“In this new age of insecurity, it is no longer enough for government to turn a blind eye to where things are made or who is making them,” she says.
That's a bit Brexity.....Also, going to be fascinating how you achieve this transformation without impoverishing everybody, well at very least tell them they can't have that £5 dress of Shein every week etc.
I mean, as was mentioned earlier, globalisation is kind of an issue in a climate crisis future. Also, you know, if Brexit is inevitable then you may as well lead into it.
oh FFS now shes promising more laws to stop government doing budgeets without OBR approval
Fking moron and a flavour of what Starmer will look like in government endless laws.
So outsourcing economic policy to an unelected quango....also these kind of moves are so stupid in that if a new party comes in, they can simply reverse them under the guise of it is too restrictive / complicated / hampering decision making.
Elected officials, make decisions, then the electorate can judge if they were a success or not.
The OBR doesn't make fiscal policy. It simply produces forecasts of the policies' impact on the economy, free from political interference. I would say the creation of the OBR and gay marriage are the only government policy successes since 2010. It's great that Labour will strengthen the OBR.
The OBR is about as successful at predicting as I am at predicting horse racing results.
All forecasters are bad at forecasting, but only some forecasters are systematically biased. The creation of the OBR is designed to prevent the latter, and seems to be succeeding. It's fulfilling a similar role to the US CBO and to my mind is a very useful innovation.
Rachel Reeves is just all words with nothing behind it.
Now the party which butchered manufacturing thinks its a good thing.
Youre just 20 years too late
I've never understood why people rate Reeves. She gets stumped by the simplest most obvious questions. Maybe we'll see a new side of her when Labour start fleshing-out their policies, but to date I would say Reeves is one of the weakest on the opposition side.
Does the 'back of a fag packet' joke work for younger viewers? Is that still a phrase people under 30 use?
Under 30s on the group chat: apparently they "still call ciggies fags" and most know what that phrase means. Sample size of 4, based in North London and Hertfordshire.
Young people mostly smoke rollies and refer to regular cigarettes as "straights".
My cousin does roll their own - but that was a direct quote.
oh FFS now shes promising more laws to stop government doing budgeets without OBR approval
Fking moron and a flavour of what Starmer will look like in government endless laws.
So outsourcing economic policy to an unelected quango....also these kind of moves are so stupid in that if a new party comes in, they can simply reverse them under the guise of it is too restrictive / complicated / hampering decision making.
If thats the best Labour can do I truly despair.
Now shes in to banning the gimmicks which will bite her in the arse when if government
The Qatari Foreign Ministry in coordination with the U.S. State Department is reportedly holding Urgent Negotiations with Hamas in order to urge them to released their Hostages before the beginning of an Israeli Ground Operation into the Gaza Strip.
oh FFS now shes promising more laws to stop government doing budgeets without OBR approval
Fking moron and a flavour of what Starmer will look like in government endless laws.
So outsourcing economic policy to an unelected quango....also these kind of moves are so stupid in that if a new party comes in, they can simply reverse them under the guise of it is too restrictive / complicated / hampering decision making.
If thats the best Labour can do I truly despair.
Now shes in to banning the gimmicks which will bite her in the arse when if government
oh FFS now shes promising more laws to stop government doing budgeets without OBR approval
Fking moron and a flavour of what Starmer will look like in government endless laws.
So outsourcing economic policy to an unelected quango....also these kind of moves are so stupid in that if a new party comes in, they can simply reverse them under the guise of it is too restrictive / complicated / hampering decision making.
Elected officials, make decisions, then the electorate can judge if they were a success or not.
The OBR doesn't make fiscal policy. It simply produces forecasts of the policies' impact on the economy, free from political interference. I would say the creation of the OBR and gay marriage are the only government policy successes since 2010. It's great that Labour will strengthen the OBR.
There's no such thing as a politics free economic forecast.
That's not really true. All forecasts rely on assumptions, but a forecast whose assumptions are derived from evidence rather than imposed by Treasury wishcasting is a big improvement and a very welcome development from the point of view of people buying Gilts and other UK assets. It was cutting the OBR out of the process, more than anything else, that led to the market rout in the wake of the Trussterfuck. It sent a very bad signal that markets couldn't ignore.
It's not an illusion, everyone is getting stupider, the young are dumb as bricks
"The new #SAT report is out.
