The Israel/Gaza conflict has the potential to entirely upend our politics, and render worthy questions - like this threader - sadly irrelevant
Hope I’m wrong. But in a few weeks or months we might see regular terror attacks in Europe - including the UK - and something like civil strife in big European cities
What will that do the election? Change the narrative entirely. But it might not benefit the Tories
No, it really doesn't.
As ugly as it is, its a distant war that is never going to affect household budgets as much as housing costs do.
Housing is the number one priority issue in this country today, by far. The only people who think otherwise, are those fortunate enough not to need to worry about paying rent or now not needing to worry about remortgaging either.
No it isn't. Housing is in 5th place behind: The Economy, Health, Immigration and Environment.
The firm, principled vision that is the hallmark of Starmlab.
Do you disagree?
War is ugly.
Sure, though it’s easy to say from an armchair. I also agree it’s a clichéd, banal observation worthy of PB’s finest, but I’d expect a bit more from folk who have agency in this situation and who are jostling to to be in charge of the UK’s response to it.
More Lammynating
Again do you disagree?
Starmer is right. Sieges are lawful under international law, its how war operates. The idea of fighting a war with zero civilian casualties has never been the case and never will be the case, war is hell but so the law is not and never has been and never will be about not endangering civilians.
The law is about proportionality, and Israel are operating with that in mind. By warning civilians to clear out, they're doing everything they can to proportionately reduce civilian casualties while still fighting the war.
Having said that, Lammy is right too, others are entitled to their views even if their views are wrong.
Hooray everybody, Lammy and Barty have given people permission to hold views.
Barty accused someone of making a "disgraceful" comment because they disagreed with him on some minor aspect of the housing debate.
Anyway, back to 1.1 million Gazans in 24 hours...
Which of these do you think is "disgraceful"
1: Hamas murdering and dismembering children. 2: Israel giving warning to Gazans to move away from a conflict zone so they don't get killed in the crossfire. 3: Telling people they can rent for decades because one day their parents will be dead and then they might inherit.
To me 1 is so far beyond the pale it goes beyond disgraceful, 3 is disgraceful, while 2 is a proportionate response to war to try to minimise civilian casualties.
What would you say?
And wicket!
Someone needs to give the Barty-o-meter a tap on the glass.
Not answering? OK, lets take housing out of the equation and give this another go.
Which do you think is disgraceful?
1: Deliberately dismembering and murdering children? 2: Warning civilians to evacuate a conflict zone so they're not accidentally killed while fighting the enemy while at war.
The firm, principled vision that is the hallmark of Starmlab.
Do you disagree?
War is ugly.
Sure, though it’s easy to say from an armchair. I also agree it’s a clichéd, banal observation worthy of PB’s finest, but I’d expect a bit more from folk who have agency in this situation and who are jostling to to be in charge of the UK’s response to it.
More Lammynating
Again do you disagree?
Starmer is right. Sieges are lawful under international law, its how war operates. The idea of fighting a war with zero civilian casualties has never been the case and never will be the case, war is hell but so the law is not and never has been and never will be about not endangering civilians.
The law is about proportionality, and Israel are operating with that in mind. By warning civilians to clear out, they're doing everything they can to proportionately reduce civilian casualties while still fighting the war.
Having said that, Lammy is right too, others are entitled to their views even if their views are wrong.
Even if you’re right about international law (and I’ll set that aside for now) - the spectacle of Israel wading into Gaza to exterminate Hamas - and killing thousands of innocent Gazans as it goes - is going to violently inflame passions. Particularly in Muslim communities in the west - as the west is seen to support Israel
That means terror attacks. Attacks on Jews and Jewish businesses. Civil unrest perhaps. It could get REALLY ugly, and the attackers won’t care about “international law”
Unfortunately the only beneficiaries likely to be the Islamo-fascist regimes, notably Iran, who will use it to distract their populations and bolster their rule. At times like these I miss Christopher Hitchens who was entirely clear-headed, from a leftist POV, about what is at stake.
These small pictures are annoying. Especially if they contain text. You have to copy the url and open in a new window to expand and by then the immediate point is lost.
It would be nice if the mods could explain why this has happened, and whether anything can be done about it
Observer reporting that Starmer plans to pull detailed plans for social care reform out of the forthcoming manifesto.
So, another five years ahead where nothing is done about the appalling social care situation and it will remain not only a source of considerable hardship and fear to many but a block on clearing nhs hospital beds.
Observer reporting that Starmer plans to pull detailed plans for social care reform out of the forthcoming manifesto.
So, another five years ahead where nothing is done about the appalling social care situation and it will remain not only a source of considerable hardship and fear to many but a block on clearing nhs hospital beds.
The hyper caution is becoming too much now.
I heard a good take on Western governments at the moment, they aren't active problem solvers, they just try to manage problems when they come up.
There’s a proposal locally for a ‘sort of’ industrial development which will alter the character of part of the area, but will provide some, although admittedly not a lot of employment. I was ‘asked’ to join my neighbours in signing a petition but refused; it will devalue your house I was told, angrily.
BBC take seems to be that the reason the proposal failed was it actually didn't even go far enough.....
The BBC's reportingeditorialising on the subject has been little short of propaganda shocking.
Good job they don't call Hamas terrorists, all about not taking sides don't you know....
The corporation said it was “urgently investigating” on Saturday after social media activity by several of its journalists in the Middle East appeared to celebrate the attack which left approximately 1,300 dead.
Observer reporting that Starmer plans to pull detailed plans for social care reform out of the forthcoming manifesto.
So, another five years ahead where nothing is done about the appalling social care situation and it will remain not only a source of considerable hardship and fear to many but a block on clearing nhs hospital beds.
The hyper caution is becoming too much now.
To win the election they should just point at the Tories, laugh and let the electorate punish them.
Governing will be much harder but I'm not sure how much it will be tied to their manifesto, my guess is not that much (which others will decry, but I prefer the concept of voting for people rather than often impossible to deliver plans).
Observer reporting that Starmer plans to pull detailed plans for social care reform out of the forthcoming manifesto.
So, another five years ahead where nothing is done about the appalling social care situation and it will remain not only a source of considerable hardship and fear to many but a block on clearing nhs hospital beds.
The hyper caution is becoming too much now.
Its a reflection of what is going to be possible in government. Not a lot, a little difference around the edges but a wait until better growth and, hopefully, slightly lower gilt rates give some room for manoeuvre later in the Parliament. But they need to win an election first.
The firm, principled vision that is the hallmark of Starmlab.
Do you disagree?
War is ugly.
Sure, though it’s easy to say from an armchair. I also agree it’s a clichéd, banal observation worthy of PB’s finest, but I’d expect a bit more from folk who have agency in this situation and who are jostling to to be in charge of the UK’s response to it.
More Lammynating
Again do you disagree?
Starmer is right. Sieges are lawful under international law, its how war operates. The idea of fighting a war with zero civilian casualties has never been the case and never will be the case, war is hell but so the law is not and never has been and never will be about not endangering civilians.
The law is about proportionality, and Israel are operating with that in mind. By warning civilians to clear out, they're doing everything they can to proportionately reduce civilian casualties while still fighting the war.
Having said that, Lammy is right too, others are entitled to their views even if their views are wrong.
Hooray everybody, Lammy and Barty have given people permission to hold views.
Barty accused someone of making a "disgraceful" comment because they disagreed with him on some minor aspect of the housing debate.
Anyway, back to 1.1 million Gazans in 24 hours...
Which of these do you think is "disgraceful"
1: Hamas murdering and dismembering children. 2: Israel giving warning to Gazans to move away from a conflict zone so they don't get killed in the crossfire. 3: Telling people they can rent for decades because one day their parents will be dead and then they might inherit.
To me 1 is so far beyond the pale it goes beyond disgraceful, 3 is disgraceful, while 2 is a proportionate response to war to try to minimise civilian casualties.
What would you say?
And wicket!
Someone needs to give the Barty-o-meter a tap on the glass.
Not answering? OK, lets take housing out of the equation and give this another go.
Which do you think is disgraceful?
1: Deliberately dismembering and murdering children? 2: Warning civilians to evacuate a conflict zone so they're not accidentally killed while fighting the enemy while at war.
For me one of those is, one is not. For you?
Both are, when you give only 24 hours for 1 million people. That kind of warning is entirely performative, designed to give people like you cover to dismiss any criticism of the Israeli state.
(I actually think it was just a card Netanyahu has played to get more concessions/support from the US).
The firm, principled vision that is the hallmark of Starmlab.
Do you disagree?
War is ugly.
Sure, though it’s easy to say from an armchair. I also agree it’s a clichéd, banal observation worthy of PB’s finest, but I’d expect a bit more from folk who have agency in this situation and who are jostling to to be in charge of the UK’s response to it.
More Lammynating
Again do you disagree?
Starmer is right. Sieges are lawful under international law, its how war operates. The idea of fighting a war with zero civilian casualties has never been the case and never will be the case, war is hell but so the law is not and never has been and never will be about not endangering civilians.
The law is about proportionality, and Israel are operating with that in mind. By warning civilians to clear out, they're doing everything they can to proportionately reduce civilian casualties while still fighting the war.
Having said that, Lammy is right too, others are entitled to their views even if their views are wrong.
Hooray everybody, Lammy and Barty have given people permission to hold views.
Barty accused someone of making a "disgraceful" comment because they disagreed with him on some minor aspect of the housing debate.
Anyway, back to 1.1 million Gazans in 24 hours...
Which of these do you think is "disgraceful"
1: Hamas murdering and dismembering children. 2: Israel giving warning to Gazans to move away from a conflict zone so they don't get killed in the crossfire. 3: Telling people they can rent for decades because one day their parents will be dead and then they might inherit.
To me 1 is so far beyond the pale it goes beyond disgraceful, 3 is disgraceful, while 2 is a proportionate response to war to try to minimise civilian casualties.
What would you say?
And wicket!
Someone needs to give the Barty-o-meter a tap on the glass.
You'd be surprised how quickly someone can become an authority on everything.
The firm, principled vision that is the hallmark of Starmlab.
Do you disagree?
War is ugly.
Sure, though it’s easy to say from an armchair. I also agree it’s a clichéd, banal observation worthy of PB’s finest, but I’d expect a bit more from folk who have agency in this situation and who are jostling to to be in charge of the UK’s response to it.
More Lammynating
Again do you disagree?
Starmer is right. Sieges are lawful under international law, its how war operates. The idea of fighting a war with zero civilian casualties has never been the case and never will be the case, war is hell but so the law is not and never has been and never will be about not endangering civilians.
The law is about proportionality, and Israel are operating with that in mind. By warning civilians to clear out, they're doing everything they can to proportionately reduce civilian casualties while still fighting the war.
Having said that, Lammy is right too, others are entitled to their views even if their views are wrong.
