The UK Politics & Brexit Thread

[MSG2004]

My guess is that it's more likely the Iranian regime suffer a wave of targeted assassinations than wholescale infrastructure destruction. The possible exception to that would be Iranian nuclear facilities, even though they are hardened facilities, often under ground, and therefore difficult to destroy.

The Iranian regime is deeply unpopular within Iran. Given sufficient dismantling of their oppressive control apparatus as a precursor, it's hard to see that the Iranian people won't make significant efforts to destroy it from within.

IMO, Iran has empited their bunkers on massive airfields and advised Israel accordingly. Israel will claim a victory as will Iran when IDF retalitates. We wont get the truth but it will take them back from the brink and thankfully save possibly millions of lives in Israel and Iran, the lives of ordinary people I'm referring to here.

 

[TC350]

You have the Russians, UDA and these days China that bang on about "peace..,, de-escalations..." but are bending over backwards to supply/sell arms to nations in the pretence they care about them.

I don’t think that international arms deals have anything to do with caring about people. It’s more to do with making a few bob to line a few pockets while claiming to help with the GDP.

 

[Dryce]

The West are calling for a de escalation in the middle east. I can't see anyone climbing down from their self righteous stands.
So this looks to be more before it becomes less.

The West are firmly on the side of Israel.
So are Saudi, in a less obvious way.

The west are not firmly on the side of Israel. That's a pro-Israel conceit.

Basically Iran is seen as a greater threat to the region as a whole. And Iran has been plying its own politics in Syria as well as South Lebanon.

I would say that the west as whole is pretty hacked off with Israel. But Iran is seen as worse. So as long as Iran is there to make a noise then Israel gets more overt support.

And the same goes for Saudi, UAE, Jordan and others. Iran is a bigger strategic problem for them than Israel. Not so much about overt support for Israel - but these days they tolerate Israel better than Iran.

The West has done very well to remain a remote participant in these affairs, but for how long will that still be true?

Russia is the existential threat. The media here (and protesters) tend to be disproportionately focused on Middle East.

 

[st13phil]

Basically Iran is seen as a greater threat to the region as a whole. And Iran has been plying its own politics in Syria as well as South Lebanon.

I would say that the west as whole is pretty hacked off with Israel. But Iran is seen as worse. So as long as Iran is there to make a noise then Israel gets more overt support.

And the same goes for Saudi, UAE, Jordan and others. Iran is a bigger strategic problem for them than Israel.

Iran's theocratic regime has spent the last 45 years attempting to destabilise the region through its use of proxies (mainly, but not exclusively, to attack Israel) and further afield by its funding and support of various terrorist groups. It controls its own population through the terror of ruthless oppression. The regime is a poisonous entity and it's hard to see the region enjoying a more peaceful time unless it is eliminated.

It's also arguable that Israel's behaviour - that hacks off both the West and its regional neighbours - would be very different if not for the Iranian regime's efforts at destroying it either indirectly or directly. Having said that, the latest qualified offer of "support" for Israel by its Arab neighbours should be seen more in terms of "my enemy's enemy is my friend" than anything else.

Russia is the existential threat.

As of today I would agree: Russia's combination of its own territorial ambition, distorted view of the West's motives, and long-standing nuclear capability sees to that. But tomorrow, with a nuclear-armed Iran? Not so sure.

 

[m80]

Going all in. Where is Israels plan for peace? Also known as a two state solution.

The plan maybe,
1st vanquish,
then negotiate from a position that denies the vanquished what they want.

Realistic, nah. Not one their own any way. So possible then.

 

[m80]

Starmer repays more than £6k in gifts since becoming PM

The PM is covering the cost of Taylor Swift tickets and other gifts, after a row over donations.

www.bbc.co.uk

While singing 'If I could turn back time'.
I hope someone pointed out that Cher doesn't mean she isn't due royalties.

 

[markjay]

The west are not firmly on the side of Israel. That's a pro-Israel conceit.

Western countries are, and always have been, on the side of their respective national interests. As are we. Sometimes it aligns with Israel.