- Every gender & race had composite score drops & participation increases - SAT composite score drops ranged from 10 points for East Asians to 35 for Native Americans, who have retained the lowest average - The male score advantage fell from 13 to 9"
When you walk into Marks and Sparks and the nice young chap at the checkout gives you this weird vacant half smiling stare, then take it for what it is. A sign. Ain't no one at home
oh FFS now shes promising more laws to stop government doing budgeets without OBR approval
Fking moron and a flavour of what Starmer will look like in government endless laws.
So outsourcing economic policy to an unelected quango....also these kind of moves are so stupid in that if a new party comes in, they can simply reverse them under the guise of it is too restrictive / complicated / hampering decision making.
If thats the best Labour can do I truly despair.
Now shes in to banning the gimmicks which will bite her in the arse when if government
Yearning for John McDonnell?
John was such an evil bastard you sort of expected him to do what he said. This is just sugar puffs and unicorns.
Rachel Reeves has about as much chance of delivering what she says as I have of beating Simone Biles for a gold medal.
oh FFS now shes promising more laws to stop government doing budgeets without OBR approval
Fking moron and a flavour of what Starmer will look like in government endless laws.
So outsourcing economic policy to an unelected quango....also these kind of moves are so stupid in that if a new party comes in, they can simply reverse them under the guise of it is too restrictive / complicated / hampering decision making.
If thats the best Labour can do I truly despair.
Now shes in to banning the gimmicks which will bite her in the arse when if government
Yes, terrible. 'Trust us because of our massive competence and desire to run the country well' is a much better sell than 'Trust us because there is a restraining order on us being stupid'.
To govern is to choose. Those who wish to govern and at the same time dilute that reality are sub optimal.
The Qatari Foreign Ministry in coordination with the U.S. State Department is reportedly holding Urgent Negotiations with Hamas in order to urge them to released their Hostages before the beginning of an Israeli Ground Operation into the Gaza Strip.
oh FFS now shes promising more laws to stop government doing budgeets without OBR approval
Fking moron and a flavour of what Starmer will look like in government endless laws.
So outsourcing economic policy to an unelected quango....also these kind of moves are so stupid in that if a new party comes in, they can simply reverse them under the guise of it is too restrictive / complicated / hampering decision making.
If thats the best Labour can do I truly despair.
Now shes in to banning the gimmicks which will bite her in the arse when if government
Yearning for John McDonnell?
I am! You may disagree with him, but he had an idea of the world and knowledge of the means to do it. My rant about the modern parties is that they either don't, or are trapped in the lessons of neoliberalism and don't realise that when they press button X they don't get result Y any more.
oh FFS now shes promising more laws to stop government doing budgeets without OBR approval
Fking moron and a flavour of what Starmer will look like in government endless laws.
So outsourcing economic policy to an unelected quango....also these kind of moves are so stupid in that if a new party comes in, they can simply reverse them under the guise of it is too restrictive / complicated / hampering decision making.
Elected officials, make decisions, then the electorate can judge if they were a success or not.
The OBR doesn't make fiscal policy. It simply produces forecasts of the policies' impact on the economy, free from political interference. I would say the creation of the OBR and gay marriage are the only government policy successes since 2010. It's great that Labour will strengthen the OBR.
There's no such thing as a politics free economic forecast.
True, but a forecast from subject matter experts that's independent and free of blatant political bias is valuable.
oh FFS now shes promising more laws to stop government doing budgeets without OBR approval
Fking moron and a flavour of what Starmer will look like in government endless laws.
So outsourcing economic policy to an unelected quango....also these kind of moves are so stupid in that if a new party comes in, they can simply reverse them under the guise of it is too restrictive / complicated / hampering decision making.
Elected officials, make decisions, then the electorate can judge if they were a success or not.
The OBR doesn't make fiscal policy. It simply produces forecasts of the policies' impact on the economy, free from political interference. I would say the creation of the OBR and gay marriage are the only government policy successes since 2010. It's great that Labour will strengthen the OBR.
There's no such thing as a politics free economic forecast.
That's not really true. All forecasts rely on assumptions, but a forecast whose assumptions are derived from evidence rather than imposed by Treasury wishcasting is a big improvement and a very welcome development from the point of view of people buying Gilts and other UK assets. It was cutting the OBR out of the process, more than anything else, that led to the market rout in the wake of the Trussterfuck. It sent a very bad signal that markets couldn't ignore.
Away with thee forecaster.
Weve all done forecasts and realise is just dressed up guesswork.
The Reeves speech is helping to solidify my concerns re Labour - that they need to offer change, but seem to instead be offering more of the same, but in a slightly more competent way.
