Horrific violence that violates fundamental norms of humanity has claimed the lives of over 1,200 in Israel and 1,400 Palestinians, including 447 children.
The way that war is conducted matters. The IRC is calling on the international community to ensure the following: (1/8)
So are you taking the position essentially expressed by the Twitter/X OP that there is no comparison between the deaths of civilians at the hands of Hamas and the deaths of civilians at the hands of the Israeli state? I thought the whole point of universal human rights and such was that all peoples should be considered of equal worth and, when it comes to even just wars, civilians should not be targeted?
Most of the Palestinian deaths were Hamas combatants, most of the Israeli deaths civilians.
I do not regard them as morally equivalent.
Do you?
Where are you getting the evidence that most of the deaths in Gaza have been of Hamas combatants? Is it only Hamas combatants that are living in tower blocks or using hospitals? The death toll in Gaza is almost 2.5k, with almost 10k casualties. Latest number suggest just over 700 Palestinian children have been killed in air strikes in Gaza, which makes sense given the average age there. Are they mostly Hamas?
I think the deaths of any civilians are equally important, yes. Israel has stated specifically that they are going for a disproportionate response to the attack by Hamas, which is unacceptable.
Which of Hamas and Israel is trying to minimise civilian casualties, and which set out to maximise them?
The voting system isn't crooked, everyone starts each election with zero votes and then the voters decide. Just put forward what you believe in and convince the most voters to back you. If you can't do that, take some responsibility for your own actions.
And Labour and Lib Dems aren't interchangeable. If they were, they'd be the same party not two very different ones.
FWIW my view is that the LibDems were wrong to target the seat and even now should ease off since it's really clear they're not in a position to win and they're simply increasing the chance that the Tories will hold the seat.
But to respond to your point, after talking to hundreds of voters over the weekend, it's clear that most voters don't see the parties as different in any significant way, and the appeals for tactical voting strengthen that perception (nobody asks for tactical votes from Reform UK, do they?). That might be a mistake - after all, we can all point to policy differences - but they elude the only vaguely engaged voter. After Starmer's move to the centre, and the general perception that the LibDems (and even, bizarrely, the Corbynite Greens) are centrists, what floating voters see is three similar parties squabbling, and it annoys them. In some cases it even means they don't vote for any of us.
I'm not actually arguing against tactical voting. But it would be good if the non-Tory parties agreed on some basic principles which respect the right of every party to make an effort:
1. The party that sees itself in the best position in win should use phrases like ". The Tories are [usual criticisms]. If you want to vote tactically to get them out, lend us your vote because ...". Don't use voodoo polls or disproportionate bar charts.
2. If a party can see that they're not in a position to win, they should argue for a positive vote. "You only get the chance to say how you think the country should be run every 4-5 years. Don't waste your vote on parochial and negative tactical voting, vote positively for us because..."
You'll still see parties who both think they can win adopting the first strategy, but put like that it avoids actually pissing everyone off, including the voters who we're all trying to impress.
"(and even, bizarrely, the Corbynite Greens) are centrists"
Corbyn's policies were, in general, popular with the majority of voters. Even the majority of Tory voters are happy with the idea of renationalising lots of essential things - electricity, rail, water. Green policy is radical, that's why I support them, but the "mainstream" idea of where the centre is policy wise is dead off imho.
I don't know the Green Party in Beds, they may be an actual centrist local branch (I consider my branch here in Herts quite centrist). I know lots of Greens in Tory areas tend to be on the pragmatic / conservationist side of the general green movement, versus the more radical wings amongst younger Greens and those from the cities.
Yes, once you got away from the identity politics stuff, a lot of Corbyn's more more traditional politics (nationalisation, what the state spends its money on, etc) were popular. What they were not were credible. People liked them, but didn't believe the money raised by taxing other people would pay for them. So they didn't vote for them.
More people voted Labour in 2017 than at any other time this Century
Yet they still lost to Theresa May. That and the Brexit vote and the 2019 Boris Johnson win makes you despair of this country.
I wonder how many of the US ones are private/civil rather than state/government? I suspect we know the answer for China....
There is a huge difference between people having a Ring doorbell cameras and a camera on a tall pole in the middle of a street that feeds a government controlled surveillance system. It's stupid to just count the numbers.