 

[John N]

Starmer repays more than £6k in gifts since becoming PM

The PM is covering the cost of Taylor Swift tickets and other gifts, after a row over donations.

www.bbc.co.uk

While singing 'If I could turn back time'.
I hope someone pointed out that Cher doesn't mean she isn't due royalties.

Similar reaction to the MP's Expenses Scandal of a few years ago: "I've Been Found Out/Made a Mistake, but as I have been made to Pay it back and say Sorry, I'm back to being Innocent"

 

[MSG2004]

Starmer repays more than £6k in gifts since becoming PM

The PM is covering the cost of Taylor Swift tickets and other gifts, after a row over donations.

www.bbc.co.uk

While singing 'If I could turn back time'.
I hope someone pointed out that Cher doesn't mean she isn't due royalties.

and he and his cronies were being wheeled out daily in front of the tv and radio defending the gifts only a couple of weeks ago.

 

[markjay]

Similar reaction to the MP's Expenses Scandal of a few years ago: "I've Been Found Out/Made a Mistake, but as I have been made to Pay it back and say Sorry, I'm back to being Innocent"

Clearly, he's returning those gifts that no amount of creative accounting can launder.

 

[Dryce]

Western countries are, and always have been, on the side of their respective national interests. As are we. Sometimes it aligns with Israel.

There are some legacy relationships at work as well. The French have historical ties with Lebanon, the UK has close ties with Jordan. The Russians with the rump of Syria. Then you have the Sunni and Shia.

Things don't remain static either - there is a mess in Syria which has given Iran the opportunity to exert influence. The cold war ending shifted the some of the external strategic interests. Oil politics have shifted in the world -with China having more influence/dependencies - while the US influence has dropped. UAE and Qatar have developed strong international connections. Saudi is changing to being more 'modern'. India is asserting itself more politically. Yemen is a bigger more aggressive mess than it was.

 

[John N]

Clearly, he's returning those gifts that no amount of creative accounting can launder.

Is this more sleaze, they get their Laundry done Free as Well?

 

[markjay]

Is this more sleaze, they get their Laundry done Free as Well?

Rachel Reeves had a car crash interview recently, when she was asked about the gift of clothes she received. The points she made in the interview were:

1. The gift of clothes were declared as 'support' because "We asked the Registrar, and this is how we were asked to declare it" - I.e. blaming it on some unknown official.

2. The reason that Labour criticised Boris Johnson's redecorating No 10 using donors' money at the time, is that it's OK to receive gifts while you are campaigning from the opposition, but not when you're in government, and they "won't be doing it any more now that they are in government".

3. The Tories took donors' money, and in return gave them a backhander in the shape of lucrative government contracts effectively repaying them with taxpayers' money. Labour, on the other hand, offered their donors nothing in return - and "it's OK to receive gifts as long as you don't give anything back" (apparently the free pass to No 10 that Lord Ali received has no value).

4. If the donors didn't fund the clothing for her campaign tour, the taxpayer would have had to pay for it, and she was actually saving taxpayers' money by accepting the donations to buy cloths (yes, she actually said that).

 

[MrGreedy]

3. The Tories tool donors' money, and in return gave them a backhander in the shape of lucrative government contracts effectively repaying them with taxpayers' money. Labour, on the other hand offered their donors nothing in return - and "it's OK to receive gifts as long as you don't give anything back" (apparently the free pass to No 10 that Lord Ali received has no value).

a. Be specific Rachel Thieves. Which Tories, which donors, which backhanders, which contracts? Or was it every Tory, by simple association?
b. The money the Unions wanged* to Labour was not in exchange for nor influenced in any way the pay deal, I assume. And even though there is an obvious conflict of interest for mere mortals, we can be assured this didn't enter the mind of any Labour MP or Civil servant during the deal?

MJ, bit of an autocorrect nightmare throughout the post above buddy!