Hooray everybody, Lammy and Barty have given people permission to hold views.
Barty accused someone of making a "disgraceful" comment because they disagreed with him on some minor aspect of the housing debate.
Anyway, back to 1.1 million Gazans in 24 hours...
Which of these do you think is "disgraceful"
1: Hamas murdering and dismembering children. 2: Israel giving warning to Gazans to move away from a conflict zone so they don't get killed in the crossfire. 3: Telling people they can rent for decades because one day their parents will be dead and then they might inherit.
To me 1 is so far beyond the pale it goes beyond disgraceful, 3 is disgraceful, while 2 is a proportionate response to war to try to minimise civilian casualties.
What would you say?
And wicket!
Someone needs to give the Barty-o-meter a tap on the glass.
Not answering? OK, lets take housing out of the equation and give this another go.
Which do you think is disgraceful?
1: Deliberately dismembering and murdering children? 2: Warning civilians to evacuate a conflict zone so they're not accidentally killed while fighting the enemy while at war.
For me one of those is, one is not. For you?
Both are, when you give only 24 hours for 1 million people. That kind of warning is entirely performative, designed to give people like you cover to dismiss any criticism of the Israeli state.
(I actually think it was just a card Netanyahu has played to get more concessions/support from the US).
Not really, they don't have that far to move, its a tiny location.
24 hours has passed and anyone who hasn't moved is still getting an opportunity to do so, its not like Gaza City was levelled at 24 hours on the dot.
What exactly in your view should Israel be able to do to destroy Hamas in this war?
Hamas are committing war crimes by using civilians as a human shield, Israel giving a warning to civilians is giving a warning to Hamas fighters too, but they've done the right thing and still you complain.
BBC take seems to be that the reason the proposal failed was it actually didn't even go far enough.....
I have no real skin in this particular game and I am sorry to be a broken record on this topic, but the blatant partiality that has been dripping out of every article they have written on this topic is unacceptable for a national broadcaster that is supposed to pride itself on its impartiality and objectivity.
It is now getting to a point (there have been other recent examples where the coverage has also caused me concern) where I am really questioning whether it continues to be my go-to news source, and that is terribly depressing when I think of how much pride I used to feel in having it as my national broadcaster.
Is it any wonder that people are turning off from “mainstream media” and populists are able to exploit people’s distrust?
Can they see their own biases? Is it wilful intent to be partial or is it just confirmation bias? Whichever, they need to Do Better.
BBC take seems to be that the reason the proposal failed was it actually didn't even go far enough.....
I have no real skin in this particular game and I am sorry to be a broken record on this topic, but the blatant partiality that has been dripping out of every article they have written on this topic is unacceptable for a national broadcaster that is supposed to pride itself on its impartiality and objectivity.
It is now getting to a point (there have been other recent examples where the coverage has also caused me concern) where I am really questioning whether it continues to be my go-to news source, and that is terribly depressing when I think of how much pride I used to feel on having it as my national broadcaster.
Is it any wonder that people are turning off from “mainstream media” and populists are able to exploit people’s distrust?
Can they see it their own biases? Is it wilful intent to or is it just confirmation bias? Whichever, they need to Do Better.
As Andrew Marr famously said, the BBC is overwhelmingly a young liberal metropolitan organisation...as a result there are some issues where the group think is incredibly strong.
Economics they seem much better to provide some balance, but there are particularly social issues where it is inconceivable that there isn't a settled consensus and only fringe extreme views are against it.
Observer reporting that Starmer plans to pull detailed plans for social care reform out of the forthcoming manifesto.
So, another five years ahead where nothing is done about the appalling social care situation and it will remain not only a source of considerable hardship and fear to many but a block on clearing nhs hospital beds.
The hyper caution is becoming too much now.
Pulling it from the manifesto isn't the same as not doing anything once elected. The Tories are going after them. They have legally doubled the party spend limit (so must have the money) and will throw everything they have at stopping Labour.
And for good reason - the corruption commissioner that Reeves has promised will go after all the money corruptly stolen by Tory spiv mates and not stop until it has money returned and likely people in jail.
So Labour have to be cautious. The Tories will pick at everything. That doesn't mean they will be cautious once elected to office. Those Starmer 5 missions are big and comprehensive. They if nothing else will drive the policy agenda.
The firm, principled vision that is the hallmark of Starmlab.
Do you disagree?
War is ugly.
Sure, though it’s easy to say from an armchair. I also agree it’s a clichéd, banal observation worthy of PB’s finest, but I’d expect a bit more from folk who have agency in this situation and who are jostling to to be in charge of the UK’s response to it.
More Lammynating
Again do you disagree?
Starmer is right. Sieges are lawful under international law, its how war operates. The idea of fighting a war with zero civilian casualties has never been the case and never will be the case, war is hell but so the law is not and never has been and never will be about not endangering civilians.
The law is about proportionality, and Israel are operating with that in mind. By warning civilians to clear out, they're doing everything they can to proportionately reduce civilian casualties while still fighting the war.
Having said that, Lammy is right too, others are entitled to their views even if their views are wrong.
Hooray everybody, Lammy and Barty have given people permission to hold views.
Barty accused someone of making a "disgraceful" comment because they disagreed with him on some minor aspect of the housing debate.
Anyway, back to 1.1 million Gazans in 24 hours...
Which of these do you think is "disgraceful"
1: Hamas murdering and dismembering children. 2: Israel giving warning to Gazans to move away from a conflict zone so they don't get killed in the crossfire. 3: Telling people they can rent for decades because one day their parents will be dead and then they might inherit.
To me 1 is so far beyond the pale it goes beyond disgraceful, 3 is disgraceful, while 2 is a proportionate response to war to try to minimise civilian casualties.
What would you say?
And wicket!
Someone needs to give the Barty-o-meter a tap on the glass.
You'd be surprised how quickly someone can become an authority on everything.
BBC take seems to be that the reason the proposal failed was it actually didn't even go far enough.....
The BBC's reportingeditorialising on the subject has been little short of propaganda shocking.
Good job they don't call Hamas terrorists, all about not taking sides don't you know....
The corporation said it was “urgently investigating” on Saturday after social media activity by several of its journalists in the Middle East appeared to celebrate the attack which left approximately 1,300 dead.
Reflecting on the Israel / Gaza situation, I think the closest (and not necessarily *very* close) analogue I can find is the 1982 Israeli Invasion of Lebanon, which resulted in the PLO Armed Forces being expelled from Lebanon.
Interesting that you highlight the role of the Israelis (“under the supervision”) but choose not to mention the Lebanese perpetrators of the massacre.
Why is that?
The massacre was by Christian militias but the camps were surrounded by IDF troops who knew what was going on and indirectly responsible.
That is what the Israeli government found in its enquiry, and why Ariel Sharon resigned as Defence Minister
*Indirectly* responsible.
Most people who don’t have an instinctive bias against the Israelis blame Hobeika.
(Sharon resigned as defence minister but remained in the cabinet, IIRC)
From the article: The IDF had ordered the militia to clear out the fighters of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) from Sabra and Shatila as part of a larger Israeli maneuver into western Beirut. If accurate, Foxy’s description seems balanced, not biased, though I agree it would have been helpful to clarify the Lebanese forces’ role.
Yes - it would certainly be helpful to clarify that the murderers who carried out the massacre were Lebanese Christian militias. That this was their role and that they were not doing this just because Israelis ordered them to. The hatred and atrocities committed in the Lebanese civil war were carried out by all sorts of groups against all sorts of groups. There were no innocents in that dreadful war and Israel's role in that massacre shamed it. It was, however, the only country which had many demonstrations against what they did and which had an inquiry into what it did and failed to do. There has been no such self-reflection or reckoning for the many other militias and actors in that war, doubtless because no-one would come out with clean hands.
Foxy's description was inaccurate by omission - a fairly important omission.
I worry hugely about an invasion of Gaza now - not just because of the inevitable casualties - but because I fear that it will be a strategic mistake similar to its intervention in Lebanon, because Israel does not seem to have an answer to the "what happens after?" question, much as the US did not in Iraq.
And because, naive fool that I am, I think now would be a time to make a generous offer to Palestinians for a world after and without Hamas, one which might undercut them. I see no prospect of that with the current Israeli leadership. And whatever Israel does it will be criticised and many of those criticising it (not @Foxy) are those who will never ever give it the benefit of the doubt or accept that it should defend itself or that it should even exist.
There are many good faith criticisms of Israel. But there are an awful lot of very bad faith ones. And very often a failure to distinguish between the two.
The firm, principled vision that is the hallmark of Starmlab.
Do you disagree?
War is ugly.
Sure, though it’s easy to say from an armchair. I also agree it’s a clichéd, banal observation worthy of PB’s finest, but I’d expect a bit more from folk who have agency in this situation and who are jostling to to be in charge of the UK’s response to it.
More Lammynating
Again do you disagree?
Starmer is right. Sieges are lawful under international law, its how war operates. The idea of fighting a war with zero civilian casualties has never been the case and never will be the case, war is hell but so the law is not and never has been and never will be about not endangering civilians.
The law is about proportionality, and Israel are operating with that in mind. By warning civilians to clear out, they're doing everything they can to proportionately reduce civilian casualties while still fighting the war.
Having said that, Lammy is right too, others are entitled to their views even if their views are wrong.
Hooray everybody, Lammy and Barty have given people permission to hold views.
Barty accused someone of making a "disgraceful" comment because they disagreed with him on some minor aspect of the housing debate.
Anyway, back to 1.1 million Gazans in 24 hours...
Which of these do you think is "disgraceful"
1: Hamas murdering and dismembering children. 2: Israel giving warning to Gazans to move away from a conflict zone so they don't get killed in the crossfire. 3: Telling people they can rent for decades because one day their parents will be dead and then they might inherit.
To me 1 is so far beyond the pale it goes beyond disgraceful, 3 is disgraceful, while 2 is a proportionate response to war to try to minimise civilian casualties.
What would you say?
And wicket!
Someone needs to give the Barty-o-meter a tap on the glass.
Not answering? OK, lets take housing out of the equation and give this another go.
Which do you think is disgraceful?
1: Deliberately dismembering and murdering children? 2: Warning civilians to evacuate a conflict zone so they're not accidentally killed while fighting the enemy while at war.
For me one of those is, one is not. For you?
Both are, when you give only 24 hours for 1 million people. That kind of warning is entirely performative, designed to give people like you cover to dismiss any criticism of the Israeli state.
(I actually think it was just a card Netanyahu has played to get more concessions/support from the US).
Not really, they don't have that far to move, its a tiny location.
24 hours has passed and anyone who hasn't moved is still getting an opportunity to do so, its not like Gaza City was levelled at 24 hours on the dot.
What exactly in your view should Israel be able to do to destroy Hamas in this war?
