't worry about the fallout (literally) and just uses nukes. Lots of them. Hit Iran 100 times. They'll surrender then...... not sure I think that's a great plan.
The US is fucked. All Trump can do is surrender.
In some senses this is an unusual one.
The US has lost this war and yet we continue in groundhog day mode.
Possibly the only way this will be brought to an end is when Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, etc, come to terms with Iran and tell the US to pack up and go home.
The appetite in the Gulf States is quite the opposite, they want to see Iran dealt with once and for good, as soon as possible.
A few days after a former MP was brutally slaughtered in her own home we have Green Party councillors gleefully stabbing an effigy of Andy Burnham. All over so called trans rights. But then aggression and violence are the hallmark of the trans rights brigade. Must be all that toxic masculinity.
These are the people the Lib Dem’s don’t oppose but love bomb.
This really is not acceptable. Imagine the furore on here if this was a Reform meeting and Reform candidates.
“Green Party councillors attended a transgender rights rally where some protesters repeatedly stabbed darts into an effigy of Andy Burnham, The Times can reveal“
Not to worry Trump will apparently be spending most of his national address on Thursday having a tirade about how the poor thing was robbed in 2020, discrediting voting machines and putting pressure on Congress to pass the SAVE act or what it should be known as the voter disenfranchisement act and attempt to access state voter data so that the GOP can strike off those who are likely to vote Dem.
Malmesbury and others will be greatly cheered by this from the excellent Joshua Rozenberg showing that the gigantic process and regulatory state not only provides a decent number of comfortable jobs for the boys but has the added attraction that it doesn't work, leading to further investigation into the regulators (answering Juvenal's great question 'quis custodiet ipsos custodes' namely, an infinite regress of regulators) which will surely result in further and better paid and worse regulatory structures.
The spider diagram is one to send the thoughtful reader into a state of trance.
It is one of the differences that I have with the estimable @Cyclefree. She appears to believe more regulation is the way forward, my experience is that regulation, and the creation of quasi autonomous bureaucracies like the LSB and many others in that diagram, often makes things worse. It emphasises form over substance and creates lots of additional cost with minimal reward. Our regulatory sector is, in my view, a serious and underrated impediment to growth in this country.
What I believe is that we need *more effective regulation*.
Building laws and regulations are, in some areas, less effective than Victorian law. Because we combine orders of magnitude more paperwork and far less enforcement (whether by officials or market driven).
Regulations and laws aren’t free - even when all the costs are imposed on non-government entities.
You create a delta between breaking the law and doing the right thing. If you don’t defend that difference, you have made the crooks the winners. We see this in the building trade.
It came out, in COVID, that The Factory Acts were not being enforced in the Leicester garment trade. But I’m sure their paperwork…
The Factory Acts.
How far do we have to regress to realise that bombing Iran again adding another 1000 pages of forms doesn’t work?
Malmesbury and others will be greatly cheered by this from the excellent Joshua Rozenberg showing that the gigantic process and regulatory state not only provides a decent number of comfortable jobs for the boys but has the added attraction that it doesn't work, leading to further investigation into the regulators (answering Juvenal's great question 'quis custodiet ipsos custodes' namely, an infinite regress of regulators) which will surely result in further and better paid and worse regulatory structures.
The spider diagram is one to send the thoughtful reader into a state of trance.
It is one of the differences that I have with the estimable @Cyclefree. She appears to believe more regulation is the way forward, my experience is that regulation, and the creation of quasi autonomous bureaucracies like the LSB and many others in that diagram, often makes things worse. It emphasises form over substance and creates lots of additional cost with minimal reward. Our regulatory sector is, in my view, a serious and underrated impediment to growth in this country.
That is not what she has said. On the contrary she has argued in headers against pointlessly adding new laws and rules. Principles and Àccountability seem to be her thing.
Comments
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boris_Johnson#Premiership_(2019–2022)
3rd September he booted the MPs out. The election was called on 29th October 2019.
If that's 'the same time', six... seven weeks apart, you have a funny definition of the same time.
In fact 10 of those MPs were reinstated just before the dissolution.
I didn't want him, but now we've got him I wish him well.
Everybody from costars to fans seem to have loved him.
RIP indeed.
M = 1000
LI = 51
VI = 6
D = 500
Or you could have
I = 1
M = 1000
L = 50
IV = 4
ID = 499
Let's face it any Labour MP (other than Starmer) who hasn't backed Burnham by now is just too stupid to survive.
https://bsky.app/profile/judah-grunstein.bsky.social/post/3mqjq6i5cgc2i
(I avoided paywall by listening to the article)
One that really hurt like a family member was Father Ted. Never even in the same room as Dermot Morgan - but his passing was truly painful.
Other memorable roles:
Dead Calm
Event Horizon
Hunt for Red October
RIP
Seriously??
My now wife took me. I think it was our third or fourth date.
He called for an election on 3 September, frit opposition MPs opposed it.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/sep/03/boris-johnson-suffers-commons-defeat-as-tories-turn-against-him
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49584907
How many weeks are there on your calendar between 3 September and 3 September?