 

[MrGreedy]

* an official term for careful, considered and modest distribution

 

[MSG2004]

Rachel Reeves had a car crash interview recently, when she was asked about the gift of clothes she received. The points she made in the interview were:

1. The gift of clothes were declared as 'support' because "We asked the Registrar, and this is how we were asked to declare it" - I.e. blaming it on some unknown official.

2. The reason that Labour criticised Boris Johnson's redecorating No 10 using donors money at the time, is that it's OK to receive gifts while you are campaigning from the opposition, but not when you're in government, and they "won't be doing it any more now that they are in government".

3. The Tories took donors' money, and in return gave them a backhander in the shape of lucrative government contracts effectively repaying them with taxpayers' money. Labour, on the other hand, offered their donors nothing in return - and "it's OK to receive gifts as long as you don't give anything back" (apparently the free pass to No 10 that Lord Ali received has no value).

4. If the donors didn't fund the clothing for her campaign tour, the taxpayer would have had to pay for it, and she was actually saving taxpayers' money by accepting the donations to buy cloths (yes, she actually said that).

I heard someone on LBC this morning saying just that, "when they were in opposition..." - so what is what I say!
Having wheeled out ministers to defend the indefensible a couple of weeks ago and then U turning, look like they will never learn.

Then blaming, deflecting to Boris and Co - when did two wrongs make a right?

People voted out the other lot mainly because of the distrust and Liz Truss and her disgusting mini-budget that has impacted tens of millions for years to come

With Starmer - and the others - they bang on about clarity/transparency but you have to DRAG it out of them, Eg clothing gifts amount under the heading of "office support."

Labour has not learned from the mistakes of the Conservatives that by rolling out people to defend the indefensible and seeing the public as stupid
may just end their career.

 

[markjay]

a. Be specific Rachel Thieves. Which Tories, which donors, which backhanders, which contracts? Or was it every Tory, by simple association?
b. The money the Unions wanged* to Labour was not in exchange for nor influenced in any way the pay deal, I assume. And even though there is an obvious conflict of interest for mere mortals, we can be assured this didn't enter the mind of any Labour MP or Civil servant during the deal?

MJ, bit of an autocorrect nightmare throughout the post above buddy!

a. I didn't mention it in my post, but she was specific, she referred to PPE contracts during the pandemic, according to her the contracts were given to Tory donors.

Thanks for the heads up, just edited and made some corrections

 

[John N]

Rachel Reeves had a car crash interview recently, when she was asked about the gift of clothes she received. The points she made in the interview were:

1. The gift of clothes were declared as 'support' because "We asked the Registrar, and this is how we were asked to declare it" - I.e. blaming it on some unknown official.

2. The reason that Labour criticised Boris Johnson's redecorating No 10 using donors money at the time, is that it's OK to receive gifts while you are campaigning from the opposition, but not when you're in government, and they "won't be doing it any more now that they are in government".

3. The Tories took donors' money, and in return gave them a backhander in the shape of lucrative government contracts effectively repaying them with taxpayers' money. Labour, on the other hand, offered their donors nothing in return - and "it's OK to receive gifts as long as you don't give anything back" (apparently the free pass to No 10 that Lord Ali received has no value).

4. If the donors didn't fund the clothing for her campaign tour, the taxpayer would have had to pay for it, and she was actually saving taxpayers' money by accepting the donations to buy cloths (yes, she actually said that).

3. If I was given a Free Pass to a Scottish International Rugby Union Match and there wasn't a Game Played that Day I would be rather "Pissed Off"

4. In my VERY Naïve State regarding Party Political Structures, shouldn't it be the Labour Party Campaign Funds (as in the Whole Party Fund, not individual Personal Donations) that are used to purchase Campaign Clothing? Why should the Tax Payer be expected to "Foot the Bill"?

Or another Solution: "Buy Yer Feckin Own Stuff"

 

[markjay]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

"People who give you thousands of pounds... generally expect to get something in return"

Angela Rayner, April 2021

 

[DSM10000]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

"People who give you thousands of pounds... generally expect to get something in return"

Angela Rayner, April 2021

All mouth and aggression.