Hamas are committing war crimes by using civilians as a human shield, Israel giving a warning to civilians is giving a warning to Hamas fighters too, but they've done the right thing and still you complain.
You've spent two days defending it and even Netanyahu hasn't gone that far, in the end.
The firm, principled vision that is the hallmark of Starmlab.
Do you disagree?
War is ugly.
Sure, though it’s easy to say from an armchair. I also agree it’s a clichéd, banal observation worthy of PB’s finest, but I’d expect a bit more from folk who have agency in this situation and who are jostling to to be in charge of the UK’s response to it.
More Lammynating
Again do you disagree?
Starmer is right. Sieges are lawful under international law, its how war operates. The idea of fighting a war with zero civilian casualties has never been the case and never will be the case, war is hell but so the law is not and never has been and never will be about not endangering civilians.
The law is about proportionality, and Israel are operating with that in mind. By warning civilians to clear out, they're doing everything they can to proportionately reduce civilian casualties while still fighting the war.
Having said that, Lammy is right too, others are entitled to their views even if their views are wrong.
Hooray everybody, Lammy and Barty have given people permission to hold views.
Barty accused someone of making a "disgraceful" comment because they disagreed with him on some minor aspect of the housing debate.
Anyway, back to 1.1 million Gazans in 24 hours...
Which of these do you think is "disgraceful"
1: Hamas murdering and dismembering children. 2: Israel giving warning to Gazans to move away from a conflict zone so they don't get killed in the crossfire. 3: Telling people they can rent for decades because one day their parents will be dead and then they might inherit.
To me 1 is so far beyond the pale it goes beyond disgraceful, 3 is disgraceful, while 2 is a proportionate response to war to try to minimise civilian casualties.
What would you say?
And wicket!
Someone needs to give the Barty-o-meter a tap on the glass.
Not answering? OK, lets take housing out of the equation and give this another go.
Which do you think is disgraceful?
1: Deliberately dismembering and murdering children? 2: Warning civilians to evacuate a conflict zone so they're not accidentally killed while fighting the enemy while at war.
For me one of those is, one is not. For you?
Both are, when you give only 24 hours for 1 million people. That kind of warning is entirely performative, designed to give people like you cover to dismiss any criticism of the Israeli state.
(I actually think it was just a card Netanyahu has played to get more concessions/support from the US).
Not really, they don't have that far to move, its a tiny location.
24 hours has passed and anyone who hasn't moved is still getting an opportunity to do so, its not like Gaza City was levelled at 24 hours on the dot.
What exactly in your view should Israel be able to do to destroy Hamas in this war?
Hamas are committing war crimes by using civilians as a human shield, Israel giving a warning to civilians is giving a warning to Hamas fighters too, but they've done the right thing and still you complain.
You've spent two days defending it and even Netanyahu hasn't gone that far, in the end.
You'll be calling him an appeaser next.
Doesn't that show just how restrained and proportionate that Israel are being?
Better to give a 24 hour warning and mean 5 days, than to give a 5 day warning which isn't taken seriously for 4 days then millions get caught up in the crossfire.
BBC take seems to be that the reason the proposal failed was it actually didn't even go far enough.....
I have no real skin in this particular game and I am sorry to be a broken record on this topic, but the blatant partiality that has been dripping out of every article they have written on this topic is unacceptable for a national broadcaster that is supposed to pride itself on its impartiality and objectivity.
It is now getting to a point (there have been other recent examples where the coverage has also caused me concern) where I am really questioning whether it continues to be my go-to news source, and that is terribly depressing when I think of how much pride I used to feel in having it as my national broadcaster.
Is it any wonder that people are turning off from “mainstream media” and populists are able to exploit people’s distrust?
Can they see their own biases? Is it wilful intent to be partial or is it just confirmation bias? Whichever, they need to Do Better.
The non-mainstream media, have again had a good week. A better balance of coverage from most of them, than from the traditional outlets. Obviously a few outliers on both types though, there’s been some terrible takes from the new media (looking at you, Krystal Ball), and some very good discussions on the longer-form TV shows. Bill Maher’s HBO Real Time show was excellent, if it can be found online.
Reflecting on the Israel / Gaza situation, I think the closest (and not necessarily *very* close) analogue I can find is the 1982 Israeli Invasion of Lebanon, which resulted in the PLO Armed Forces being expelled from Lebanon.
Interesting that you highlight the role of the Israelis (“under the supervision”) but choose not to mention the Lebanese perpetrators of the massacre.
Why is that?
The massacre was by Christian militias but the camps were surrounded by IDF troops who knew what was going on and indirectly responsible.
That is what the Israeli government found in its enquiry, and why Ariel Sharon resigned as Defence Minister
*Indirectly* responsible.
Most people who don’t have an instinctive bias against the Israelis blame Hobeika.
(Sharon resigned as defence minister but remained in the cabinet, IIRC)
From the article: The IDF had ordered the militia to clear out the fighters of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) from Sabra and Shatila as part of a larger Israeli maneuver into western Beirut. If accurate, Foxy’s description seems balanced, not biased, though I agree it would have been helpful to clarify the Lebanese forces’ role.
Yes - it would certainly be helpful to clarify that the murderers who carried out the massacre were Lebanese Christian militias. That this was their role and that they were not doing this just because Israelis ordered them to. The hatred and atrocities committed in the Lebanese civil war were carried out by all sorts of groups against all sorts of groups. There were no innocents in that dreadful war and Israel's role in that massacre shamed it. It was, however, the only country which had many demonstrations against what they did and which had an inquiry into what it did and failed to do. There has been no such self-reflection or reckoning for the many other militias and actors in that war, doubtless because no-one would come out with clean hands.
Foxy's description was inaccurate by omission - a fairly important omission.
I worry hugely about an invasion of Gaza now - not just because of the inevitable casualties - but because I fear that it will be a strategic mistake similar to its intervention in Lebanon, because Israel does not seem to have an answer to the "what happens after?" question, much as the US did not in Iraq.
And because, naive fool that I am, I think now would be a time to make a generous offer to Palestinians for a world after and without Hamas, one which might undercut them. I see no prospect of that with the current Israeli leadership. And whatever Israel does it will be criticised and many of those criticising it (not @Foxy) are those who will never ever give it the benefit of the doubt or accept that it should defend itself or that it should even exist.
There are many good faith criticisms of Israel. But there are an awful lot of very bad faith ones. And very often a failure to distinguish between the two.
There are no good solutions available. That is the tragedy. A few thoughts: 1. Palestinians will not accept an offer, generous or otherwise 2. If Israel takes out a few Hamas leaders and then stops, Hamas declare victory and plan their next spectacular 3. Israel could get bogged down into a protracted ground war in Gaza which would inevitably pile up civilian bodies and hand victory to Hamas as Israel eventually withdraws
With the US intervening in a big way (2 Carrier Groups) I can't see how Israel isn't going to run up a number 6. Which for the people who haven't seen Blazing Saddles in a while is "riding into town whipping and a whupping every living thing within an inch of its life".
Telling civilians to leave - and mobilising the diplomatic efforts to secure an exit into Egypt - suggests that Israel isn't going to bother fighting building to building. Its just going to level the place. Death by a thousand cuts or cut the leg off surgically.
Reflecting on the Israel / Gaza situation, I think the closest (and not necessarily *very* close) analogue I can find is the 1982 Israeli Invasion of Lebanon, which resulted in the PLO Armed Forces being expelled from Lebanon.
The Israel/Gaza conflict has the potential to entirely upend our politics, and render worthy questions - like this threader - sadly irrelevant
Hope I’m wrong. But in a few weeks or months we might see regular terror attacks in Europe - including the UK - and something like civil strife in big European cities
What will that do the election? Change the narrative entirely. But it might not benefit the Tories
The obvious possible impact will be another hefty dose of external inflation due to another massive increase in oil and gas costs.
The Tories are so ill-suited to dealing with this impending crisis that most of their members and many of their MPs will find a way to blame wind turbines for it.
Telling civilians to leave - and mobilising the diplomatic efforts to secure an exit into Egypt - suggests that Israel isn't going to bother fighting building to building. Its just going to level the place. Death by a thousand cuts or cut the leg off surgically.
As I said, no good solutions...
Indeed, its the only viable solution - destroy Hamas while the civilians aren't there.
Which makes it all the more shame on the Arab neighbours that they aren't taking refugees, because what's going to happen to these displaced people when Hamas are defeated? They're not going to have homes to return to.
Which in a war, happens, that's why countries offer refugee status to those in conflict, but nobody is here. Better for the civilians to be alive and elsewhere, than dead in a conflict they can't avoid. ;(
I wonder if the time has come for the silent majority to stand up? Children should not be in fear of going to school, people should not be afraid to attend religious buildings or feel unable to wear symbols of their identity in the United Kingdom.
I wonder if marches or events will be organised? There were some in the Labour party such as Harriet Harman who chose to stand with Jewish people during the Corbynite years.
On housing, bizarre conversation the other evening with similarly retired neighbours along the lines of: "Labour seem to be going to allow building anywhere - it's crazy." "We'll we do need more houses." "Yes but they should put them where there are already houses, not new sites."
Then later, when we mentioned we are looking to downsize because our garden is far too big for us now: "Can't you sell of half your garden for a couple of houses?" Er no, building in our village is absolutely verboten by our wonderful Local NIMBY Plan.
The lack of self awareness exhibited by many older people on the issue of housing is rather spectacular.
The problem is too many have an attitude that housing costs are "assets" rather than costs to have a roof over your head.
And that mentality has been encouraged by the Bank of England, even though the Treasury doesn't levy CGT on primary homes quite rightly as it recognises that housing is a cost not an asset there.
We need to smash the mentality of houses being an asset and the first step of that reform needs to be with the Bank of England which should include house prices directly into the basket of goods for inflation.
And putting up some barriers to foreign ownership, and making owning additional properties left empty punatively expensive
Observer reporting that Starmer plans to pull detailed plans for social care reform out of the forthcoming manifesto.
So, another five years ahead where nothing is done about the appalling social care situation and it will remain not only a source of considerable hardship and fear to many but a block on clearing nhs hospital beds.
The hyper caution is becoming too much now.
Pulling it from the manifesto isn't the same as not doing anything once elected. The Tories are going after them. They have legally doubled the party spend limit (so must have the money) and will throw everything they have at stopping Labour.
And for good reason - the corruption commissioner that Reeves has promised will go after all the money corruptly stolen by Tory spiv mates and not stop until it has money returned and likely people in jail.
So Labour have to be cautious. The Tories will pick at everything. That doesn't mean they will be cautious once elected to office. Those Starmer 5 missions are big and comprehensive. They if nothing else will drive the policy agenda.
Those dastardly Tories. Doing their job and challenging the oppositions promises and commitments.
