Best Of

So it looks like Trump's promise of peace in Gaza and Ukraine lasted less than a month. Hamas already now refusing to release more hostages and Netanyahu threatening more Israeli bombing and special forces raids.

Now the US Defence Secretary giving Zelensky terms he clearly can't and won't accept so that conflict continues too. European defence spending still needed to be increased regardless anyway given the US is more focused on containing China and its own borders militarily than protecting NATO Europe

Trump is giving Netanyahu the All Clear to finish Gaza off for good. I suspect that will now happen. Israel will return to the fray - either next weekend or next year - and entirely level Gaza so that not even an ascetic hamster could reoccupy it

All the facts are a-changing. Pity the Gazans

Which will just create even more Hamas terrorists whether they stay in Gaza or are forced out to Jordan or Egypt

Israel won’t care. Better the Jew-haters are in Jordan or Egypt - beyond the world’s biggest walls - than “inside” Israel

Provided they can secure their borders to then keep Hamas out

Israel has excellent security. Have you ever flown El Al?

However even the best security cannot defend against an angry and open prison occupying a large chunk of the nation in the southwest corner

So, logically, it will be ended

I am not cheerleading this. I say again if I was a young Palestinian lad I would be CONSUMED with hatred for everything Israeli and Jewish, and for very very good reasons. But that just makes Israel’s logic more inexorable

There was a brief chance of peace under Clinton. It has gone forever

I am appalled at what's likely to happen but...

That seems to be a lot of people's line on imminent genocide.

Collective punishment is not justified.

But if it happens it has been wrought by Hamas, Fatah and the PLO and their actions over decades.

Pre-1967 the Palestinians lived in Egypt and Jordan, their returning to Egypt and Jordan albeit in their current borders might be a solution to end eternal conflict.

And for all the talk about how collective punishment is not justified, its happened many times before, including for example Germans being kicked out of areas they were no longer welcome in post-WWII.

So, you've gone back to supporting ethnic cleansing, a crime against humanity. What credo can support such a position? You cannot believe in property rights, in the rule of law, in individual liberty. Why is it fine to throw all those away when it's the Palestinians?

I don't support it, but if Hamas won't lay down their arms and surrender, it might be the least worst option.

My preferred option is an unconditional Hamas surrender and peace can occur, but if that won't happen then war is hell and war leads to sup-optimal results sometimes.

There have been hundreds of wars in history. We didn't need ethnic cleansing to end 99% of them. Why on earth would it be the "least worst option" here?

Hamas can be defeated militarily, if necessary. But what is threatening the current ceasefire is Trump and Netanyahu's talk of ethnic cleansing. What about we make it clear that ethnic cleansing is not an option? That shouldn't be a difficult statement for any country to make. No-one should be promoting it. How is this a difficult idea?

Ethnic cleansing has ended a lot of conflicts. War in Europe in the 40s ended with a lot of it happening.

If Hamas want to lay down their arms and surrender then I'd be delighted, but if they don't then Israel should take the gloves off and do whatever it takes to destroy them.

Anyone who wants to seek refuge away from the conflict should be able to do so in a neighbouring state, that's what refugee status exists for.

The Palestinians are fighting, almost certainly in vain, for their very survival. There is nothing they can do to escape from subjugation or annihilation by the Israelis, so I guess they figure they may as well go down fighting. Much like the Native Americans to European settlers or the British Celts to the Romans.

The Israelis are the ones fighting for their survival. If they don't stop Hamas, they will gladly kill every Jew "from the river to the sea". If Israel lays down its arms, they and the only Jewish state on the entire planet die.

On the other hand if Hamas lays down it's arms, the fighting is over.

If Hamas want to fight, I bloody well hope it is in vain and they are annihilated. You should 100% be calling for Hamas to surrender and stop fighting unconditionally.

Gaza has been reduced to rubble. Tel Aviv, Jerusalem, Haifa have not. Israel’s survival is not under threat.

Just because they're losing doesn't mean Hamas aren't threatening Israel's survival. They would gladly kill every Jew in Tel Aviv, Jerusalem and Haifa. They are explicit about their aims and trying to do it.