The latter is still better than what we have, but it hardly gives much hope for the future.
oh FFS now shes promising more laws to stop government doing budgeets without OBR approval
Fking moron and a flavour of what Starmer will look like in government endless laws.
So outsourcing economic policy to an unelected quango....also these kind of moves are so stupid in that if a new party comes in, they can simply reverse them under the guise of it is too restrictive / complicated / hampering decision making.
Elected officials, make decisions, then the electorate can judge if they were a success or not.
The OBR doesn't make fiscal policy. It simply produces forecasts of the policies' impact on the economy, free from political interference. I would say the creation of the OBR and gay marriage are the only government policy successes since 2010. It's great that Labour will strengthen the OBR.
There's no such thing as a politics free economic forecast.
That's not really true. All forecasts rely on assumptions, but a forecast whose assumptions are derived from evidence rather than imposed by Treasury wishcasting is a big improvement and a very welcome development from the point of view of people buying Gilts and other UK assets. It was cutting the OBR out of the process, more than anything else, that led to the market rout in the wake of the Trussterfuck. It sent a very bad signal that markets couldn't ignore.
Away with thee forecaster.
Weve all done forecasts and realise is just dressed up guesswork.
Of course it is. Forecasters aren't soothsayers. The question is, is it biased or unbiased? Any institution that creates a distinction between the person doing the homework and the person marking the homework is a positive in my book.
"Yoav Gallant, Israel’s defense minister, just said that he has ordered a “complete closure” of the Gaza Strip. “No electricity, no food, no water, no fuel” will be allowed into the coastal enclave, Gallant said."
So they’re going to starve them out including the children .
Countries at war don't normally provide goods and services to those they are fighting. Britain didn't.
It will of course be awful for the innocents caught up in this.
But they will allow civilians safe passage out. I am not sure how civilians are able to leave Gaza or where they would go.
The party says the bill will enable a Labour government to establish a UK electricity system fully based on clean power by 2030, with the largest expansion of renewable power in Britain’s history, and establish “GB Energy”, a publicly owned energy company announced by Keir Starmer last year.
Labour sources have suggested the party would aim to include the act in the king’s speech so it could become law soon after a general election win. One source said the act showcased “modern public ownership, working with the private sector without the need to nationalise”...
Out of interest, other than creating some quangos and spraying lots of money around, how exactly are they planning to do this?
We currently have lots of green power when the wind blows, and not much when it doesn't, especially if this coincides with it also being dark. This gap mostly gets filled in with gas, for which we barely have enough generating capacity (we were lucky last winter was mild, and we've even less coal capacity available for last resort action this winter).
Grid scale battery storage still seems to be too expensive to make more than marginal differences, and we don't yet seem to have found a way to make the wind blow at convenient times, or arrange for it not to be dark during the times of peak winter electrical demand.
Building more renewables is all well and good, but we're already curtailing their output half the time because we've got too much power relative to demand. Build lots more and the annual useful amount of electricity generated per turbine will drop as curtailment rates rise. This will mean someone somewhere (guess what, either taxpayers or consumers) paying out lots of money for turbines which generate very little as they are only useful in marginal (low but not zero wind) conditions. Meanwhile, I still don't see how that gets us away from burning lots of gas when the wind drops. Until the intermittency problem is solved (i.e. batteries become very cheap), the grid will have to stay gas based, not "clean energy" based.
If they do go wild overbuilding turbines there is of course a potential bonanza for anyone with an industrial use for vast amounts of almost free electricity supplied at random times and durations, but I'm struggling to think of good applications in a UK context (in the middle east, desalination plants would be an obvious one - make your plant 10x the size required and have good storage capacity for your clean water, run it in bursts to coincide with times of excess electricity supply, and bingo, no energy cost for you plant).
Perhaps the only thing (i.e. using pumped storage) that an independant Scotland could achieve easily.
oh FFS now shes promising more laws to stop government doing budgeets without OBR approval
Fking moron and a flavour of what Starmer will look like in government endless laws.
So outsourcing economic policy to an unelected quango....also these kind of moves are so stupid in that if a new party comes in, they can simply reverse them under the guise of it is too restrictive / complicated / hampering decision making.
Elected officials, make decisions, then the electorate can judge if they were a success or not.
The OBR doesn't make fiscal policy. It simply produces forecasts of the policies' impact on the economy, free from political interference. I would say the creation of the OBR and gay marriage are the only government policy successes since 2010. It's great that Labour will strengthen the OBR.
There's no such thing as a politics free economic forecast.