If only labour had the courage of their convictions to stand by what they believe in and respond to any challenge robustly.
The firm, principled vision that is the hallmark of Starmlab.
Do you disagree?
War is ugly.
Sure, though it’s easy to say from an armchair. I also agree it’s a clichéd, banal observation worthy of PB’s finest, but I’d expect a bit more from folk who have agency in this situation and who are jostling to to be in charge of the UK’s response to it.
More Lammynating
Again do you disagree?
Starmer is right. Sieges are lawful under international law, its how war operates. The idea of fighting a war with zero civilian casualties has never been the case and never will be the case, war is hell but so the law is not and never has been and never will be about not endangering civilians.
The law is about proportionality, and Israel are operating with that in mind. By warning civilians to clear out, they're doing everything they can to proportionately reduce civilian casualties while still fighting the war.
Having said that, Lammy is right too, others are entitled to their views even if their views are wrong.
Even if you’re right about international law (and I’ll set that aside for now) - the spectacle of Israel wading into Gaza to exterminate Hamas - and killing thousands of innocent Gazans as it goes - is going to violently inflame passions. Particularly in Muslim communities in the west - as the west is seen to support Israel
That means terror attacks. Attacks on Jews and Jewish businesses. Civil unrest perhaps. It could get REALLY ugly, and the attackers won’t care about “international law”
That's undeniable - violence creates more violence. One side having the moral high ground doesn't change that.
Telling civilians to leave - and mobilising the diplomatic efforts to secure an exit into Egypt - suggests that Israel isn't going to bother fighting building to building. Its just going to level the place. Death by a thousand cuts or cut the leg off surgically.
As I said, no good solutions...
Indeed, its the only viable solution - destroy Hamas while the civilians aren't there.
Which makes it all the more shame on the Arab neighbours that they aren't taking refugees, because what's going to happen to these displaced people when Hamas are defeated? They're not going to have homes to return to.
Which in a war, happens, that's why countries offer refugee status to those in conflict, but nobody is here. Better for the civilians to be alive and elsewhere, than dead in a conflict they can't avoid. ;(
Got to feel sorry for him. He anguish and pain is hard to hide. He seemed on the verge of tears. Sometimes we have to remember there is a person behind the politician.
On housing, bizarre conversation the other evening with similarly retired neighbours along the lines of: "Labour seem to be going to allow building anywhere - it's crazy." "We'll we do need more houses." "Yes but they should put them where there are already houses, not new sites."
Then later, when we mentioned we are looking to downsize because our garden is far too big for us now: "Can't you sell of half your garden for a couple of houses?" Er no, building in our village is absolutely verboten by our wonderful Local NIMBY Plan.
The lack of self awareness exhibited by many older people on the issue of housing is rather spectacular.
The problem is too many have an attitude that housing costs are "assets" rather than costs to have a roof over your head.
And that mentality has been encouraged by the Bank of England, even though the Treasury doesn't levy CGT on primary homes quite rightly as it recognises that housing is a cost not an asset there.
We need to smash the mentality of houses being an asset and the first step of that reform needs to be with the Bank of England which should include house prices directly into the basket of goods for inflation.
And putting up some barriers to foreign ownership, and making owning additional properties left empty punatively expensive
Actually I'll disagree on the last one. Owning additional properties should face an LVT but in a healthy economy 10% of properties are normally empty.
That allows both buyers and renters a choice and an opportunity to turn down run-down, poor quality or expensive homes.
That then allows people to buy homes cheaper and renovate them if require.
We need more empty homes not fewer, but firstly we need more homes.
Observer reporting that Starmer plans to pull detailed plans for social care reform out of the forthcoming manifesto.
So, another five years ahead where nothing is done about the appalling social care situation and it will remain not only a source of considerable hardship and fear to many but a block on clearing nhs hospital beds.
The hyper caution is becoming too much now.
Pulling it from the manifesto isn't the same as not doing anything once elected. The Tories are going after them. They have legally doubled the party spend limit (so must have the money) and will throw everything they have at stopping Labour.
And for good reason - the corruption commissioner that Reeves has promised will go after all the money corruptly stolen by Tory spiv mates and not stop until it has money returned and likely people in jail.
So Labour have to be cautious. The Tories will pick at everything. That doesn't mean they will be cautious once elected to office. Those Starmer 5 missions are big and comprehensive. They if nothing else will drive the policy agenda.
Those dastardly Tories. Doing their job and challenging the oppositions promises and commitments.
If only labour had the courage of their convictions to stand by what they believe in and respond to any challenge robustly.
I'm not voting Labour. But I understand Starmer's problem. The Tories - and their spiv owners - are so desperate to keep Labour out that they will say and do anything.
Telling civilians to leave - and mobilising the diplomatic efforts to secure an exit into Egypt - suggests that Israel isn't going to bother fighting building to building. Its just going to level the place. Death by a thousand cuts or cut the leg off surgically.
As I said, no good solutions...
Indeed, its the only viable solution - destroy Hamas while the civilians aren't there.
Which makes it all the more shame on the Arab neighbours that they aren't taking refugees, because what's going to happen to these displaced people when Hamas are defeated? They're not going to have homes to return to.
Which in a war, happens, that's why countries offer refugee status to those in conflict, but nobody is here. Better for the civilians to be alive and elsewhere, than dead in a conflict they can't avoid. ;(
Gaza to be rebuilt or absorbed? What's the plan?
Maybe both?
If I were Netanyahu I would level everything North of the evacuation zone and not allow anyone back into it once done. Absorb and rebuild it but not as it was before, rebuild it as you want it to be without anyone from Hamas or a sympathiser being allowed back. If Hamas don't surrender unconditionally, then do the same with everything South of the evacuation zone.
I wonder if the time has come for the silent majority to stand up? Children should not be in fear of going to school, people should not be afraid to attend religious buildings or feel unable to wear symbols of their identity in the United Kingdom.
I wonder if marches or events will be organised? There were some in the Labour party such as Harriet Harman who chose to stand with Jewish people during the Corbynite years.
What did the current Labour leader do in those years ?
I wonder if the time has come for the silent majority to stand up? Children should not be in fear of going to school, people should not be afraid to attend religious buildings or feel unable to wear symbols of their identity in the United Kingdom.
I wonder if marches or events will be organised? There were some in the Labour party such as Harriet Harman who chose to stand with Jewish people during the Corbynite years.
The 10000s openly chanting a slogan which is thinly veiled "Israel must be wiped out", which itself is basically destroy the Jews.
Far-right racism still exists, but they aren't going to march through London openly chanting NF type stuff these days. But antisemites not only feel they can, they are allowed to do so.
On housing, bizarre conversation the other evening with similarly retired neighbours along the lines of: "Labour seem to be going to allow building anywhere - it's crazy." "We'll we do need more houses." "Yes but they should put them where there are already houses, not new sites."
Then later, when we mentioned we are looking to downsize because our garden is far too big for us now: "Can't you sell of half your garden for a couple of houses?" Er no, building in our village is absolutely verboten by our wonderful Local NIMBY Plan.
The lack of self awareness exhibited by many older people on the issue of housing is rather spectacular.
The problem is too many have an attitude that housing costs are "assets" rather than costs to have a roof over your head.
And that mentality has been encouraged by the Bank of England, even though the Treasury doesn't levy CGT on primary homes quite rightly as it recognises that housing is a cost not an asset there.
We need to smash the mentality of houses being an asset and the first step of that reform needs to be with the Bank of England which should include house prices directly into the basket of goods for inflation.
And putting up some barriers to foreign ownership, and making owning additional properties left empty punatively expensive
Actually I'll disagree on the last one. Owning additional properties should face an LVT but in a healthy economy 10% of properties are normally empty.
That allows both buyers and renters a choice and an opportunity to turn down run-down, poor quality or expensive homes.
That then allows people to buy homes cheaper and renovate them if require.
We need more empty homes not fewer, but firstly we need more homes.
Simply resolved by only being punative after the first six months.
The properties in central London owned by Chinese and Russian and African criminalsinvestors sitting empty the entire year, held as some mix of bolthole and investment, and subject to a fraction of the property tax you'd pay in most other European countries, are a scandal
Telling civilians to leave - and mobilising the diplomatic efforts to secure an exit into Egypt - suggests that Israel isn't going to bother fighting building to building. Its just going to level the place. Death by a thousand cuts or cut the leg off surgically.
As I said, no good solutions...
Indeed, its the only viable solution - destroy Hamas while the civilians aren't there.
Which makes it all the more shame on the Arab neighbours that they aren't taking refugees, because what's going to happen to these displaced people when Hamas are defeated? They're not going to have homes to return to.
Which in a war, happens, that's why countries offer refugee status to those in conflict, but nobody is here. Better for the civilians to be alive and elsewhere, than dead in a conflict they can't avoid. ;(
Gaza to be rebuilt or absorbed? What's the plan?
I doubt they know yet. Gaza - the prison camp / terrorism base - cannot continue as it is. Remember that Gaza was essentially run as a big prison camp even when it was under Egyptian administration. I know that Its All Israel's Fault, but it really isn't.
The big comprehensive offer to Gaza could be absorption into Israel. Legal protection for citizens, legal penalties for criminals and terrorists. Live in peace as part of the only democracy in the region. Its not as if the arab neighbours have any interests in their welfare, is it?
The firm, principled vision that is the hallmark of Starmlab.
Do you disagree?
War is ugly.
Sure, though it’s easy to say from an armchair. I also agree it’s a clichéd, banal observation worthy of PB’s finest, but I’d expect a bit more from folk who have agency in this situation and who are jostling to to be in charge of the UK’s response to it.
More Lammynating
Again do you disagree?
Starmer is right. Sieges are lawful under international law, its how war operates. The idea of fighting a war with zero civilian casualties has never been the case and never will be the case, war is hell but so the law is not and never has been and never will be about not endangering civilians.
The law is about proportionality, and Israel are operating with that in mind. By warning civilians to clear out, they're doing everything they can to proportionately reduce civilian casualties while still fighting the war.
Having said that, Lammy is right too, others are entitled to their views even if their views are wrong.
Hooray everybody, Lammy and Barty have given people permission to hold views.
Barty accused someone of making a "disgraceful" comment because they disagreed with him on some minor aspect of the housing debate.
Anyway, back to 1.1 million Gazans in 24 hours...
Which of these do you think is "disgraceful"
1: Hamas murdering and dismembering children. 2: Israel giving warning to Gazans to move away from a conflict zone so they don't get killed in the crossfire. 3: Telling people they can rent for decades because one day their parents will be dead and then they might inherit.
To me 1 is so far beyond the pale it goes beyond disgraceful, 3 is disgraceful, while 2 is a proportionate response to war to try to minimise civilian casualties.
What would you say?
And wicket!
Someone needs to give the Barty-o-meter a tap on the glass.