Which is why they need to be destroyed and defeated if they won't lay down their arms.

There's no reason to accord losers more rights or take their atrocities less seriously. If Gaza is destroyed it is because of Hamas and their actions and their refusal to surrender.

Hamas are vile. But bluntly, so too are West Bank settlers and their champions in the Israeli cabinet. Two cheeks of the same arse.

In 'where is the money coming from' news the oldies and sickies seem to be protected into the dim and distant:

In its central forecast, the OBR projected UK public healthcare spending will rise by around 3% every year, after adjusting for inflation. This would be broadly in line with average growth over recent decades, although the rate has fluctuated under different governments.

The OBR estimates this trend would add up to roughly an extra 1% of GDP going on public health spending every decade going forward.

That would take public health spending from around 8% of GDP in 2024-25, up to 14.5% of GDP by 2073-74, equivalent to around £180bn in today's money.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwy7zvp5xrqo

I'm curious as to how much the NHS has increased health and life expectancy as opposed to those caused by reductions in smoking, better housing, milder winters, changing work types and other improvements in public health.

Because this looks like a ponzi scheme:

Shortly after the NHS was founded, in 1949-50, total UK health spending was around £17bn in today's money.

By 2023–24 it had grown to £226bn.

About half of all healthcare spending goes on the over-65s. I don't have specific knowledge of how precisely that is broken down (one of our PB medics might venture an opinion) but I think the big "problem" is that medical science has become increasingly adept at keeping very frail, very old people with multiple complex medical problems alive for a long time.

The other major issue is that most of the population is sedentary and fat. Abused lardy bodies with worn joints and clapped out cardiovascular systems = enormous expense.

If you have an old and knackered population then you end up with an expensive and overburdened healthcare system. It's no more complex than that.

How much of this is true? Surely most very old people are thin and frail, not fat? Being overweight was, iirc, a risk factor for death with Covid; it was the fit, muscular types like Boris who recovered.

The very old and frail are often very thin, but obesity and its complications are a big factor in the poor health of the working age population.

In 'where is the money coming from' news the oldies and sickies seem to be protected into the dim and distant:

In its central forecast, the OBR projected UK public healthcare spending will rise by around 3% every year, after adjusting for inflation. This would be broadly in line with average growth over recent decades, although the rate has fluctuated under different governments.

The OBR estimates this trend would add up to roughly an extra 1% of GDP going on public health spending every decade going forward.

That would take public health spending from around 8% of GDP in 2024-25, up to 14.5% of GDP by 2073-74, equivalent to around £180bn in today's money.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwy7zvp5xrqo

I'm curious as to how much the NHS has increased health and life expectancy as opposed to those caused by reductions in smoking, better housing, milder winters, changing work types and other improvements in public health.

Because this looks like a ponzi scheme:

Shortly after the NHS was founded, in 1949-50, total UK health spending was around £17bn in today's money.

By 2023–24 it had grown to £226bn.

About half of all healthcare spending goes on the over-65s. I don't have specific knowledge of how precisely that is broken down (one of our PB medics might venture an opinion) but I think the big "problem" is that medical science has become increasingly adept at keeping very frail, very old people with multiple complex medical problems alive for a long time.

The other major issue is that most of the population is sedentary and fat. Abused lardy bodies with worn joints and clapped out cardiovascular systems = enormous expense.

If you have an old and knackered population then you end up with an expensive and overburdened healthcare system. It's no more complex than that.

How much of this is true? Surely most very old people are thin and frail, not fat? Being overweight was, iirc, a risk factor for death with Covid; it was the fit, muscular types like Boris who recovered.

Speaking as an 81 year old, and for my 85 year old wife, it is a fact that as we have aged we are eating much smaller portions and can hardly manage two slimmed down courses

Consequently we do shrink a bit and quite noticeable so for my good lady

We both have reasons to be grateful to medical science, especially myself over the last 18 months, but age does not come alone and hopefully all fellow posters will enjoy a longlife and even if more frail and forgetful, still fulfill a role in the life for their family, continue to pay our taxes, and alongside @OldKingCole and my fellow octogenarians post our experiences on here, even if they are silly or annoying

Unpopular opinion on here but I don't think it's fair to describe peace talks/deal in Ukraine as appeasement.