True, but a forecast from subject matter experts that's independent and free of blatant political bias is valuable.
When has an "independent" government review ever been independent ?
oh FFS now shes promising more laws to stop government doing budgeets without OBR approval
Fking moron and a flavour of what Starmer will look like in government endless laws.
So outsourcing economic policy to an unelected quango....also these kind of moves are so stupid in that if a new party comes in, they can simply reverse them under the guise of it is too restrictive / complicated / hampering decision making.
Elected officials, make decisions, then the electorate can judge if they were a success or not.
The OBR doesn't make fiscal policy. It simply produces forecasts of the policies' impact on the economy, free from political interference. I would say the creation of the OBR and gay marriage are the only government policy successes since 2010. It's great that Labour will strengthen the OBR.
There's no such thing as a politics free economic forecast.
That's not really true. All forecasts rely on assumptions, but a forecast whose assumptions are derived from evidence rather than imposed by Treasury wishcasting is a big improvement and a very welcome development from the point of view of people buying Gilts and other UK assets. It was cutting the OBR out of the process, more than anything else, that led to the market rout in the wake of the Trussterfuck. It sent a very bad signal that markets couldn't ignore.
Away with thee forecaster.
Weve all done forecasts and realise is just dressed up guesswork.
That's really not true. Economic forecasts are more difficult than most, because forecasting people is more difficult than forecasting physical phenomena, but we can accurately measure how good forecasts are compared to guesswork, and in several fields they're measurably superior.
I can't vouch for economics being one of those fields, though. I haven't seen a skill score calculated for those.
The comments on Labour make me wonder if they realise this isn't 1997. They don't start with a surplus, strongly growing economy, and a list of spending commitments to make.
We have a massive debt and a massive deficit. The economy isn't in recession but it's not all guns blazing either.
More spending funded by more borrowing is just going to balloon the deficit even more.
Rachel Reeves is just all words with nothing behind it.
Now the party which butchered manufacturing thinks its a good thing.
Youre just 20 years too late
I've never understood why people rate Reeves. She gets stumped by the simplest most obvious questions. Maybe we'll see a new side of her when Labour start fleshing-out their policies, but to date I would say Reeves is one of the weakest on the opposition side.
The biggest thing in her favour is she was a huge improvement on Dodds.
oh FFS now shes promising more laws to stop government doing budgeets without OBR approval
Fking moron and a flavour of what Starmer will look like in government endless laws.
So outsourcing economic policy to an unelected quango....also these kind of moves are so stupid in that if a new party comes in, they can simply reverse them under the guise of it is too restrictive / complicated / hampering decision making.
Elected officials, make decisions, then the electorate can judge if they were a success or not.
The OBR doesn't make fiscal policy. It simply produces forecasts of the policies' impact on the economy, free from political interference. I would say the creation of the OBR and gay marriage are the only government policy successes since 2010. It's great that Labour will strengthen the OBR.
There's no such thing as a politics free economic forecast.
True, but a forecast from subject matter experts that's independent and free of blatant political bias is valuable.
Yes, but are we sure that's what the Treasury will actually want?
Who decides who the 'subject matter experts' are?
It seems much more likely that they'll appoint the 'right sort'.
oh FFS now shes promising more laws to stop government doing budgeets without OBR approval
Fking moron and a flavour of what Starmer will look like in government endless laws.
So outsourcing economic policy to an unelected quango....also these kind of moves are so stupid in that if a new party comes in, they can simply reverse them under the guise of it is too restrictive / complicated / hampering decision making.
Elected officials, make decisions, then the electorate can judge if they were a success or not.
Whether you think it a good idea or not, you're completely misrepresenting it. All she is saying is that the OBR check the government's costings for significant economic policies, not that they have any kind of veto.
“In this new age of insecurity, it is no longer enough for government to turn a blind eye to where things are made or who is making them,” she says.
That's a bit Brexity.....Also, going to be fascinating how you achieve this transformation without impoverishing everybody, well at very least tell them they can't have that £5 dress of Shein every week etc.
We are really going to stand up to the likes of China, I will believe it when I see it.
Of course not and even if we wanted to disengage with them economically, as the west, it will take many many years.
The comments on Labour make me wonder if they realise this isn't 1997. They don't start with a surplus, strongly growing economy, and a list of spending commitments to make.
We have a massive debt and a massive deficit. The economy isn't in recession but it's not all guns blazing either.
More spending funded by more borrowing is just going to balloon the deficit even more.