I mean personally I have more concern about the Ring doorbell cameras on people's doors. CCTV, from my understanding, has a system of checks to make sure police aren't abusing it. Ring just sells the data straight to the cops (in the US at least), and allows profiteering off of the modern Panopticon.
We had CCTV fitted about 6 years ago (4 cameras, basically covering the 4 quadrants around the house). When GDPR came in a year later, the supplier emailed us to say we had to register any cameras that show public spaces, with the ICO.
One of ours shows the road so I checked with the ICO website and at the time it looked like it was going to cost us £36 per year to register the camera (which for some reason I never got round to).
Checking now they seem to have given up on that requirement with the interesting quote that: "It is highly unlikely the ICO will consider it fair or balanced to take enforcement action against a domestic CCTV user."
Horrific violence that violates fundamental norms of humanity has claimed the lives of over 1,200 in Israel and 1,400 Palestinians, including 447 children.
The way that war is conducted matters. The IRC is calling on the international community to ensure the following: (1/8)
So are you taking the position essentially expressed by the Twitter/X OP that there is no comparison between the deaths of civilians at the hands of Hamas and the deaths of civilians at the hands of the Israeli state? I thought the whole point of universal human rights and such was that all peoples should be considered of equal worth and, when it comes to even just wars, civilians should not be targeted?
Most of the Palestinian deaths were Hamas combatants, most of the Israeli deaths civilians.
I do not regard them as morally equivalent.
Do you?
Where are you getting the evidence that most of the deaths in Gaza have been of Hamas combatants? Is it only Hamas combatants that are living in tower blocks or using hospitals? The death toll in Gaza is almost 2.5k, with almost 10k casualties. Latest number suggest just over 700 Palestinian children have been killed in air strikes in Gaza, which makes sense given the average age there. Are they mostly Hamas?
I think the deaths of any civilians are equally important, yes. Israel has stated specifically that they are going for a disproportionate response to the attack by Hamas, which is unacceptable.
Which of Hamas and Israel is trying to minimise civilian casualties, and which set out to maximise them?
Both seem to go out of their way to target civilians. But that didn't answer my question when I clearly answered yours.
Horrific violence that violates fundamental norms of humanity has claimed the lives of over 1,200 in Israel and 1,400 Palestinians, including 447 children.
The way that war is conducted matters. The IRC is calling on the international community to ensure the following: (1/8)
So are you taking the position essentially expressed by the Twitter/X OP that there is no comparison between the deaths of civilians at the hands of Hamas and the deaths of civilians at the hands of the Israeli state? I thought the whole point of universal human rights and such was that all peoples should be considered of equal worth and, when it comes to even just wars, civilians should not be targeted?
Most of the Palestinian deaths were Hamas combatants, most of the Israeli deaths civilians.
I do not regard them as morally equivalent.
Do you?
Given that the quoted Palestinian deaths specifically exlude the 1500 militants killed during the massacres I would suggest you are completely wrong on that. I see no reason to doubt that the vast majority of those killed in Gaza over the last week have been civilians - which is what the charities on the ground are saying.
Horrific violence that violates fundamental norms of humanity has claimed the lives of over 1,200 in Israel and 1,400 Palestinians, including 447 children.
The way that war is conducted matters. The IRC is calling on the international community to ensure the following: (1/8)
Seeing incumbents defeated in Poland and NZ, it makes me think that the US Republicans could, if they found an ordinary presidential candidate who seems like an average American, easily win the next Presidential election.
Although it has got missed in the last few days, it is worth looking at some of what has been happening regarding 2024 in the US, particularly at the state level.
One poll had Trump leading in Michigan by +7, two polls show ahead in PA (+9 / +2), Wisconsin by +2 and Iowa by +10. Another had Biden +9 in Illinois which he won by +17 in 2020.
State polls are notoriously unreliable and we are still 12+ months out but the consistency across the mid-West looks pretty clear.
Then there is the Louisiana Governor's race. Yes, no surprise the GOP won it back but the surprise was there was no run off - Louisiana is one of those states that the winner has to get 50%+. Trump's endorsed candidate Jeff Landry won with 52% beating the Democrat candidate by +26 in a state Trump won by +19. That probably underestimates the party split as the Democrat candidate had consolidated their vote but the Republicans had several candidates.
Against this are the Special Elections which have been more positive for the Democrats.