There was lots of fighting done to get to this point, and it looks like both Ukraine and Russia have suffered massive massive losses.

I can't pretend to know what's in Putins head, but if he is in anyway rationale he must see that further military adventures in Europe are going to be very costly. If a peace deal involved European troops in Ukraine to guarantee it, surely that further raises costs of breaking the rules. But its pretty shit for the Ukranians who are now part of Russia....

There will be more imperial expansion following a Ukraine “deal”, of course. Most regional opinion seems to expect this to be on a softer target. After a couple of years of rebuilding, and presumably following a US lifting of economic sanctions, Russia will have a go at extending its grip on Georgia, taking more of Moldova (though Geography makes that hard), completing Anschluss with Belarus and having a nibble at the Baltics to see what NATO does.

Trump has now signalled clearly that Eastern Europe is Russia’s sphere of influence and fair game. His remarkable pre-announcement of concessions to pretty much Russia’s entire wish list was truly the fart of the deal.

Westminster Voting Intention:

RFM: 29% (=)
LAB: 23% (-2)
CON: 21% (+3)
LDM: 12% (-1)
GRN: 9% (-1)
SNP: 3% (=)

Via @FindoutnowUK, 12 Feb.
Changes w/ 5 Feb.

This is Reform’s biggest ever lead

Stats for lefties suggests

Reform 333
Labour. 88
Lib Dens 78
Conservative 68

Now that would be hilarious !!!!

It is, and would be, deeply depressing.

Why? Does the country not need radical reform? Yes

Can the Tories or Labour do it? lol no

Reform it is

In order to heal the patient it helps not to kill them first.

Reform would only make things worse, more quickly.

To join up two discussions, one of the main things to increase life expectancy over the 20th century was vaccination. In this century, we're still seeing huge, positive impacts from vaccination, as with the vaccine against cervical cancer. Vaccination is an area where you get a lot of bang for your healthcare buck.

And Reform UK toy with anti-vaxx.

In 'where is the money coming from' news the oldies and sickies seem to be protected into the dim and distant:

In its central forecast, the OBR projected UK public healthcare spending will rise by around 3% every year, after adjusting for inflation. This would be broadly in line with average growth over recent decades, although the rate has fluctuated under different governments.

The OBR estimates this trend would add up to roughly an extra 1% of GDP going on public health spending every decade going forward.

That would take public health spending from around 8% of GDP in 2024-25, up to 14.5% of GDP by 2073-74, equivalent to around £180bn in today's money.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwy7zvp5xrqo

I'm curious as to how much the NHS has increased health and life expectancy as opposed to those caused by reductions in smoking, better housing, milder winters, changing work types and other improvements in public health.

Because this looks like a ponzi scheme:

Shortly after the NHS was founded, in 1949-50, total UK health spending was around £17bn in today's money.

By 2023–24 it had grown to £226bn.

About half of all healthcare spending goes on the over-65s. I don't have specific knowledge of how precisely that is broken down (one of our PB medics might venture an opinion) but I think the big "problem" is that medical science has become increasingly adept at keeping very frail, very old people with multiple complex medical problems alive for a long time.

The other major issue is that most of the population is sedentary and fat. Abused lardy bodies with worn joints and clapped out cardiovascular systems = enormous expense.

If you have an old and knackered population then you end up with an expensive and overburdened healthcare system. It's no more complex than that.

How much of this is true? Surely most very old people are thin and frail, not fat? Being overweight was, iirc, a risk factor for death with Covid; it was the fit, muscular types like Boris who recovered.

Speaking as an 81 year old, and for my 85 year old wife, it is a fact that as we have aged we are eating much smaller portions and can hardly manage two slimmed down courses

Consequently we do shrink a bit and quite noticeable so for my good lady

We both have reasons to be grateful to medical science, especially myself over the last 18 months, but age does not come alone and hopefully all fellow posters will enjoy a longlife and even if more frail and forgetful, still fulfill a role in the life for their family, continue to pay our taxes, and alongside @OldKingCole and my fellow octogenarians post our experiences on here, even if they are silly or annoying

Indeed Big G., although I'm not sure I would wish my present existence ..... unable to walk unsupported, plus other bodily inconveniences, on anyone!