Yes, that's fair. They are being realistic. Anyone can promise endless public spending when the economy is running a big surplus. It isn't, so they can't.
oh FFS now shes promising more laws to stop government doing budgeets without OBR approval
Fking moron and a flavour of what Starmer will look like in government endless laws.
So outsourcing economic policy to an unelected quango....also these kind of moves are so stupid in that if a new party comes in, they can simply reverse them under the guise of it is too restrictive / complicated / hampering decision making.
If thats the best Labour can do I truly despair.
Now shes in to banning the gimmicks which will bite her in the arse when if government
Yearning for John McDonnell?
Always
- But I'm afraid when we hear our friends on the Right complaining of a 'lack of boldness' from Starmer what they are really bemoaning isn't the absence of radicalism it's the absence of any chance that Labour are going to blow the election.
oh FFS now shes promising more laws to stop government doing budgeets without OBR approval
Fking moron and a flavour of what Starmer will look like in government endless laws.
So outsourcing economic policy to an unelected quango....also these kind of moves are so stupid in that if a new party comes in, they can simply reverse them under the guise of it is too restrictive / complicated / hampering decision making.
Elected officials, make decisions, then the electorate can judge if they were a success or not.
The OBR doesn't make fiscal policy. It simply produces forecasts of the policies' impact on the economy, free from political interference. I would say the creation of the OBR and gay marriage are the only government policy successes since 2010. It's great that Labour will strengthen the OBR.
There's no such thing as a politics free economic forecast.
That's not really true. All forecasts rely on assumptions, but a forecast whose assumptions are derived from evidence rather than imposed by Treasury wishcasting is a big improvement and a very welcome development from the point of view of people buying Gilts and other UK assets. It was cutting the OBR out of the process, more than anything else, that led to the market rout in the wake of the Trussterfuck. It sent a very bad signal that markets couldn't ignore.
Away with thee forecaster.
Weve all done forecasts and realise is just dressed up guesswork.
That's really not true. Economic forecasts are more difficult than most, because forecasting people is more difficult than forecasting physical phenomena, but we can accurately measure how good forecasts are compared to guesswork, and in several fields they're measurably superior.
I can't vouch for economics being one of those fields, though. I haven't seen a skill score calculated for those.
Oh piss off, any sensible analysis of the reliability of economic forecasts shows how unreliable they are. Look at the OECD forecasts for the UK - miles out.
An economic forecast is simply somebody;s view as they cross their fingers and hope nobody;s paying too much attention. The OBR cant forecast any better than the OECD its nuts to make this a legality.
Mr. Eagles, Mitchell's a moron. Expecting 15th century monarchs to abide by 21st century social and legal norms is akin to condemning modern day politicians for failing to follow the standard approaches of the 27th century.
I also question his grasp of the most basic tents of medieval history if he thinks Henry V was remarkable for being into war quite a lot.
Even in the 21st century the most important thing a government has to do is keep its country safe. H'aretz the Israeli newspaper has been pretty brutal in its attack on the Israeli PM for appointing incompetents to security posts. There will be a reckoning for Netanyahu - and I am not all sure that bombing Gaza is going to help him.
That most basic of governmental functions often gets lost sight of, in socieities that take peace for granted.
Better a ruthless leader who succeeds at war than a nice guy who sees his country invaded.
Hopefully, the one silver lining in this affair will be that a man who has been a cancer in Israeli politics for decades will see his career ended.
The incredible military/intel failure in Israel is ONGOING
Hamas fighters are still in Israel, killing Israelis, and still crossing the border
Guardian liveblog:
“Lieutenant Colonel Jonathan Conricus says situation is ‘dire’ in south, with Hamas still able to cross border from Gaza”
This is an existential crisis for Israel
No it isn't. Israel's military is much too strong. It will still exist in its current form this time next year, and so will its occupation of most of the lands it seized in 1967.
The half hearted efforts by Hezbollah so far in the North imply this can’t be a true Iranian proxy attack, unless they are hiding their time for a second strike. But even with two fronts this will peter out, I agree.
Question is what happens next.
You misunderstand. This is not an existential crisis for Israel because the IDF are incapable of squashing this incursion. Of course they will get it done (tho it is taking a remarkably long time)
The deeper problem for Israel - and I’d say it is now fundamental - is that there is no obvious way for them to stop this happening again, as long as Gaza exists. And if this keeps happening then investment and people will flee Israel
And it is not possible for them to obliterate Gaza, as we discussed at length last night. They are in a terrible bind
What this makes clear has essentially been what anyone sensible has been saying for decades - the only solution that doesn't kill tens of thousands of people is a peaceful two state solution. The PLO have been ready to negotiate that for a long time - it is the Israeli governments which have refused and have, indeed, made matters worse by increasing illegal settlements. As the PLO spokespeople have been saying - acts like those we have seen over the weekend have not been a question of if, but when, considering the conditions the Palestinian people have been kept in. Is it right to attack civilians, of course not. But organised, peaceful attempts - from within Palestine and outside of Palestine (think BDS) - have been made impossible.