We will probably have a better idea of things post-Virginia's vote and also with Kentucky Governor's race but no signs yet Trump's indictments are hurting him and some evidence to suggest they are helping.
I wonder how many of the US ones are private/civil rather than state/government? I suspect we know the answer for China....
There is a huge difference between people having a Ring doorbell cameras and a camera on a tall pole in the middle of a street that feeds a government controlled surveillance system. It's stupid to just count the numbers.
I mean personally I have more concern about the Ring doorbell cameras on people's doors. CCTV, from my understanding, has a system of checks to make sure police aren't abusing it. Ring just sells the data straight to the cops (in the US at least), and allows profiteering off of the modern Panopticon.
CCTV in the UK maybe, but not in all other countries.
If people are comparing CCTV numbers in different countries it's idiotic to lump together all the different types of CCTV that exist as though they are the same. China operates massive face recognition CCTV networks, and integrates them with other biometric measures, it's not the same thing as a camera in a corner shop by the till or on somebody's front door. Counting camera numbers is utterly misleading.
Dr. Foxy, people, under PR, can indeed vote for what they want. And then have no guarantee of getting it if their chosen party trades away their preferred policy in coalition negotiations.
And under FPTP, they have no guarantee of getting it if their chosen party decides not to implement their favourite policy. We even had a court case on that some time back.
Of course, voters will remember at the next election. In both cases.
Dr. Foxy, people, under PR, can indeed vote for what they want. And then have no guarantee of getting it if their chosen party trades away their preferred policy in coalition negotiations.
In general people don't care about detailed policies. People don't read manifestos. I suspect that it is rare that a voter would agree with every policy in a manifesto if they cared to read it. There are typically dozens of policies.
People vote for a leader that they approve of and has a positive slogan and demeanour, not detailed policies.
Coalitions represent a majority of electors views, rather than the minority elected dictatorships we have to endure under FPTP.
That is clearly rubbish. The idea that a coalition is simply combining the votes of all those who voted for both parties is an assumption that cannot be made. The only thingh a coalition can be said to represent is the compromise views of the party leaders and, initially at least, the majority of the whipped views of the MPs.
That is clearly rubbish. A coalition is an agreement between the [two] parties on a slate of policies that they can both agree on. It therefore excludes unpopular policies that elected dictatorships under FPTP impose on the majority. Anyone can see that, with a bit of thought.
Horrific violence that violates fundamental norms of humanity has claimed the lives of over 1,200 in Israel and 1,400 Palestinians, including 447 children.
The way that war is conducted matters. The IRC is calling on the international community to ensure the following: (1/8)
So are you taking the position essentially expressed by the Twitter/X OP that there is no comparison between the deaths of civilians at the hands of Hamas and the deaths of civilians at the hands of the Israeli state? I thought the whole point of universal human rights and such was that all peoples should be considered of equal worth and, when it comes to even just wars, civilians should not be targeted?
Most of the Palestinian deaths were Hamas combatants, most of the Israeli deaths civilians.
I do not regard them as morally equivalent.
Do you?
Where are you getting the evidence that most of the deaths in Gaza have been of Hamas combatants? Is it only Hamas combatants that are living in tower blocks or using hospitals? The death toll in Gaza is almost 2.5k, with almost 10k casualties. Latest number suggest just over 700 Palestinian children have been killed in air strikes in Gaza, which makes sense given the average age there. Are they mostly Hamas?
I think the deaths of any civilians are equally important, yes. Israel has stated specifically that they are going for a disproportionate response to the attack by Hamas, which is unacceptable.
Which of Hamas and Israel is trying to minimise civilian casualties, and which set out to maximise them?
Neither are trying to minimise them. And of course suddenly when challenged you are changing your tack. Where is your evidence that most of those killed in Gaza in the last week are Hamas?
Dr. Foxy, people, under PR, can indeed vote for what they want. And then have no guarantee of getting it if their chosen party trades away their preferred policy in coalition negotiations.
In general people don't care about detailed policies. People don't read manifestos. I suspect that it is rare that a voter would agree with every policy in a manifesto if they cared to read it. There are typically dozens of policies.
People vote for a leader that they approve of and has a positive slogan and demeanour, not detailed policies.
Coalitions represent a majority of electors views, rather than the minority elected dictatorships we have to endure under FPTP.
