One of the outcomes of this whole sordid affair is the sacking of a decent, kind, talented and dedicated individual doing his best in difficult circumstances. The implications for the future relationship between civil servants and government politicians and their political appointees are grim.
It might depend on what Olly Robbins has to say to the House today, but I doubt Labour MPs are ready to dump their leader just over a fortnight before crucial local and devolved administration elections. If those elections go as badly for Labour as polls suggest, then it’s open season on Starmer.
I’m not a fan of the newspaper, but it’s owned by a Trust and rarely makes a profit. It relies to a considerable extent on readers’ contributions.
Austerity yes, but the EU referendum was a Conservative-only policy after Cameron’s unexpected outright victory in 2015.
I’ve never viewed The Guardian, Daily Mirror and Observer as anything other than pro-Labour. True, the majority of the UK print media do not like the party, although that has not always been the case, Rupert Murdoch’s endorsement of Tony Blair in 1997 being a case in point.
I think it does care. It was interesting that one of the first comments by the new Hungarian PM was his hope the UK would rejoin. As the third largest economy in Europe, our decision to leave the EU came as a rude shock to our partners. Our influence, once unrivaled, now much diminished.
I think the Iranian regime HAS changed, just not in the way the US and Israel intended - and certainly not to the benefit of the Iranian people. It is no longer a theocracy but an even more hardline military dictatorship run by the IRGC, with Mojtaba Khomeini as a figurehead.
There are examples of Prime Ministers appointing political heavyweights to senior ambassadorial roles. They are the exception: the majority of ambassadors are career diplomats, unlike in eg the US where the reverse applies. Quite how or why civil servants ignored a vetting failure here is baffling.
Could this whole sordid affair end with the Prime Minister resigning? Perhaps, in which case it will underline yet again the wide gulf between the severity of the repercussions in the UK over the Epstein issue and those in the US.
I’m sorry to see Olly Robbins go. He always struck me as a serious operator, highly intelligent and dedicated but with good people skills too. This whole sorry saga has put the Prime Minister in a perilous position. Olly’s sacking may not be enough to staunch the bleeding.
This is damaging. One key question that needs answering: was the decision to overrule the outcome of the clearance directed at a political level in the Prime Minister’s office? His Chief of Staff resigned over the broader issue. But did he do this - and was the PM truly in the dark?
That’s worrying. One assumption within NATO is that Russia might occupy a border town in one of the Baltic states to test the Alliance’s reaction and willingness to respond without US support and assistance.
Twenty hours of US-Iran negotiations were rightly described by a former senior American diplomat as “mere throat-clearing”. It will take a great deal of repeated, patient discussion, perhaps over several rounds, to thrash out an agreement, if one proves possible.
“Will no-one rid me of this turbulent priest?”. A moment from UK history over 850 years ago, with a King exasperated by a senior church official. It didn’t end well for either of them, but led to constitutional reform and the paramount importance of the rule of law that persists here to this day.
Not sure it’s politically astute of the VP to suggest the head of a universal church with around 70 million members (ie voters) in the US alone should get back in his box.
My guess (and it’s no more than that, so may prove way off base) is that any future deal on nuclear will look similar both to elements of the 2016 JCPOA agreed with Obama but ridiculed and rejected by Trump; and to the more recent proposal dismissed by Witkoff and Kushner.
The case for increased defence spending is more widely understood and (possibly) accepted in the UK. What’s not is how to pay for it. The government cannot easily cut other expenditure, cannot increase debt and dare not raise taxes, yet. The PM needs more time to sell the need for higher taxation.
Surely one of the saddest ironies of western allies falling out over Iran and Trump’s mercurial nature is to have a communist dictatorship promoting some of our very own values. Xi must find it hard not to burst out laughing as he reacts in sorrow to our plight.
It must be a challenge for insurance companies (let alone ships’ crews) to imagine safe transit of a strait that Iran claims to have partially sown with mines. Plus Tehran wants to give the impression that vessels will run a gauntlet of missiles and drones, unless they pay for safe passage.
The perils of headline writing. I’m fairly confident the current UK population already far exceeds 4.4 million.
It appears Trump has been persuaded that a US blockade of the Strait of Hormuz would be a bad idea. Instead, the US Navy will focus on Iranian ports. That is more compatible with international law, although humanitarian aspects might still apply if food and medicine become scarce in Iran.
Trump told Fox News today that “the UK and other allies will help with mine clearance”. I guess we might (there has been previous talk here of possibly deploying remotely piloted mine clearance vessels). But in the new context of a US blockade that’s politically challenging for the UK government.
The Eisenhower Executive Office Building’s interior is remarkably similar inside to the Foreign Office main building next to Downing Street in London. Perhaps not surprising, as they were both late 1800s projects and, contrary to this article’s final comment, both much admired by the Victorians.
This is potentially tricky legal ground for senior US commanders. Arguably it’s a war scenario, albeit currently the subject of a temporary ceasefire. Even so, proportionality applies, so a blanket ban on all movement would perhaps breach international law.
US military now about to be used to prevent the free flow of trade through an international waterway. Not clear to me how that helps
I do wish Conservatives would think through critical comments on government defence policies. They know full well that their and Labour governments over the past 30 years have deliberately reduced UK armed forces to a rump. Every member of the British Army today would fit inside Wembley Stadium.
Iranians also remember that it was the UK, in a joint operation with the Soviet Union, that invaded and occupied Iran in 1941. We’ve long been Little Satan to America’s Great Satan. Many Iranians still see Perfidious Albion behind all their trials and tribulations.
Is this just indicative of how poisonously partisan US politics has become? Judges appointed because of their political loyalty, DoJ tasked by the White House to target opponents, Democrat and Republican administrations issuing blanket pardons to avoid future politicised prosecutions. Depressing.
It’s an interesting choice of words for our PM. He’s not a natural politician, in my view, and is still struggling to communicate a vision. It’s been a decade since we had a PM who combined good communication skills with an assured air of competence (whatever one thought of the policy choices).
A flippant response on my part, apologies. There is no reason why it can’t retain the name, although the withdrawal of the US, including all personnel, equipment and pre-positioned stores, plus the closure of numerous bases across the UK and European mainland, means a very different alliance.