The Clinton Parameters were probably before your time.
I would have been 9. And reading about them it seems that both the Israeli and Palestinian authorities had issues with the plan - Arafat wanted some degree of right to return for displaced people, and Israel wanted more territorial control over Jerusalem and the other areas they would have been in control of. It seems that at the beginning Palestinian concerns where quite large, but also the Knesset and right wing of the Israeli state probably wouldn't have accepted the agreement anyway.
But at the end of the day, like many similar conflicts like it throughout history, we have to understand that people when pushed to the edge of precarious living with choose to lash out violently instead of coming around the negotiating table - especially when over time they have been told again and again that there will be no negotiations. This happened in India, in Ireland, in South Africa - and many other places.
England has been lucky that, in modern history at least, there has been no full scale invasion of our country. We all know what the plans were should the Germans have invaded during WW2 - for everyone to become a guerrilla fighter, stashes of weapons and explosives hidden for civilians to pick up if needed, for a government in exile to find safe haven overseas and help coordinate the resistance movement and so on. And we know, if that had come to pass, that would have been justified: not just because it was the Nazis doing the invading, but because it would have meant a military invasion and occupation that removed the freedom of the people within the nation - to speak their language, to practice their religion, to have their will expressed in a democratic forum. We can recognise that if it were our country invaded and occupied and our people oppressed, even if it had been the case for 80 years or more, that a group doing Hamas style attacks could exist and that we would understand or even have sympathy for their cause. And we know what we would demand as freedom that would end such attacks - a sincere removal of occupying forces, a real democratic government chosen by the people, an investigation and reconciliation process, reparations and so on.
That Palestinians were offered less than that and did not scoop it up is understandable, even if the realpolitik suggested they should have. But considering Israeli state reaction to the Parameters, as well as their actions in the decades since, I think it is clear why the events we are seeing are happening.
So you are with the group of people who didn't accept those parameters. Fair enough. I can see why you would advocate violence.
In their position, had the same thing happened to England, would you or I accept those parameters? I am not in charge of a nation, I am not a representative of all my peoples. Maybe they should have done - again, I think the issue is moot because it seems the Israeli government was also not likely to accept the parameters either.
Also where in my statements did I advocate violence? I just explained a situation where I think violence has been made inevitable. Am I an advocate of gravity if I say that if I drop a stone it will fall? You can also see in my first comment that you replied to where I said "Is it right to attack civilians, of course not". But what is "right" and what will happen in certain circumstances are different things.
If we accept your logic - and maybe we should - the same standards apply to Israelis. For a long time right wing Israelis have said “you don’t understand, many Palestinians simply want us dead, they see every Jew as a legitimate target, even women and kids, and they want Israel annihilated”
After Saturday, who is to say these Israelis are wrong?
In which case it is kill or be killed. It’s that simple. And Israel is justified in annihilating Gaza or hurling them all into Egypt, just as Gazans are justified in kidnapping, raping and murdering Israeli girls
That’s your logic. And that’s where we’re heading
Israelis have been killing Palestinians, including women and girls, on a regular basis with barely a peep from the West. Here's a recent example:
Killing of innocents is a terrible thing, and those who do it need to be brought to justice. What I don't understand is why Western outrage is reserved for Israeli deaths.
Neither side is good, but it is all shades of grey rather than entirely backing one side over the other.
I read that story and think that the tragedy isn't just a dead 14 year-old, its that she lived in "Jenin refugee camp". She is 14. She is not a refugee. Neither are her parents. Or potentially their parents.
I understand that people were displaced from their homes. But it was not their country - there was no country. The idea that we have these multi-generational camps - awaiting the day when the invading Jew is removed and the Ottoman empire restored - is madness.
The status quo patently does not work. A peace will have to imposed as it cannot be negotiated, and unfortunately that will leave Israel a fortress and Gaza / chunks of the West Bank a ruin. Unless neighbouring arab states intervene and forge a settlement.