You'd be surprised how quickly someone can become an authority on everything.
On housing, bizarre conversation the other evening with similarly retired neighbours along the lines of: "Labour seem to be going to allow building anywhere - it's crazy." "We'll we do need more houses." "Yes but they should put them where there are already houses, not new sites."
Then later, when we mentioned we are looking to downsize because our garden is far too big for us now: "Can't you sell of half your garden for a couple of houses?" Er no, building in our village is absolutely verboten by our wonderful Local NIMBY Plan.
The lack of self awareness exhibited by many older people on the issue of housing is rather spectacular.
The problem is too many have an attitude that housing costs are "assets" rather than costs to have a roof over your head.
And that mentality has been encouraged by the Bank of England, even though the Treasury doesn't levy CGT on primary homes quite rightly as it recognises that housing is a cost not an asset there.
We need to smash the mentality of houses being an asset and the first step of that reform needs to be with the Bank of England which should include house prices directly into the basket of goods for inflation.
And putting up some barriers to foreign ownership, and making owning additional properties left empty punatively expensive
Actually I'll disagree on the last one. Owning additional properties should face an LVT but in a healthy economy 10% of properties are normally empty.
That allows both buyers and renters a choice and an opportunity to turn down run-down, poor quality or expensive homes.
That then allows people to buy homes cheaper and renovate them if require.
We need more empty homes not fewer, but firstly we need more homes.
Simply resolved by only being punative after the first six months.
The properties in central London owned by Chinese and Russian and African criminalsinvestors sitting empty the entire year, held as some mix of bolthole and investment, and subject to a fraction of the property tax you'd pay in most other European countries, are a scandal
I'd ramp up LVT all the time, not just some of it. But not as an overall tax rise, remove other property taxes and look to lower income taxes and raise more from LVT instead.
If house prices are going down, and property taxes are higher, then investing in property ceases to be an attractive proposition.
BBC take seems to be that the reason the proposal failed was it actually didn't even go far enough.....
How do you get that from reading the article ?
Or did you note only the reported comments which offended you ?
None of it "offends" me, as I have no horse in the race.
But the balance is laughable.
"Prime Minister Anthony Albanese argued the Voice vote could unite Australia. But others remained convinced such a proposal would divide it. It also faced criticism from a bloc of Indigenous people who believed it wouldn't be powerful enough. Others saw it is a symbolic gesture and believed that money could be better spent on immediate solutions."
So, basically its too weak...
vs
Outside a polling booth on Saturday, the 76-year-old said he was not opposed to the idea of the Voice - he just wanted to keep it out of the nation's founding document..."I voted No....contested claim that the referendum could make Indigenous people "more equal" than other Australians.... "I've been disappointed in the No campaign to be honest,....there's a part of me that hopes the Yes vote wins because I think there are so many people who are emotionally tied to this."
But it "contested" claim, followed up the No is actually a Yes and the No campaign has been dishonest.
Rumours that work is going on behind the scenes to get Egypt to host ethnically cleansed Palestinians. Should make the hawks happy. Once purged they will never go back or be allowed back.
Telling civilians to leave - and mobilising the diplomatic efforts to secure an exit into Egypt - suggests that Israel isn't going to bother fighting building to building. Its just going to level the place. Death by a thousand cuts or cut the leg off surgically.
As I said, no good solutions...
Indeed, its the only viable solution - destroy Hamas while the civilians aren't there.
Which makes it all the more shame on the Arab neighbours that they aren't taking refugees, because what's going to happen to these displaced people when Hamas are defeated? They're not going to have homes to return to.
Which in a war, happens, that's why countries offer refugee status to those in conflict, but nobody is here. Better for the civilians to be alive and elsewhere, than dead in a conflict they can't avoid. ;(
Gaza to be rebuilt or absorbed? What's the plan?
Maybe both?
If I were Netanyahu I would level everything North of the evacuation zone and not allow anyone back into it once done. Absorb and rebuild it but not as it was before, rebuild it as you want it to be without anyone from Hamas or a sympathiser being allowed back. If Hamas don't surrender unconditionally, then do the same with everything South of the evacuation zone.
Before anyone accuses me and thee of being genocidal, we know what this means. The horrible dilemma is that all of the alternatives as as bad, only even more protracted.
The more this goes on the more I have to ask - whither Egypt? They have been perfectly happy to use the Gazans as political pawns for decades. They have maintained Gaza as a prison camp, in the clear hope that Israel will get the blame and thus start the process to end Israel.
Incentivise people to trade down once their kids have flown the nest, to leave larger houses for growing families.
How do you propose to do this without it being perceived as (or actually being) another massive bung to the elderly?
Unclear how many would take it, anyway, if they haven't already been drawn by the cashback inherent in downsizing. I know somebody who now lives alone in what was once the family five bedroom house -- but when the kids and grandkids are back for Christmas or Easter the house is full. I'm not sure they'd be very keen to give that up.
It’s more about removing the disincentive of stamp duty.
Perhaps remove the PPR relief from main residences but allow a rollover for new main residence purchase within, say, 36 months.
Use the funds to reduce stamp duty (and perhaps focus it on those downsizing)
Stamp duty should be abolished, along with Council Tax, and rolled into a LVT.
Taxing mobility is completely the wrong attitude.
LVT is morally wrong. People shouldn’t be forced to make land economically productive if they don’t want to. And they shouldn’t be penalised for that choice.
Just have a tax on residential property values and fix council funding at the same time. It’s easy to determine and has minimal bureaucracy.
If you are worried about land banking deal with it another way
On housing, bizarre conversation the other evening with similarly retired neighbours along the lines of: "Labour seem to be going to allow building anywhere - it's crazy." "We'll we do need more houses." "Yes but they should put them where there are already houses, not new sites."
Then later, when we mentioned we are looking to downsize because our garden is far too big for us now: "Can't you sell of half your garden for a couple of houses?" Er no, building in our village is absolutely verboten by our wonderful Local NIMBY Plan.
If a person's advantage is dependent on them not understanding a truth, then they will refuse to understand it.
There is a poster here who that remark reminds me of. Quite strongly.
Incentivise people to trade down once their kids have flown the nest, to leave larger houses for growing families.
How do you propose to do this without it being perceived as (or actually being) another massive bung to the elderly?
Unclear how many would take it, anyway, if they haven't already been drawn by the cashback inherent in downsizing. I know somebody who now lives alone in what was once the family five bedroom house -- but when the kids and grandkids are back for Christmas or Easter the house is full. I'm not sure they'd be very keen to give that up.
It’s more about removing the disincentive of stamp duty.
Perhaps remove the PPR relief from main residences but allow a rollover for new main residence purchase within, say, 36 months.
Use the funds to reduce stamp duty (and perhaps focus it on those downsizing)
Stamp duty should be abolished, along with Council Tax, and rolled into a LVT.
Taxing mobility is completely the wrong attitude.
LVT is morally wrong. People shouldn’t be forced to make land economically productive if they don’t want to. And they shouldn’t be penalised for that choice.
Just have a tax on residential property values and fix council funding at the same time. It’s easy to determine and has minimal bureaucracy.
If you are worried about land banking deal with it another way
Its absolutely not morally wrong, it is morally reasonable.
The country only has a limited supply of land, if you own a portion of the countries land then it is reasonable you pay a portion of the countries running costs.
If you choose to make your land productive, or unproductive, that's reasonable. What's not reasonable is to expect others to pay for your unproductivity.
Taxing people's work is more morally wrong. People have their income taken off them and more taken off the more they work, how is that justifiable? But its necessary, so there's no alternative, but to be expected to pay upkeep for your country when you own a portion of it is not unreasonable.
Telling civilians to leave - and mobilising the diplomatic efforts to secure an exit into Egypt - suggests that Israel isn't going to bother fighting building to building. Its just going to level the place. Death by a thousand cuts or cut the leg off surgically.
As I said, no good solutions...
Indeed, its the only viable solution - destroy Hamas while the civilians aren't there.
Which makes it all the more shame on the Arab neighbours that they aren't taking refugees, because what's going to happen to these displaced people when Hamas are defeated? They're not going to have homes to return to.
Which in a war, happens, that's why countries offer refugee status to those in conflict, but nobody is here. Better for the civilians to be alive and elsewhere, than dead in a conflict they can't avoid. ;(
Gaza to be rebuilt or absorbed? What's the plan?
Maybe both?
If I were Netanyahu I would level everything North of the evacuation zone and not allow anyone back into it once done. Absorb and rebuild it but not as it was before, rebuild it as you want it to be without anyone from Hamas or a sympathiser being allowed back. If Hamas don't surrender unconditionally, then do the same with everything South of the evacuation zone.
Before anyone accuses me and thee of being genocidal, we know what this means. The horrible dilemma is that all of the alternatives as as bad, only even more protracted.
The more this goes on the more I have to ask - whither Egypt? They have been perfectly happy to use the Gazans as political pawns for decades. They have maintained Gaza as a prison camp, in the clear hope that Israel will get the blame and thus start the process to end Israel.
Civilians are fleeing south. What will Egypt do?
If I were Sisi, panic. A large number of refugees from Gaza might be the excuse for the Muslim Brotherhood or indeed the junior officers of the Egyptian army to do unto him as he did unto Morsi.
Telling civilians to leave - and mobilising the diplomatic efforts to secure an exit into Egypt - suggests that Israel isn't going to bother fighting building to building. Its just going to level the place. Death by a thousand cuts or cut the leg off surgically.
As I said, no good solutions...
Indeed, its the only viable solution - destroy Hamas while the civilians aren't there.
Which makes it all the more shame on the Arab neighbours that they aren't taking refugees, because what's going to happen to these displaced people when Hamas are defeated? They're not going to have homes to return to.
Which in a war, happens, that's why countries offer refugee status to those in conflict, but nobody is here. Better for the civilians to be alive and elsewhere, than dead in a conflict they can't avoid. ;(
Gaza to be rebuilt or absorbed? What's the plan?
I doubt they know yet. Gaza - the prison camp / terrorism base - cannot continue as it is. Remember that Gaza was essentially run as a big prison camp even when it was under Egyptian administration. I know that Its All Israel's Fault, but it really isn't.
The big comprehensive offer to Gaza could be absorption into Israel. Legal protection for citizens, legal penalties for criminals and terrorists. Live in peace as part of the only democracy in the region. Its not as if the arab neighbours have any interests in their welfare, is it?
Why would Israel, a nation of 7 million, absorb 2 million more people with the rights that come with it, including voting.
Observer reporting that Starmer plans to pull detailed plans for social care reform out of the forthcoming manifesto.
So, another five years ahead where nothing is done about the appalling social care situation and it will remain not only a source of considerable hardship and fear to many but a block on clearing nhs hospital beds.
The hyper caution is becoming too much now.