That is clearly rubbish. The idea that a coalition is simply combining the votes of all those who voted for both parties is an assumption that cannot be made. The only thingh a coalition can be said to represent is the compromise views of the party leaders and, initially at least, the majority of the whipped views of the MPs.
I think, in the ideal world, coalitions are parties coming together in the interest of their voters and members by prioritising their manifesto pledges and trading what they can and can't do together with the interests of their potential coalition partner/s. Again, in an ideal world, I feel such coalition deals should be ratified by a direct vote of the party members (although in systems where coalitions are part of the norm, I assume it is just taken into account by voters and members when they join and vote for certain parties). In a party like GPEW, where party policy is member written and is (unofficially) prioritised - that could be an easy thing to do. For Tories, who generally eschew member democracy (because when you're the party of the aristocracy, for the aristocracy by the aristocracy, why would you let the plebs decide when you're clearly bred to rule?), this could be problematic.
Mr. Cooke, a fair point excepting that breaking a manifesto commitment is not meant to happen under FPTP, whereas it's part of the intended design of PR, as the process by which differing parties with differing manifestos can form a coalition.
I think this is a symptom of mid-term polling not being of great use. I think people say how they would like to vote rather than how they will. I expect the Lib Dem vote to rise.
Anyway, the week in polls piece says:
Or take the most recent Survation MRP for Greenpeace. By my calculations, it shows that there would be 64 seats won by the Conservatives in England where the combined Labour and Lib Dem vote would be higher than the Conservative share and also where there would be 15 points or less between the Labour and Lib Dem share (i.e. where there wouldn’t be a big third party tactical squeeze). That would be up from 41 at the 2019 general election.
That's not actually out of the question. In 1992, the Labour and Lib Dem vote was greater than the Conservative vote in 106 of the 336 seats won by the Tories. In 1997, it actually increased to 127 despite the Tories winning only 165 seats. That's what happens when a party loses a lot of votes.
It’s presumably not uncommon in most British constituencies for all parties? It must be fairly normal to win with 40% of the vote and have two main rivals on 50% between them (split in various ways).
Well, the evidence is in the data. Back in 1992 there were 106 such Tory seats. In 2019 there were 44 such seats.
Tactical voting has come a long way since the early 90s and, contrary to popular opinion, was alive and well in 2019:
Mr. grss, coalitions are possible but highly unlikely under FPTP. Under PR, leaders can also change. And while coalitions might make drastic changes less likely, it also facilitates a new coalition forming, altering the government composition due not to electoral results but the preference of political parties.
The consequence of PR is to shift power from the electorate to party politics. I can understand the superficial appeal (no need for tactical voting, just consider the party you like most and back it) but the more important difference is that once your vote is banked parties can happily jettison whatever drew your support. Indeed, the system's designed to encourage this through coalitions.
Are you saying that FPTP doesn't empower political parties? Because I see the opposite. If we had PR we would arguably have 5 parties that could be part of a government - Tories, Labour, LDs, Greens and whatever far right party Farage leads. That would weaken the Tories and Labour - the main parties of government.
PR does also empowers voters because they can actually pick political parties they agree with rather than the least worst option who can win. Take me - I hate the LDs, but I hate them less than the Tories, so in my seat I felt I had to vote LD to kick out a Tory. That breeds resentment with our political system. If I not only knew I could vote Green but that it could actually lead to more Green representation in parliament - Greens who I know would push policies I agreed with (even if they do have to do some horse trading), then I'd be much happier with our system.
You talk about parties negotiating as if that is a negative or voters dislike it. I think most people understand that lots of people disagree with them and whilst they have a preferred policy preference, some meeting in the middle is fine. The lack of that in our FPTP system leads parties to only talking and negotiating within themselves.
Any system that involves picking between political parties rather than between individual candidates is anathema to me. To repeat my oft heard mantra on here (sorry folks) we should be doing all we can to reduce the power of political parties over MPs not increase it. If you want a syatem that allows us to pick between candidates then great. I can go for that (which is why I was in favour of AV) but any system that has us picking betwen parties any more than we do now is a big leap in the wrong direction.
If you give seats to parties based on 'party share' the you are allowing parties to claim they own the votes rather than the MPs doing so. What price then crossing the floor or rebelling against your own party?
One reason I like STV.
