Good call. I'm going for the conspiracy theory myself. I think that just maybe the Iranian leadership and Trump agreed in secret that the General needed taking out (no idea why, but even internal politics in Iran is pretty brutal I expect). So the Americans kill the bloke, provoking mass hysteria among the people in Iran and a show of anger from the leaders - then the most pathetic so-called "retaliation" in the history of gunboat diplomacy. A few carefully aimed missiles hitting a couple of US bases in Iraq - carefully aimed not to kill any US troops that is. Then a great show of de-escalation from both sides. Result: The Americans get their bogey man and Trump boosts his ratings among those US voters who like the way he does things. The Iranian Leadership is free of a powerful military man who had secretly fallen out of favour with them for some reason (but was still popular with the people and the army, so could not easily be discredited or killed by internal political means). The Iranian leadership also gains a martyr, and gets a popular surge from its own outraged people, assuming they swallow the sincerity of the token retaliation. The US forces get a successful field test of one of their assassination drones. the Revolutionary Guards get a successful field test of one of their missile guidance systems. So everybody is 'happy'. The downed airliner adds an element of apparent authenticity to the tension of the situation, without pricking too many consciences among the common man in the street in Iran (so the leadership thinks anyway). On balance though, I think the shooting down of the Ukrainian airliner probably was a genuine mistake. A nervous junior officer maybe (not in on the conspiracy of course) mistaking the jet for a US bomber about to paste a facility he was responsible for protecting. Why Iran admitted it I cannot quite say, except that perhaps some 100% concrete evidence was about to come out anyway - something that Putin never had to deal with in the case of the plane shot down over Ukraine itself.
You don’t have to be a dyed in the wool leftie like @ForestHillBilly or El Franco @Ken Shabby to understand that the calibre in the Labour leadership contest is diabolical. Not one of them has the skill set to win in 2024. Starmer is the best of a poor bunch, but epitomises everything that Labour voters rejected in Dec. As a millionaire, as well as a very wooden public performer, he’s going to find it hard to play the politics of envy card. RL-B winning would spell the end of the Labour Party, and can anyone imagine Jess Philips as First Lord of the Treasury, or negotiating with Putin at the G8 . Embarrassing. Labour are now paying a heavy price for seeing the majority of the talent in the PLP departing since 2010, to be left with a very motley bunch of public sector scrubbers, or professional political geeks. Where are the doctors, the lawyers, eye CEOs, the ex Armed Forces in Labour’s ranks? People with a bit of life experience who understand wealth creation and business, rather than composite motions at endless constituency meetings? As someone who genuinely despises the Labour Party and all that it represents these days, I suggest they stick with Jeremy Corbyn for another 5 years. Never deny your star striker the opportunity of a hat trick.
It seems that Dan Jarvis, my own choice, won't stand...unfortunately. Liza Nandy looks to me to have the most positive and sensible ideas. She and Starmer are both electable, but a week's a long time in politics, so let's see how Johnson's promises pan out.
He's got an 80 seat majority, he doesn't need to keep promises... he just needs to get us out of Europe …. the Pacific would be nice
only two weeks to wait now. Im get hammered that night. The fruition of a 30 year political ambition.
I can’t see how any sane person can object to a points based immigration system that keeps the rubbish out.
Yep. He then resigned from his £130,000 a year Ministerial role on principle, won two elections resoundingly on the basis of a No Deal Brexit, then passed a Bill based on a deal with the EU that pessimists said he would never get Game, set and match.
Not harsh, true. He has been found out many times. If he told me the sky was blue I would get a second opinion. He can't be trusted.
Not really - it's a major part of his DNA. The guy actually lies more than he talks - he seems to do it even when there is no need to, and when there is no earthly benefit to him.
Keir Starmer won't win the vote of all Labour members. That will be won by whoever most closely identifies with (Oh) Jeremy Corbyn. I think that's Rebecca Wrong-Daily at the moment isn't it?