Pulling it from the manifesto isn't the same as not doing anything once elected. The Tories are going after them. They have legally doubled the party spend limit (so must have the money) and will throw everything they have at stopping Labour.
And for good reason - the corruption commissioner that Reeves has promised will go after all the money corruptly stolen by Tory spiv mates and not stop until it has money returned and likely people in jail.
So Labour have to be cautious. The Tories will pick at everything. That doesn't mean they will be cautious once elected to office. Those Starmer 5 missions are big and comprehensive. They if nothing else will drive the policy agenda.
I suspect an elected Starmer will prove quite a lot more radical (for good or ill) than the one seeking votes.
He has one job just now - to get elected. The rest will follow.
Incentivise people to trade down once their kids have flown the nest, to leave larger houses for growing families.
How do you propose to do this without it being perceived as (or actually being) another massive bung to the elderly?
Unclear how many would take it, anyway, if they haven't already been drawn by the cashback inherent in downsizing. I know somebody who now lives alone in what was once the family five bedroom house -- but when the kids and grandkids are back for Christmas or Easter the house is full. I'm not sure they'd be very keen to give that up.
It’s more about removing the disincentive of stamp duty.
Perhaps remove the PPR relief from main residences but allow a rollover for new main residence purchase within, say, 36 months.
Use the funds to reduce stamp duty (and perhaps focus it on those downsizing)
Stamp duty should be abolished, along with Council Tax, and rolled into a LVT.
Taxing mobility is completely the wrong attitude.
Agree. And the LVT should be brought in as a stealth reform of council tax.
That's pretty much exactly the Proportional Property Tax proposals that I have been arguing for for several years.
Tax on property, Mr W, or on site value? Not the same thing at all.
The Israel/Gaza conflict has the potential to entirely upend our politics, and render worthy questions - like this threader - sadly irrelevant
Hope I’m wrong. But in a few weeks or months we might see regular terror attacks in Europe - including the UK - and something like civil strife in big European cities
What will that do the election? Change the narrative entirely. But it might not benefit the Tories
No, it really doesn't.
As ugly as it is, its a distant war that is never going to affect household budgets as much as housing costs do.
Housing is the number one priority issue in this country today, by far. The only people who think otherwise, are those fortunate enough not to need to worry about paying rent or now not needing to worry about remortgaging either.
No it isn't. Housing is in 5th place behind: The Economy, Health, Immigration and Environment.
But it is our attitudes to property and housing which have damaged the economy.
In many areas of the country, the dominant spending out of people’s income is housing.
Whether rented or paying the mortgage.
If the cost of housing halved, millions of people would have more money to spend on other stuff. They could even afford to pay more tax, if that’s what floats your boat.
It is certainly mortgage costs rising due to higher interest rates after the Truss budget which has hit the party the most. The Conservatives even won a landslide in 2019 despite losing most voters under 40 who rent, however post the Truss budget (and despite Sunak and Hunt cutting inflation enough to stabilise rates), they have lost most under 60s and those with a mortgage to Labour too.
So yes getting more affordable homes built to help 30 to 40s get on the housing ladder is important but for Conservative electoral chances getting inflation and interest rates down is the most important target of all
Telling civilians to leave - and mobilising the diplomatic efforts to secure an exit into Egypt - suggests that Israel isn't going to bother fighting building to building. Its just going to level the place. Death by a thousand cuts or cut the leg off surgically.
As I said, no good solutions...
Indeed, its the only viable solution - destroy Hamas while the civilians aren't there.
Which makes it all the more shame on the Arab neighbours that they aren't taking refugees, because what's going to happen to these displaced people when Hamas are defeated? They're not going to have homes to return to.
Which in a war, happens, that's why countries offer refugee status to those in conflict, but nobody is here. Better for the civilians to be alive and elsewhere, than dead in a conflict they can't avoid. ;(
Gaza to be rebuilt or absorbed? What's the plan?
I doubt they know yet. Gaza - the prison camp / terrorism base - cannot continue as it is. Remember that Gaza was essentially run as a big prison camp even when it was under Egyptian administration. I know that Its All Israel's Fault, but it really isn't.
The big comprehensive offer to Gaza could be absorption into Israel. Legal protection for citizens, legal penalties for criminals and terrorists. Live in peace as part of the only democracy in the region. Its not as if the arab neighbours have any interests in their welfare, is it?
Why would Israel, a nation of 7 million, absorb 2 million more people with the rights that come with it, including voting.
They won't.
They might make the offer to the West Bank - not that it would be likely to be accepted - but ever since 2005-6 their policy has clearly been to ensure Gaza, or at least its population, can never be part of Israel.
Observer reporting that Starmer plans to pull detailed plans for social care reform out of the forthcoming manifesto.
So, another five years ahead where nothing is done about the appalling social care situation and it will remain not only a source of considerable hardship and fear to many but a block on clearing nhs hospital beds.
The hyper caution is becoming too much now.
Pulling it from the manifesto isn't the same as not doing anything once elected. The Tories are going after them. They have legally doubled the party spend limit (so must have the money) and will throw everything they have at stopping Labour.
And for good reason - the corruption commissioner that Reeves has promised will go after all the money corruptly stolen by Tory spiv mates and not stop until it has money returned and likely people in jail.
So Labour have to be cautious. The Tories will pick at everything. That doesn't mean they will be cautious once elected to office. Those Starmer 5 missions are big and comprehensive. They if nothing else will drive the policy agenda.
Those dastardly Tories. Doing their job and challenging the oppositions promises and commitments.
If only labour had the courage of their convictions to stand by what they believe in and respond to any challenge robustly.
I'm not voting Labour. But I understand Starmer's problem. The Tories - and their spiv owners - are so desperate to keep Labour out that they will say and do anything.
But (to take the question that the Conservatives seemed to stop thinking about a while back... Maybe under Dave in 2015.)
Suppose you get what you want. What happens after that?
Imagine the Conservatives do have to come up with government for the period 2024-8. After the dopamine rush of victory subsides, what the hell do they do about the problems they have inherited from themselves?
It's going to be hard enough for Labour, and they have at least a bit of freedom to ditch things Sunak has said and done.
Telling civilians to leave - and mobilising the diplomatic efforts to secure an exit into Egypt - suggests that Israel isn't going to bother fighting building to building. Its just going to level the place. Death by a thousand cuts or cut the leg off surgically.
As I said, no good solutions...
Indeed, its the only viable solution - destroy Hamas while the civilians aren't there.
Which makes it all the more shame on the Arab neighbours that they aren't taking refugees, because what's going to happen to these displaced people when Hamas are defeated? They're not going to have homes to return to.
Which in a war, happens, that's why countries offer refugee status to those in conflict, but nobody is here. Better for the civilians to be alive and elsewhere, than dead in a conflict they can't avoid. ;(
Gaza to be rebuilt or absorbed? What's the plan?
I doubt they know yet. Gaza - the prison camp / terrorism base - cannot continue as it is. Remember that Gaza was essentially run as a big prison camp even when it was under Egyptian administration. I know that Its All Israel's Fault, but it really isn't.
The big comprehensive offer to Gaza could be absorption into Israel. Legal protection for citizens, legal penalties for criminals and terrorists. Live in peace as part of the only democracy in the region. Its not as if the arab neighbours have any interests in their welfare, is it?
Why would Israel, a nation of 7 million, absorb 2 million more people with the rights that come with it, including voting.
They won't absorb 2 million. A tenth of that maybe. the rest will insist in living as "refugees", imprisoned in northern Sinai by the Egyptians.
As I said a few posts ago, the Palestinians are not interested in any deal. Neither are their arab neighbours. Palestine - never independent - simply is a political pawn for the rest of the region who want to remove the jew.
As has just been pointed out, the arrival of Hamas in the refugees into Sinai could spark Egypt off again. So Egypt does not want Hamas either. The simple truth is that when push comes to shove, it is in the interests of both sides to eradicate Hamas. Only Iran wants them.
On housing, bizarre conversation the other evening with similarly retired neighbours along the lines of: "Labour seem to be going to allow building anywhere - it's crazy." "We'll we do need more houses." "Yes but they should put them where there are already houses, not new sites."
Then later, when we mentioned we are looking to downsize because our garden is far too big for us now: "Can't you sell of half your garden for a couple of houses?" Er no, building in our village is absolutely verboten by our wonderful Local NIMBY Plan.
The lack of self awareness exhibited by many older people on the issue of housing is rather spectacular.
The problem is too many have an attitude that housing costs are "assets" rather than costs to have a roof over your head.
And that mentality has been encouraged by the Bank of England, even though the Treasury doesn't levy CGT on primary homes quite rightly as it recognises that housing is a cost not an asset there.
We need to smash the mentality of houses being an asset and the first step of that reform needs to be with the Bank of England which should include house prices directly into the basket of goods for inflation.
And putting up some barriers to foreign ownership, and making owning additional properties left empty punatively expensive
Actually I'll disagree on the last one. Owning additional properties should face an LVT but in a healthy economy 10% of properties are normally empty.
That allows both buyers and renters a choice and an opportunity to turn down run-down, poor quality or expensive homes.
That then allows people to buy homes cheaper and renovate them if require.
We need more empty homes not fewer, but firstly we need more homes.
Simply resolved by only being punative after the first six months.
The properties in central London owned by Chinese and Russian and African criminalsinvestors sitting empty the entire year, held as some mix of bolthole and investment, and subject to a fraction of the property tax you'd pay in most other European countries, are a scandal
Wasn’t there a massive tower block property on the river in London (Battersea?) which sold completely off-plan in a couple of months from roadshows in Shanghai and Riyadh? Now it’s completed but almost no-one lives there. Several hundred apartments.
Observer reporting that Starmer plans to pull detailed plans for social care reform out of the forthcoming manifesto.
So, another five years ahead where nothing is done about the appalling social care situation and it will remain not only a source of considerable hardship and fear to many but a block on clearing nhs hospital beds.
The hyper caution is becoming too much now.
Pulling it from the manifesto isn't the same as not doing anything once elected. The Tories are going after them. They have legally doubled the party spend limit (so must have the money) and will throw everything they have at stopping Labour.
And for good reason - the corruption commissioner that Reeves has promised will go after all the money corruptly stolen by Tory spiv mates and not stop until it has money returned and likely people in jail.
So Labour have to be cautious. The Tories will pick at everything. That doesn't mean they will be cautious once elected to office. Those Starmer 5 missions are big and comprehensive. They if nothing else will drive the policy agenda.
Those dastardly Tories. Doing their job and challenging the oppositions promises and commitments.
If only labour had the courage of their convictions to stand by what they believe in and respond to any challenge robustly.
I'm not voting Labour. But I understand Starmer's problem. The Tories - and their spiv owners - are so desperate to keep Labour out that they will say and do anything.