You can pick between candidates within a given party. Want an Orange Book Lib Dem, or a centrist Tory? You can pick whichever one of the candidates is closest. FPTP is effectively single-candidate party list. As most people do vote by party (if they didn't, what are opinion polls all about?), you get the party empowered to offer a single candidate, and if you don't like that candidate, tough. You'll let in Corbyn (or Johnson, or whoever).
Horrific violence that violates fundamental norms of humanity has claimed the lives of over 1,200 in Israel and 1,400 Palestinians, including 447 children.
The way that war is conducted matters. The IRC is calling on the international community to ensure the following: (1/8)
So are you taking the position essentially expressed by the Twitter/X OP that there is no comparison between the deaths of civilians at the hands of Hamas and the deaths of civilians at the hands of the Israeli state? I thought the whole point of universal human rights and such was that all peoples should be considered of equal worth and, when it comes to even just wars, civilians should not be targeted?
Most of the Palestinian deaths were Hamas combatants, most of the Israeli deaths civilians.
I do not regard them as morally equivalent.
Do you?
Where are you getting the evidence that most of the deaths in Gaza have been of Hamas combatants? Is it only Hamas combatants that are living in tower blocks or using hospitals? The death toll in Gaza is almost 2.5k, with almost 10k casualties. Latest number suggest just over 700 Palestinian children have been killed in air strikes in Gaza, which makes sense given the average age there. Are they mostly Hamas?
I think the deaths of any civilians are equally important, yes. Israel has stated specifically that they are going for a disproportionate response to the attack by Hamas, which is unacceptable.
Which of Hamas and Israel is trying to minimise civilian casualties, and which set out to maximise them?
Neither is trying to 'minimise' civilian casualties.
The difference is that Hamas deliberately targets civilians; Israel for now doesn't much seem to care, in its pursuit of Hamas.
Mr. grss, coalitions are possible but highly unlikely under FPTP. Under PR, leaders can also change. And while coalitions might make drastic changes less likely, it also facilitates a new coalition forming, altering the government composition due not to electoral results but the preference of political parties.
The consequence of PR is to shift power from the electorate to party politics. I can understand the superficial appeal (no need for tactical voting, just consider the party you like most and back it) but the more important difference is that once your vote is banked parties can happily jettison whatever drew your support. Indeed, the system's designed to encourage this through coalitions.
Are you saying that FPTP doesn't empower political parties? Because I see the opposite. If we had PR we would arguably have 5 parties that could be part of a government - Tories, Labour, LDs, Greens and whatever far right party Farage leads. That would weaken the Tories and Labour - the main parties of government.
PR does also empowers voters because they can actually pick political parties they agree with rather than the least worst option who can win. Take me - I hate the LDs, but I hate them less than the Tories, so in my seat I felt I had to vote LD to kick out a Tory. That breeds resentment with our political system. If I not only knew I could vote Green but that it could actually lead to more Green representation in parliament - Greens who I know would push policies I agreed with (even if they do have to do some horse trading), then I'd be much happier with our system.
You talk about parties negotiating as if that is a negative or voters dislike it. I think most people understand that lots of people disagree with them and whilst they have a preferred policy preference, some meeting in the middle is fine. The lack of that in our FPTP system leads parties to only talking and negotiating within themselves.
Any system that involves picking between political parties rather than between individual candidates is anathema to me. To repeat my oft heard mantra on here (sorry folks) we should be doing all we can to reduce the power of political parties over MPs not increase it. If you want a syatem that allows us to pick between candidates then great. I can go for that (which is why I was in favour of AV) but any system that has us picking betwen parties any more than we do now is a big leap in the wrong direction.
If you give seats to parties based on 'party share' the you are allowing parties to claim they own the votes rather than the MPs doing so. What price then crossing the floor or rebelling against your own party?
I can see the reasoning of that, and again would be willing to do something that combines both - you could take a model similar to how the GLA and Germany works which (in my limited understanding) uses STV for regional elections and then has a PR top up afterwards. That, in my view, combines the best of both.
I don't necessarily see the need for weak parties inherently - I think weak parties are good in a system where parties alienate the electorate so they aren't engaging in party politics (like now). In a world more like the past, where party membership and union membership was higher, I think political parties are good vehicles for collective political will (like how labour unions are good for the collective political will of workers). Even if we had a system that banned parties and only had individuals standing in individualised seats - people would form governing and opposition coalitions based on their policy agreements and de facto parties would emerge.