NY Times live blog
Reilly
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5V15wNflslc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ozo-LKX0KY4
We need regime change in Iran.
Continual ceasefires and splashes of conflict that don't change anything, all while Hormuz remains closed is the worst of all outcomes.
Starmer may have a majority but he's not been able to govern. Every major decision he's had to back down on due to an inability to carry Parliament.
Perhaps that's what Burnham needs then too, to avoid Starmer's fate? Kick out any MPs who rebel against a three line whip, then call an election to get MPs who will actually pass the legislation needed.
What's clearly untrue is Valiants timeline trying to separate the actions on 3 September and the decision to go for an early election which was announced on 3 September.
Aaron Rupar
@atrupar
·
1m
Trump just now in the Oval Office confirmed the war with Iran is back on and said of the Strait of Hormuz, "I think in the end we'll end up controlling the whole thing."
We don't need control of Hormuz, nor can we have it so long as the Mullahs survive.
We need regime change. Nothing more, nothing less.
Very few voters in America want boots on the ground never mind the on/off air war we have now.
The whole thing is deeply unpopular.
No point continuing to lob missiles every few weekends all the while Hormuz remains closed. Its been months of this shit now, where they've not been fighting Iran but nor has Hormuz reopened. Dumb, dumb, dumb.
Boots on the ground would be my preference, failing that a much heavier bombardment of Iran until they surrender unconditionally or get rendered incapable of fighting anymore. Destroy their military and energy facilities for starters.
It's estimated the US needs 450,000 grounds troops minimum to invade Iran.... and that's touch and go as to whether it would truly be enough. A few more hundred thousand should do it. The US has 450,000 ground troops. Hurrah! But that means stripping everything, everywhere. Every base, every barracks, emptied. No idea if the US has the sea and air lift capacity (probably not).
And even this is going to take months to plan and arrange.
Alternatively, the US introduces conscription and moves to a wartime footing......
Alternatively, Trump doesn't worry about the fallout (literally) and just uses nukes. Lots of them. Hit Iran 100 times. They'll surrender then...... not sure I think that's a great plan.
The US is fucked. All Trump can do is surrender.
Is this a dozen times now? Maybe more. Who can keep track???
Trump: "They wanna make a deal."
TACO incoming.
The US has lost this war and yet we continue in groundhog day mode.
At that point sounder minds can decide how to proceed.
In their statement on Friday afternoon the police said that the incident was not being treated as terrorism. That was a true statement about the way the investigation was progressing. The fact it is now being treated as terrorism does not in any way make that statement incorrect. The Sky journalist at that statement asked if they had any information that the murder was politically motivated, in response to which they said that they remained open minded but they had no information to indicate it was a politically motivated offence. Again, nothing that has happened since renders that statement in any way incorrect and it was a reasonable response to the question asked. Perhaps you think they should have refused to answer that question. But, contrary to the narrative you are trying to push, saying they had no information to indicate it was politically motivated is very different from saying definitively that it was not politically motivated.
Well, they can't. They haven't the munitions or the doctrine. They're fighting the last war but one now. Missles that cost millions of dollars to fire one. Planes that cost 10s of millions.
And Iran (and Ukraine) make drones, lots of them for a tenth of the cost. And with up to 2000 mile range for the better ones.
Drones are the weapons now. Not bombs or rockets or missiles. Drones. Does the US have much in the way of drone making capacity? Genuine question? I don't know. But even if they do, the Pentagon love their multimillion dollar defence contracts for one plane which can fly once before needing another multimillion dollar service package.
Wrong weapons, wrong doctrine. Now the US knows what France must've felt in 1940. More troops, better tanks.... but doctrine totally unsuited to what they faced.
And of course, there is no way, no way, the US population would stomach the alternative of a ground invasion. No way at all.
So even if the US used everything it had and could get all those ships into place without the Iranians sinking any with drones (both extremely unlikely, because ships constantly need maintenance and Iranian drones are pretty good), it could get just over a tenth of the forces it would need for an invasion into place. And, more realistically, it could only use about half or two thirds of those, so 40k men at the most, or well under a tenth of the forces needed.
Not sure the Iranians would bother to send their army - with an American invasion force that small, they could probably just use their police to arrest them.
https://bsky.app/profile/sundersays.bsky.social/post/3mqjcjawdlk24
Trump’s secretary of state claims the global tribunal is interfering with US military and law enforcement operations
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/jul/13/marco-rubio-dismantle-international-criminal-court
Government had been forced to pay back duties to companies that imported goods into the US that were hit by Trump’s tariffs
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/jul/14/trump-tariffs-us-refunds
Analysis of 12 indicators including asthma, obesity and vaccination finds child health is ‘national embarrassment’
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2026/jul/14/children-uk-unhealthiest-generation-decades-doctors-say
Here is the RCPCH report:-
https://www.rcpch.ac.uk/work-we-do/state-of-child-health
@macfarlanenews.bsky.social
ALERT: More trouble for Todd Blanche today. Attorneys for
@katiephang.bsky.social
ask Judge Emmet Sullivan to issue a $1000/day fine against Blanche until Blanche adheres to court order to release more Epstein files
(Blanche refused to do so by July 2 deadline)
https://bsky.app/profile/macfarlanenews.bsky.social/post/3mqkiuiz3sc2u
(And often misguided of course! ;-) )
The even stranger detail is Ahmadinejad was still alive a few days ago attending Khamanei's funeral, surrounded by ranks of heavies.
