Hugo Rifkind

You can learn that really easily by reading it.

Of course

That's because you didn't read the article. I don't write the headlines.

Yes.

It doesn't. But nor is it saying that this war is a good idea or that there is anything wrong with opposing it. It is making a different point which will be easily grasped by people who read it. Alas, people who do not are not my editor's priority.

Yes. And it's frustrating. But I don't write the headlines so there's not much I can do about it.

If you like, but that's my answer.

I don't think any war is great and I don't think this one should have been started.

I didn't write the headline or the subhead. That's not how it works, sorry.

The headline is written to accompany the column, not to replace the column. If people want to know how they fit together then the best path is to read both of them.

I'm not sure how you'd test it outside of polling, and the polling seems to confirm it. I don't think even the Greens' voters are primarily motivated by their position on NATO.

I can't think of any recent ones at all. If this seems an odd answer seeto you then that's because you're talking about a column you haven't read.

I've done sixteen hours of radio on the war this week. I've focused on quite a lot of things.

I can't see what that's replying to. But anybody who thinks I've written a column in favour of this stupid war hasn't read the column they think they're talking about.

Trump and Netanyahu arm Kurdish militia to take on Tehran regime Support for fighters along the Iraqi border raises alarm over civil strife in Iran and a widening war that could destabilise neighbouring states

This sounds like a totally great plan, but only if you suffered some sort of terrible head injury circa 2002 and just woke up. www.thetimes.com/article/7aee...

Ok thanks for your time.

But they are anti these things. And proudly. Aren't they?

I suppose you'd have to ask someone who thinks unilateral disarmament it's weird or extreme about that. I was just saying it's probably not electorally popular.

Sorry, shorthand. But I meant this, which I actually think is more factual and less "taking a side" than your version. bsky.app/profile/hugo...

Well yes. That's my point.

Well, not really. There's not much way of knowing how much of the Greens vote is about eg NATO as opposed to the cost of living or even the environment. Tho issue-based polling helps, and seems to agree with me.

I'm sorry if it seemed disingenuous. But the Greens were largely against all of these things pre Trump and Gaza and I expect they will be afterwards, too. Either way, i meant it as a description, not a criticism.

It makes zero difference if we join in, I think.

bsky.app/profile/hugo...

Yeah, I would expect that's not his precise understanding of the situation.

Ideally, obviously. But there's also sometimes a lot to be said for doing the best you can which is compatible with winning an election, rather than having purer and frankly better ambitions you'll never be able to enact because you don't.

Sorry, space was limited. It means this: bsky.app/profile/hugo...

See timeline. It was a shorthand.

It doesn't.

Only two thirds? I can't imagine many people not wanting that.