One of my blessings is that my mind remains both active and acute, although those of a right-wing persuasion may well disagree!

Another is the continued support, assistance and encouragement of Mrs C, after 60+ years, and the forbearance of friends and family.

Bad news for death and destruction fans this morning.

Well done Trump.

SKS fans why has your boy promised £300Bn to Ukraine but is cutting disability payments at home.

Presumably all the Ukranians over here have no excuse not to return home now

"Well done Trump"?

You do realise that the actions of the US government are actually massively destabilisng to the world, and are more likely to lead to wider conflict?

This is appeasement Mk 2.

He is an appeaser, so he's happy with that.

Boo hoo

Your boy that you assured us was going to win

Hasnt

So I take it you are on Putin's side? You want war and destruction? You want the imperialism and fascism ro sweep over Ukraine and eastern Europe?

Just because you hate Starmer?

Side of a more peaceful world and a stop to pissing our taxes into a unwinnable war black hole.

Putins an arse but him not winning was just an impossible wet dream

Have you not noticed how Russia has spent three years not winning, with the west doing the absolute minimum possible to help Ukraine?

The concept of 'Russia stronk' died out in March 2022. They are easily defeatable. But the political will to do so isn't currently there. This makes wider war much more likely.

But it seems you support both Hamas and Putin: what is it about imperialism and fascism, mass murder and anti-Semitism that you like so much?

He waxes lyrical over Israeli war crimes, but seems perfectly happy when his fascist soulmates do worse.

Bad news for death and destruction fans this morning.

Well done Trump.

SKS fans why has your boy promised £300Bn to Ukraine but is cutting disability payments at home.

Presumably all the Ukranians over here have no excuse not to return home now

"Well done Trump"?

You do realise that the actions of the US government are actually massively destabilisng to the world, and are more likely to lead to wider conflict?

This is appeasement Mk 2.

He is an appeaser, so he's happy with that.

Boo hoo

Your boy that you assured us was going to win

Hasnt

So I take it you are on Putin's side? You want war and destruction? You want the imperialism and fascism ro sweep over Ukraine and eastern Europe?

Just because you hate Starmer?

Side of a more peaceful world and a stop to pissing our taxes into a unwinnable war black hole.

Putins an arse but him not winning was just an impossible wet dream

Have you not noticed how Russia has spent three years not winning, with the west doing the absolute minimum possible to help Ukraine?

The concept of 'Russia stronk' died out in March 2022. They are easily defeatable. But the political will to do so isn't currently there. This makes wider war much more likely.

But it seems you support both Hamas and Putin: what is it about imperialism and fascism, mass murder and anti-Semitism that you like so much?

.

Possibly the best ever takedown of the US “Deep State”, vindication for what DOGE are doing, and confirmation that USAID was basically the CIA doing what the CIA were told not to do for the last couple of decades.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XPPc8OVNngg

Warning: this video features Joe Rogan and Mike Benz, and is 202 minutes long.

It turns out that Rory Stewart’s wife’s charity was also getting millions from USAID.

Yes, that's how foreign aid often works. You give money to a charity to do charitable work.

And it’s totally incidental that these charities appear to be vastly overpopulated with close relatives of the politicians involved in the funding decisions.

There needs to be a British DOGE.

Your anti corruption credentials will be sorely tested these coming years as a Trump and Musk supporter.

I’m not a Trump supporter, but I’m absolutely a Musk supporter. Every Western country is going to have to deal with a line-item audit of their spending at some point.

Musk doesn't work for the US government or US people, he works for Musk.

No, he works directly for the elected President.

Tell me, what do you think of Trump's actions towards Ukraine?

What *actions* specifically?
Not words, actions.

The action of cutting USAID support to Ukraine.

The action of talking to Putin and not Zelenskyy about the future of Ukraine.

Of blaming Ukraine "not a great war for them to get into".

Yeah, which idiot decided to set up their state next to Russia ?
Just careless.