https://x.com/osinttechnical/status/2076876749632143856
https://x.com/JasonReidx/status/2076652480696393956?s=20
He could fire and blame Hegseth. Which may have some partial justification. But he was solely a Trump appointment, albeit approved by craven Republicans.
But Trump is more likely to turn to - at least threatening - nukes than turning his troops round.
One factor to bear in mind is that the Gulf states are realising that US bases give no security. Quiyte the reverse - they paint them with a great big target. Which the Iranians can unerringly hit (using Russian targeting assistance).
These are the people the Lib Dem’s don’t oppose but love bomb.
This really is not acceptable. Imagine the furore on here if this was a Reform meeting and Reform candidates.
“Green Party councillors attended a transgender rights rally where some protesters repeatedly stabbed darts into an effigy of Andy Burnham, The Times can reveal“
https://x.com/timespolitics/status/2076765344044036270?s=61
The basis of the claim is a disclosure by an employee of the IRS of Trump's tax records (that employee is in jail). Amongst other highlights there is a statutory protection that means that the IRS is not vicariously liable for the actions of its employees that it has not authorised; that where there is such authorisation there is a statutory limit of $1000 per incident; that the claim was lodged months beyond the timebar but the IRS weirdly never took the point; that the "deal" purported to give Trump immunity from tax evasion and even extended that immunity to members of his family... It is beyond corrupt, it is a contrivance to defraud the American taxpayer.
The attorneys responsible for this attempted fraud include Todd Blanche, acting AG of the United States, who has hearings this week to confirm his appointment. His conduct has been referred to the New York bar for disciplinary action. Is the Senate really going to appoint an AG who is on the cusp of being disbarred?
Blanche deserves all that is coming to him for his part in this but what about his boss? This is an utter disgrace. But such is the collapse of the rule of law in the US it barely seems to be generating a weary sigh.
Iran were even hitting US bases in Jordan.
If I was a Gulf nation I’d be looking at US bases on my territory under attack and looking at the enfeebled US unable to protect them.
A prolonged war is not in the interest of Trump or the IRGC but I cannot see Hormuz or the Gulf going back to how it was prior to the foolish war. Trump is going to have to accept a new reality.
F1: there was a desire/plan, I think, to try and get at least one missed race put later in the year. Always very difficult, now looking impossible. Azerbaijan isn't that far off (mid-September) and might go ahead but Abu Dhabi and Qatar are looking dubious unless things actually get resolved.
If things are still going by the end of the year, this then raises question marks about those four (potentially five if Azerbaijan is affected) events.
The spider diagram is one to send the thoughtful reader into a state of trance.
https://rozenberg.substack.com/p/regulator-loses-its-way?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=79530&post_id=206831753&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=1mnpci&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email
But the Russians are pretty nearly out of the space recon business. Their program has collapsed.
Thos will be from commercial imagery - you can buy 60cm resolution coverage of anywhere you want. And so the locations will have been fixed by the Iranians decades ago.
In an age where CEP is measured in metres, you can target the individual handstands (parking space for aircraft).
All you need then, is someone within a few miles to tell you when a handstand is occupied. Binoculars and a mobile phone, puts a random looking message on Snapchat or similar.
There seem to be lots of problems with the US military, but they seem capable of learning, and Ukraine is willing to help them do so if they will provide a few Patriot interceptors in return.
Or maybe somebody weirdly obsessed with racial purity based on early medieval history.
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/KB/2026/1743.html
On a more serious note, the prolonged nature of the conflict may force the US to develop not just drone manufacturing (and more R&D) but the tactics necessary to make use of them. As someone else noted earlier in the thread, the French had better tanks than the Germans in early WWII, but the latter made way better use of them.
NEW THREAD
https://whocanivotefor.co.uk/elections/parl.clacton.by.2026-08-13/clacton/
Building laws and regulations are, in some areas, less effective than Victorian law. Because we combine orders of magnitude more paperwork and far less enforcement (whether by officials or market driven).
Regulations and laws aren’t free - even when all the costs are imposed on non-government entities.
You create a delta between breaking the law and doing the right thing. If you don’t defend that difference, you have made the crooks the winners. We see this in the building trade.
It came out, in COVID, that The Factory Acts were not being enforced in the Leicester garment trade. But I’m sure their paperwork…
The Factory Acts.
How far do we have to regress to realise that bombing Iran again adding another 1000 pages of forms doesn’t work?
I had to read it a few times before I got that one of them was supposed to be Widdecombe. Thatcher I can kind of see if I really squint.