But (to take the question that the Conservatives seemed to stop thinking about a while back... Maybe under Dave in 2015.)
Suppose you get what you want. What happens after that?
Imagine the Conservatives do have to come up with government for the period 2024-8. After the dopamine rush of victory subsides, what the hell do they do about the problems they have inherited from themselves?
It's going to be hard enough for Labour, and they have at least a bit of freedom to ditch things Sunak has said and done.
Telling civilians to leave - and mobilising the diplomatic efforts to secure an exit into Egypt - suggests that Israel isn't going to bother fighting building to building. Its just going to level the place. Death by a thousand cuts or cut the leg off surgically.
As I said, no good solutions...
Indeed, its the only viable solution - destroy Hamas while the civilians aren't there.
Which makes it all the more shame on the Arab neighbours that they aren't taking refugees, because what's going to happen to these displaced people when Hamas are defeated? They're not going to have homes to return to.
Which in a war, happens, that's why countries offer refugee status to those in conflict, but nobody is here. Better for the civilians to be alive and elsewhere, than dead in a conflict they can't avoid. ;(
Gaza to be rebuilt or absorbed? What's the plan?
I doubt they know yet. Gaza - the prison camp / terrorism base - cannot continue as it is. Remember that Gaza was essentially run as a big prison camp even when it was under Egyptian administration. I know that Its All Israel's Fault, but it really isn't.
The big comprehensive offer to Gaza could be absorption into Israel. Legal protection for citizens, legal penalties for criminals and terrorists. Live in peace as part of the only democracy in the region. Its not as if the arab neighbours have any interests in their welfare, is it?
Give it to Egypt and get the west to throw a load of money at them. Whatever it's current problems surely Egypt would be far more able to absorb Gaza than Israel will. Would Egypt be able to get other Arab countries to accept refugees? Aren't there loads of migrant workers in the Gulf?
Would Sisi accept and could he get it past the public anyway?
The Israeli army has reportedly loosened its rules of engagement ahead of the expected ground invasion into the north of the Gaza Strip, amid heightened concerns over the level of civilian casualties the offensive could cause.
Three unnamed senior Israeli military officers told the New York Times that the loosened rules will allow Israeli soldiers to make fewer checks before shooting at suspected enemies.
The Israel/Gaza conflict has the potential to entirely upend our politics, and render worthy questions - like this threader - sadly irrelevant
Hope I’m wrong. But in a few weeks or months we might see regular terror attacks in Europe - including the UK - and something like civil strife in big European cities
What will that do the election? Change the narrative entirely. But it might not benefit the Tories
No, it really doesn't.
As ugly as it is, its a distant war that is never going to affect household budgets as much as housing costs do.
Housing is the number one priority issue in this country today, by far. The only people who think otherwise, are those fortunate enough not to need to worry about paying rent or now not needing to worry about remortgaging either.
No it isn't. Housing is in 5th place behind: The Economy, Health, Immigration and Environment.
But it is our attitudes to property and housing which have damaged the economy.
In many areas of the country, the dominant spending out of people’s income is housing.
Whether rented or paying the mortgage.
If the cost of housing halved, millions of people would have more money to spend on other stuff. They could even afford to pay more tax, if that’s what floats your boat.
And that means moving the supply-demand balance to a point where the market price isn't "every last penny you have and then some".
That's going to take a lot of homes, and probably a not-entirely-commercial body to build them.
Telling civilians to leave - and mobilising the diplomatic efforts to secure an exit into Egypt - suggests that Israel isn't going to bother fighting building to building. Its just going to level the place. Death by a thousand cuts or cut the leg off surgically.
As I said, no good solutions...
Indeed, its the only viable solution - destroy Hamas while the civilians aren't there.
Which makes it all the more shame on the Arab neighbours that they aren't taking refugees, because what's going to happen to these displaced people when Hamas are defeated? They're not going to have homes to return to.
Which in a war, happens, that's why countries offer refugee status to those in conflict, but nobody is here. Better for the civilians to be alive and elsewhere, than dead in a conflict they can't avoid. ;(
Gaza to be rebuilt or absorbed? What's the plan?
I doubt they know yet. Gaza - the prison camp / terrorism base - cannot continue as it is. Remember that Gaza was essentially run as a big prison camp even when it was under Egyptian administration. I know that Its All Israel's Fault, but it really isn't.
The big comprehensive offer to Gaza could be absorption into Israel. Legal protection for citizens, legal penalties for criminals and terrorists. Live in peace as part of the only democracy in the region. Its not as if the arab neighbours have any interests in their welfare, is it?
Why would Israel, a nation of 7 million, absorb 2 million more people with the rights that come with it, including voting.
They won't absorb 2 million. A tenth of that maybe. the rest will insist in living as "refugees", imprisoned in northern Sinai by the Egyptians.
As I said a few posts ago, the Palestinians are not interested in any deal. Neither are their arab neighbours. Palestine - never independent - simply is a political pawn for the rest of the region who want to remove the jew.
As has just been pointed out, the arrival of Hamas in the refugees into Sinai could spark Egypt off again. So Egypt does not want Hamas either. The simple truth is that when push comes to shove, it is in the interests of both sides to eradicate Hamas. Only Iran wants them.
Would I struggle to understand is how the Saudi normailsation with Iran (facilitated by China) can be squared with the peace with Israel stuff. Surely the former blew the latter prospect out of the water?
Telling civilians to leave - and mobilising the diplomatic efforts to secure an exit into Egypt - suggests that Israel isn't going to bother fighting building to building. Its just going to level the place. Death by a thousand cuts or cut the leg off surgically.
As I said, no good solutions...
Indeed, its the only viable solution - destroy Hamas while the civilians aren't there.
Which makes it all the more shame on the Arab neighbours that they aren't taking refugees, because what's going to happen to these displaced people when Hamas are defeated? They're not going to have homes to return to.
Which in a war, happens, that's why countries offer refugee status to those in conflict, but nobody is here. Better for the civilians to be alive and elsewhere, than dead in a conflict they can't avoid. ;(
Gaza to be rebuilt or absorbed? What's the plan?
I doubt they know yet. Gaza - the prison camp / terrorism base - cannot continue as it is. Remember that Gaza was essentially run as a big prison camp even when it was under Egyptian administration. I know that Its All Israel's Fault, but it really isn't.
The big comprehensive offer to Gaza could be absorption into Israel. Legal protection for citizens, legal penalties for criminals and terrorists. Live in peace as part of the only democracy in the region. Its not as if the arab neighbours have any interests in their welfare, is it?
Why would Israel, a nation of 7 million, absorb 2 million more people with the rights that come with it, including voting.
They won't absorb 2 million. A tenth of that maybe. the rest will insist in living as "refugees", imprisoned in northern Sinai by the Egyptians.
As I said a few posts ago, the Palestinians are not interested in any deal. Neither are their arab neighbours. Palestine - never independent - simply is a political pawn for the rest of the region who want to remove the jew.
As has just been pointed out, the arrival of Hamas in the refugees into Sinai could spark Egypt off again. So Egypt does not want Hamas either. The simple truth is that when push comes to shove, it is in the interests of both sides to eradicate Hamas. Only Iran wants them.
Would I struggle to understand is how the Saudi normailsation with Iran (facilitated by China) can be squared with the peace with Israel stuff. Surely the former blew the latter prospect out of the water?
The Saudis are trying to develop their economy away from oil, they want their Red Sea coast to be Dubai on steroids, a tourist magnet to people from all over the world - which doesn’t work if there’s a massive war going on close by. Hence the talks with everyone in the region to try and achieve peace. The Saudis are as furious as anyone, that once again Iran (and to some extent Qatar) are choosing war rather than peace, weapons and not trade, Sunni against Shia.
BBC take seems to be that the reason the proposal failed was it actually didn't even go far enough.....
How do you get that from reading the article ?
Or did you note only the reported comments which offended you ?
None of it "offends" me, as I have no horse in the race.
But the balance is laughable.
"Prime Minister Anthony Albanese argued the Voice vote could unite Australia. But others remained convinced such a proposal would divide it. It also faced criticism from a bloc of Indigenous people who believed it wouldn't be powerful enough. Others saw it is a symbolic gesture and believed that money could be better spent on immediate solutions."
So, basically its too weak...
vs
Outside a polling booth on Saturday, the 76-year-old said he was not opposed to the idea of the Voice - he just wanted to keep it out of the nation's founding document..."I voted No....contested claim that the referendum could make Indigenous people "more equal" than other Australians.... "I've been disappointed in the No campaign to be honest,....there's a part of me that hopes the Yes vote wins because I think there are so many people who are emotionally tied to this."
But it "contested" claim, followed up the No is actually a Yes and the No campaign has been dishonest.
It's a report from Darwin - which is the smallest of Australia's capitals, and has a disproportionately high indigenous population compared with the rest of the country. So you ought not to be massively surprised that it focuses on the reaction of the indigenous population to a referendum which was about them.
And I think you have spun the first paragraph in a way that doesn't bear analysis.
The Israeli army has reportedly loosened its rules of engagement ahead of the expected ground invasion into the north of the Gaza Strip, amid heightened concerns over the level of civilian casualties the offensive could cause.
Three unnamed senior Israeli military officers told the New York Times that the loosened rules will allow Israeli soldiers to make fewer checks before shooting at suspected enemies.
An Israeli patrol, full of young soldiers, bumps into a group of fighting age Palestinian males. They're not going to radio up the chain of command to get permission. It'll be shoot now, sort the paperwork out later.
Telling civilians to leave - and mobilising the diplomatic efforts to secure an exit into Egypt - suggests that Israel isn't going to bother fighting building to building. Its just going to level the place. Death by a thousand cuts or cut the leg off surgically.
As I said, no good solutions...
Indeed, its the only viable solution - destroy Hamas while the civilians aren't there.
Which makes it all the more shame on the Arab neighbours that they aren't taking refugees, because what's going to happen to these displaced people when Hamas are defeated? They're not going to have homes to return to.
Which in a war, happens, that's why countries offer refugee status to those in conflict, but nobody is here. Better for the civilians to be alive and elsewhere, than dead in a conflict they can't avoid. ;(
Gaza to be rebuilt or absorbed? What's the plan?
Maybe both?
If I were Netanyahu I would level everything North of the evacuation zone and not allow anyone back into it once done. Absorb and rebuild it but not as it was before, rebuild it as you want it to be without anyone from Hamas or a sympathiser being allowed back. If Hamas don't surrender unconditionally, then do the same with everything South of the evacuation zone.
Before anyone accuses me and thee of being genocidal, we know what this means. The horrible dilemma is that all of the alternatives as as bad, only even more protracted.
The more this goes on the more I have to ask - whither Egypt? They have been perfectly happy to use the Gazans as political pawns for decades. They have maintained Gaza as a prison camp, in the clear hope that Israel will get the blame and thus start the process to end Israel.
