Iran still aiming at a deal that leaves it with more than the status quo ante.
That'd fall within a usual definition of winning the war.
Unsurprising that Trump's not happy. But either these were close to the terms he was going to agree, or the two sides are still miles apart.
The headline encapsulates what's wrong with the analysis: "Dissent fizzes again at the top of the Labour Party". No, it's not dissent: it's disagreement.
What's the difference? One is opposition to authority, the other is an argument between near-equals. And there is no authority in No 10.
I agree. X has had more than enough warnings.
I get that this would adversely impact some people for whom X is valuable. Trade with Russia was valuable to some people too. Other platforms exist. We cannot allow great evils to go unaddressed because of some inconveniences.
Really poor, Westminster bubble, commentary from Chris Mason (which can't even get the Bubble aspect right: Starmer is finished).
But more importantly, he addresses neither the reality of Britain's security challenges, nor *why* Starmer's premiership has fizzled out.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/article...
Starmer doesn't lead. That's a fatal failing in a prime minister.
Particularly so in a time of global turmoi, rapid change and increasing threats.
Public confidence doesn't come just from the absence of mistakes. In any case, the absence of action doesn't mean an absence of mistakes.
If Labour had not made its tax pledges, it would almost certainly have won a smaller majority. But it would have had more actual power to govern.
It doesn't matter how many seats you hold, if you brick up the levers of power.
You end up either breaking your promises or breaking public services.