Instead of these multi-generational refugee camps, people should be offered to settle in other parts of the former empire, or to become Israeli citizens as several million already have. Israel does terrible things to people in camps like this girl, but it is not seeking death to the arab in the way that Hamas et al seek death to the Jew. Arabs are represented in in the Knesset as equals - an arab is deputy speaker FFS.
We are way past being able to do a two state solution. It will be peace on Israel's terms. Let us hope they don't decide that they need a buffer zone between them and the genocidal neighbours - because if so they will carve it out of Egypy, Jordan and Lebanon. Again.
It was their country. It was the land on which they lived and the land they were expelled from. It may not have had a formal recognition but it was still their homeland. You are simply indulging in victim blaming.
There was a United Nations resolution dividing the land and the Arabs disagreed with that Resolution and hence they invaded the newly-created Israel aiming to wipe it off the map. During the course of that war, which Israel found itself winning, Israel thought "fuck it and fuck you" and started to expel Arabs from their villages. As I noted the other day when we were discussing, like the victim of a mugging who overpowers their attacker and gives them one extra slap.
You keep trying to shift the discussion because you know (or should know) you are in the wrong. This (Rochdale's comment and my reply) is not about the invasion by the neighbouring coutries it is about the status of the [people who actually lived on that land and their descendents.
Oh and to answer your rather purile analogy, under the law in this country any violence beyond that necessary for simple defence is assualt. As plenty of people have found out to their cost in the past.
You were wrong the other day (mostly becaue you didn't bother to actually check what was being discussed before you jumped in with both feet) and you are wrong now (for a very similar reason)
You said "it was their country and they were expelled from it" but I don't know what you are referring to. Or who. Are you talking about 1948 or 1967 or 1973 (or 800BC). Whose land and when were they expelled.
Hence, I brought up UN 181 because that might be what you were referring to (who knows). I also said that in the midst of the war following UN 181 Israel expelled Arabs from their villages. Context is important. It was in the middle of a war wherein Israel was fighting for its existence. Wars often determine borders and this is one of those situations, which even the UN doesn't dispute.
So I'm not sure what you are trying to say but a) you are failing to say it; and b) you are wrong.
Yes, Palestine wasn't a land. As has been pointed out, it was part of the Ottoman Empire and then the League of Nations.
Probably the closest comparable with what happened in 1948 was the population shifts that happened post-WW2 (and indeed post-WW1). In that context, the Israelis evicting the Palestinians was not unusual - the Czechs, Poles, Romanians etc did it with the Volksdeutsche.
What was unusual was that, unlike the latter, the Palestinians had no formal territory to go into nor, as has been stated before, did any other Arab nation want them.
And meanwhile those Arab nations themselves expelled their Jewish citizens - hundreds of thousands of them - most of whom had no option other than to move to Israel (yet somehow we can still call this 'colonialism' *shrug emoji*).
oh FFS now shes promising more laws to stop government doing budgeets without OBR approval
Fking moron and a flavour of what Starmer will look like in government endless laws.
So outsourcing economic policy to an unelected quango....also these kind of moves are so stupid in that if a new party comes in, they can simply reverse them under the guise of it is too restrictive / complicated / hampering decision making.
If thats the best Labour can do I truly despair.
Now shes in to banning the gimmicks which will bite her in the arse when if government
Yearning for John McDonnell?
John was such an evil bastard you sort of expected him to do what he said. This is just sugar puffs and unicorns.
Rachel Reeves has about as much chance of delivering what she says as I have of beating Simone Biles for a gold medal.
I'm surprised you'd be expecting any such thing from her or anybody else. 15 years of subsidy via cheap money and QE is over. Rates are triple the level everybody got used to and are set to stay there for years (check out the 30 year gilt yield). At the same time our debt has ballooned due to Covid and inflation is well and truly back. Plus geopolitically and economically ruinous wars all over the place. And oh ffs maybe Trump. There will be no 'delivery' of rising living standards by any UK politician for quite some time.
That's really not true. Economic forecasts are more difficult than most, because forecasting people is more difficult than forecasting physical phenomena, but we can accurately measure how good forecasts are compared to guesswork, and in several fields they're measurably superior.
I can't vouch for economics being one of those fields, though. I haven't seen a skill score calculated for those.
i) You would be surprised by how few predictions are measured IRL. Predictions are made to give somebody a reason to do X, and once X is done there's no need to check if the prediction was right. If it's catostrophically wrong then it's usually checked in retrospect but the predictor is rarely punished
ii) Probabilistic predictions are measured by calibration, which is a problem because it doesn't measure the accuracy of a single prediction. So if your probabilistic prediction is wrong, it'll be ages before anybody holds you to it. If they even do.
iii) "in several fields they're measurably superior". Sure about that? I'm pretty sure weather forecasts have gotten better since WW2, but for things like the value of a currency at the end of the year, I'm not sure they've gotten better at all, or are even acceptably good.