Civilians are fleeing south. What will Egypt do?
If I were Sisi, panic. A large number of refugees from Gaza might be the excuse for the Muslim Brotherhood or indeed the junior officers of the Egyptian army to do unto him as he did unto Morsi.
I wonder if that is what Iran's strategy is? When the Muslim Brotherhood came to power in Egypt they normalised relations with Iran.
Comments
Which do you think is disgraceful?
1: Deliberately dismembering and murdering children?
2: Warning civilians to evacuate a conflict zone so they're not accidentally killed while fighting the enemy while at war.
For me one of those is, one is not. For you?
Go on. You know you want to click on it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f6HuAhJ0k5E
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-67114612
BBC take seems to be that the reason the proposal failed was it actually didn't even go far enough.....
So, another five years ahead where nothing is done about the appalling social care situation and it will remain not only a source of considerable hardship and fear to many but a block on clearing nhs hospital beds.
The hyper caution is becoming too much now.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2023/10/14/bbc-arabic-reporters-back-hamas-anti-israel-bias/
I was ‘asked’ to join my neighbours in signing a petition but refused; it will devalue your house I was told, angrily.
The corporation said it was “urgently investigating” on Saturday after social media activity by several of its journalists in the Middle East appeared to celebrate the attack which left approximately 1,300 dead.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2023/10/14/bbc-arabic-reporters-back-hamas-anti-israel-bias/
Governing will be much harder but I'm not sure how much it will be tied to their manifesto, my guess is not that much (which others will decry, but I prefer the concept of voting for people rather than often impossible to deliver plans).
(I actually think it was just a card Netanyahu has played to get more concessions/support from the US).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bidet_shower
24 hours has passed and anyone who hasn't moved is still getting an opportunity to do so, its not like Gaza City was levelled at 24 hours on the dot.
What exactly in your view should Israel be able to do to destroy Hamas in this war?
Hamas are committing war crimes by using civilians as a human shield, Israel giving a warning to civilians is giving a warning to Hamas fighters too, but they've done the right thing and still you complain.
It is now getting to a point (there have been other recent examples where the coverage has also caused me concern) where I am really questioning whether it continues to be my go-to news source, and that is terribly depressing when I think of how much pride I used to feel in having it as my national broadcaster.
Is it any wonder that people are turning off from “mainstream media” and populists are able to exploit people’s distrust?
Can they see their own biases? Is it wilful intent to be partial or is it just confirmation bias? Whichever, they need to Do Better.
Economics they seem much better to provide some balance, but there are particularly social issues where it is inconceivable that there isn't a settled consensus and only fringe extreme views are against it.
And for good reason - the corruption commissioner that Reeves has promised will go after all the money corruptly stolen by Tory spiv mates and not stop until it has money returned and likely people in jail.
So Labour have to be cautious. The Tories will pick at everything. That doesn't mean they will be cautious once elected to office. Those Starmer 5 missions are big and comprehensive. They if nothing else will drive the policy agenda.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-67110119
Foxy's description was inaccurate by omission - a fairly important omission.
I worry hugely about an invasion of Gaza now - not just because of the inevitable casualties - but because I fear that it will be a strategic mistake similar to its intervention in Lebanon, because Israel does not seem to have an answer to the "what happens after?" question, much as the US did not in Iraq.
And because, naive fool that I am, I think now would be a time to make a generous offer to Palestinians for a world after and without Hamas, one which might undercut them. I see no prospect of that with the current Israeli leadership. And whatever Israel does it will be criticised and many of those criticising it (not @Foxy) are those who will never ever give it the benefit of the doubt or accept that it should defend itself or that it should even exist.
There are many good faith criticisms of Israel. But there are an awful lot of very bad faith ones. And very often a failure to distinguish between the two.
You'll be calling him an appeaser next.
Better to give a 24 hour warning and mean 5 days, than to give a 5 day warning which isn't taken seriously for 4 days then millions get caught up in the crossfire.
1. Palestinians will not accept an offer, generous or otherwise
2. If Israel takes out a few Hamas leaders and then stops, Hamas declare victory and plan their next spectacular
3. Israel could get bogged down into a protracted ground war in Gaza which would inevitably pile up civilian bodies and hand victory to Hamas as Israel eventually withdraws
With the US intervening in a big way (2 Carrier Groups) I can't see how Israel isn't going to run up a number 6. Which for the people who haven't seen Blazing Saddles in a while is "riding into town whipping and a whupping every living thing within an inch of its life".
Telling civilians to leave - and mobilising the diplomatic efforts to secure an exit into Egypt - suggests that Israel isn't going to bother fighting building to building. Its just going to level the place. Death by a thousand cuts or cut the leg off surgically.
As I said, no good solutions...
The Tories are so ill-suited to dealing with this impending crisis that most of their members and many of their MPs will find a way to blame wind turbines for it.
Which makes it all the more shame on the Arab neighbours that they aren't taking refugees, because what's going to happen to these displaced people when Hamas are defeated? They're not going to have homes to return to.
Which in a war, happens, that's why countries offer refugee status to those in conflict, but nobody is here. Better for the civilians to be alive and elsewhere, than dead in a conflict they can't avoid. ;(
https://twitter.com/israel_advocacy/status/1713292628035338617
I wonder if the time has come for the silent majority to stand up? Children should not be in fear of going to school, people should not be afraid to attend religious buildings or feel unable to wear symbols of their identity in the United Kingdom.
I wonder if marches or events will be organised? There were some in the Labour party such as Harriet Harman who chose to stand with Jewish people during the Corbynite years.
If only labour had the courage of their convictions to stand by what they believe in and respond to any challenge robustly.
Similarly, you don't have to agree with the viewpoint of this report from the West Bank to see the effect it's likely to have:
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/10/14/letter-from-the-west-bank-00121416
https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/v1/rule78
Got to feel sorry for him. He anguish and pain is hard to hide. He seemed on the verge of tears. Sometimes we have to remember there is a person behind the politician.
That allows both buyers and renters a choice and an opportunity to turn down run-down, poor quality or expensive homes.
That then allows people to buy homes cheaper and renovate them if require.
We need more empty homes not fewer, but firstly we need more homes.
If I were Netanyahu I would level everything North of the evacuation zone and not allow anyone back into it once done. Absorb and rebuild it but not as it was before, rebuild it as you want it to be without anyone from Hamas or a sympathiser being allowed back. If Hamas don't surrender unconditionally, then do the same with everything South of the evacuation zone.
Far-right racism still exists, but they aren't going to march through London openly chanting NF type stuff these days. But antisemites not only feel they can, they are allowed to do so.
Or did you note only the reported comments which offended you ?
The properties in central London owned by Chinese and Russian and African criminalsinvestors sitting empty the entire year, held as some mix of bolthole and investment, and subject to a fraction of the property tax you'd pay in most other European countries, are a scandal
The big comprehensive offer to Gaza could be absorption into Israel. Legal protection for citizens, legal penalties for criminals and terrorists. Live in peace as part of the only democracy in the region. Its not as if the arab neighbours have any interests in their welfare, is it?
If house prices are going down, and property taxes are higher, then investing in property ceases to be an attractive proposition.
But the balance is laughable.
"Prime Minister Anthony Albanese argued the Voice vote could unite Australia. But others remained convinced such a proposal would divide it. It also faced criticism from a bloc of Indigenous people who believed it wouldn't be powerful enough. Others saw it is a symbolic gesture and believed that money could be better spent on immediate solutions."
So, basically its too weak...
vs
Outside a polling booth on Saturday, the 76-year-old said he was not opposed to the idea of the Voice - he just wanted to keep it out of the nation's founding document..."I voted No....contested claim that the referendum could make Indigenous people "more equal" than other Australians.... "I've been disappointed in the No campaign to be honest,....there's a part of me that hopes the Yes vote wins because I think there are so many people who are emotionally tied to this."
But it "contested" claim, followed up the No is actually a Yes and the No campaign has been dishonest.
https://x.com/glcarlstrom/status/1713437288594554913?s=61&t=s0ae0IFncdLS1Dc7J0P_TQ
The more this goes on the more I have to ask - whither Egypt? They have been perfectly happy to use the Gazans as political pawns for decades. They have maintained Gaza as a prison camp, in the clear hope that Israel will get the blame and thus start the process to end Israel.
Civilians are fleeing south. What will Egypt do?
Just have a tax on residential property values and fix council funding at the same time. It’s easy to determine and has minimal bureaucracy.
If you are worried about land banking deal with it another way
The country only has a limited supply of land, if you own a portion of the countries land then it is reasonable you pay a portion of the countries running costs.
If you choose to make your land productive, or unproductive, that's reasonable. What's not reasonable is to expect others to pay for your unproductivity.
Taxing people's work is more morally wrong. People have their income taken off them and more taken off the more they work, how is that justifiable? But its necessary, so there's no alternative, but to be expected to pay upkeep for your country when you own a portion of it is not unreasonable.
Weren't they 116 WL after 16 overs?
He has one job just now - to get elected. The rest will follow.
Whether rented or paying the mortgage.
If the cost of housing halved, millions of people would have more money to spend on other stuff. They could even afford to pay more tax, if that’s what floats your boat.
So yes getting more affordable homes built to help 30 to 40s get on the housing ladder is important but for Conservative electoral chances getting inflation and interest rates down is the most important target of all
They might make the offer to the West Bank - not that it would be likely to be accepted - but ever since 2005-6 their policy has clearly been to ensure Gaza, or at least its population, can never be part of Israel.
Suppose you get what you want. What happens after that?
Imagine the Conservatives do have to come up with government for the period 2024-8. After the dopamine rush of victory subsides, what the hell do they do about the problems they have inherited from themselves?
It's going to be hard enough for Labour, and they have at least a bit of freedom to ditch things Sunak has said and done.
As I said a few posts ago, the Palestinians are not interested in any deal. Neither are their arab neighbours. Palestine - never independent - simply is a political pawn for the rest of the region who want to remove the jew.
As has just been pointed out, the arrival of Hamas in the refugees into Sinai could spark Egypt off again. So Egypt does not want Hamas either. The simple truth is that when push comes to shove, it is in the interests of both sides to eradicate Hamas. Only Iran wants them.
Would Sisi accept and could he get it past the public anyway?
https://twitter.com/nonstopeurotrip/status/1713471107582595281
Three unnamed senior Israeli military officers told the New York Times that the loosened rules will allow Israeli soldiers to make fewer checks before shooting at suspected enemies.
That's going to take a lot of homes, and probably a not-entirely-commercial body to build them.
So you ought not to be massively surprised that it focuses on the reaction of the indigenous population to a referendum which was about them.
And I think you have spun the first paragraph in a way that doesn't bear analysis.