That's really not true. Economic forecasts are more difficult than most, because forecasting people is more difficult than forecasting physical phenomena, but we can accurately measure how good forecasts are compared to guesswork, and in several fields they're measurably superior.
I can't vouch for economics being one of those fields, though. I haven't seen a skill score calculated for those.
i) You would be surprised by how few predictions are measured IRL. Predictions are made to give somebody a reason to do X, and once X is done there's no need to check if the prediction was right. If it's catostrophically wrong then it's usually checked in retrospect but the predictor is rarely punished
ii) Probabilistic predictions are measured by calibration, which is a problem because it doesn't measure the accuracy of a single prediction. So if your probabilistic prediction is wrong, it'll be ages before anybody holds you to it. If they even do.
iii) "in several fields they're measurably superior". Sure about that? I'm pretty sure weather forecasts have gotten better since WW2, but for things like the value of a currency at the end of the year, I'm not sure they've gotten better at all, or are even acceptably good.
Weather forecasting is the obvious one where a forecast has measurable skill above guesswork (or simple alternatives, like persistence and climatology).
I cannot say for sure what other fields of physics also economy such forecasting skill, but I'd be surprised if there were none.
I thought I was quite careful to imply that economic forecasting has zero skill, without seeking to insult anyone by saying it outright, but Alanbrooke's response perhaps suggests I was unclear and implied something else.
Comments
so having slated the use of consultants and promised to halve spending she is now setting up an independent enquiry using "experts".
https://x.com/sentdefender/status/1711342376462000274?s=20
"The new #SAT report is out.
- Every gender & race had composite score drops & participation increases
- SAT composite score drops ranged from 10 points for East Asians to 35 for Native Americans, who have retained the lowest average
- The male score advantage fell from 13 to 9"
https://x.com/UnsilencedSci/status/1711343241730326528?s=20
When you walk into Marks and Sparks and the nice young chap at the checkout gives you this weird vacant half smiling stare, then take it for what it is. A sign. Ain't no one at home
Rachel Reeves has about as much chance of delivering what she says as I have of beating Simone Biles for a gold medal.
To govern is to choose. Those who wish to govern and at the same time dilute that reality are sub optimal.
Weve all done forecasts and realise is just dressed up guesswork.
"On Monday, a Kosher restaurant in Golders Green, north London, was vandalised and a bridge metres away graffitied with "Free Palestine".
The Metropolitan Police said no arrests had been made, and the incident was not being treated as a hate crime."
I usually don't go with the need to have a specialist 'hate crime' category but, if you are, be consistent.
The latter is still better than what we have, but it hardly gives much hope for the future.
I can't vouch for economics being one of those fields, though. I haven't seen a skill score calculated for those.
Nationalisation by stealth – hope will be is that it will underprice and outperform the privateers.
We have a massive debt and a massive deficit. The economy isn't in recession but it's not all guns blazing either.
More spending funded by more borrowing is just going to balloon the deficit even more.
@JohnRentoul
·
11m
Proper rhetoric from Reeves. Well written, well delivered. More or less content-free
THIS THREAD HAS BEEN OBRed
Who decides who the 'subject matter experts' are?
It seems much more likely that they'll appoint the 'right sort'.
All she is saying is that the OBR check the government's costings for significant economic policies, not that they have any kind of veto.
An economic forecast is simply somebody;s view as they cross their fingers and hope nobody;s paying too much attention. The OBR cant forecast any better than the OECD its nuts to make this a legality.
ii) Probabilistic predictions are measured by calibration, which is a problem because it doesn't measure the accuracy of a single prediction. So if your probabilistic prediction is wrong, it'll be ages before anybody holds you to it. If they even do.
iii) "in several fields they're measurably superior". Sure about that? I'm pretty sure weather forecasts have gotten better since WW2, but for things like the value of a currency at the end of the year, I'm not sure they've gotten better at all, or are even acceptably good.
I cannot say for sure what other fields of physics also economy such forecasting skill, but I'd be surprised if there were none.
I thought I was quite careful to imply that economic forecasting has zero skill, without seeking to insult anyone by saying it outright, but Alanbrooke's response perhaps suggests I was unclear and implied something else.