No one is talking about banning parties (well I'm not anyway) but we do need to massively reduce their power over MPs. Hence my assertion that all votes in Parliament should be free votes.
That would make any form of national representative democracy impossible, not to mention skewing the system to the worst sort of pork-barrelling and NIMBYism, as the only way candidates could demonstrate results would be on purely local issues.
No whipping means no party manifestoes - because how do you enforce them, unless you have brutally severe selection processes weeding out all but the robots who don't need whipping, or some form of licenced bribery to encourage voting the 'right way'?
Whipping came about, as parties did - they are intrinsic to each other - not because of evil machinations but because it is the most effective means of ensuring that like-minded people can get their policies implemented. Originally that was like-minded people in parliament but it works just as well as an implicit contract between voters and their party of choice: and most voters *do* vote for a party, or even for a prime minister. Ignoring that reality in favour of constitutional theory gets us nowhere.
These are the same sorts of arguments as have been used against any sort of Parliamentary refiorm all the way back to the Great Reform Act of 1832.
We do not accept people from outside Parliament threatening or bribing MPs (which is what whippping is) so why should we accept it from parties. Why should MPs be forced to vote against the best interests of their constituents because it is the best interest of their party?
We already have licenced bribery and threats. It is called whipping.
Some heartening news for a change this morning then. After a series of reverses, the latest in Australia, the Forces of the Enlightenment strike back in Poland.
There's a tendency to try to find a common narrative across countries - I'm not sure I see one at the moment, or at least not on the same timescale.
My hope is that basically each country that tries right wing populism, discovers it doesn't fix their problems, and moves on, the wiser if the poorer for it.
Mr. grss, coalitions are possible but highly unlikely under FPTP. Under PR, leaders can also change. And while coalitions might make drastic changes less likely, it also facilitates a new coalition forming, altering the government composition due not to electoral results but the preference of political parties.
The consequence of PR is to shift power from the electorate to party politics. I can understand the superficial appeal (no need for tactical voting, just consider the party you like most and back it) but the more important difference is that once your vote is banked parties can happily jettison whatever drew your support. Indeed, the system's designed to encourage this through coalitions.
Are you saying that FPTP doesn't empower political parties? Because I see the opposite. If we had PR we would arguably have 5 parties that could be part of a government - Tories, Labour, LDs, Greens and whatever far right party Farage leads. That would weaken the Tories and Labour - the main parties of government.
PR does also empowers voters because they can actually pick political parties they agree with rather than the least worst option who can win. Take me - I hate the LDs, but I hate them less than the Tories, so in my seat I felt I had to vote LD to kick out a Tory. That breeds resentment with our political system. If I not only knew I could vote Green but that it could actually lead to more Green representation in parliament - Greens who I know would push policies I agreed with (even if they do have to do some horse trading), then I'd be much happier with our system.
You talk about parties negotiating as if that is a negative or voters dislike it. I think most people understand that lots of people disagree with them and whilst they have a preferred policy preference, some meeting in the middle is fine. The lack of that in our FPTP system leads parties to only talking and negotiating within themselves.
Any system that involves picking between political parties rather than between individual candidates is anathema to me. To repeat my oft heard mantra on here (sorry folks) we should be doing all we can to reduce the power of political parties over MPs not increase it. If you want a syatem that allows us to pick between candidates then great. I can go for that (which is why I was in favour of AV) but any system that has us picking betwen parties any more than we do now is a big leap in the wrong direction.
If you give seats to parties based on 'party share' the you are allowing parties to claim they own the votes rather than the MPs doing so. What price then crossing the floor or rebelling against your own party?
One reason I like STV.
You can pick between candidates within a given party. Want an Orange Book Lib Dem, or a centrist Tory? You can pick whichever one of the candidates is closest. FPTP is effectively single-candidate party list. As most people do vote by party (if they didn't, what are opinion polls all about?), you get the party empowered to offer a single candidate, and if you don't like that candidate, tough. You'll let in Corbyn (or Johnson, or whoever).
I prefer AV but could live with STV. As long as it is not based on party.
Dr. Foxy, people, under PR, can indeed vote for what they want. And then have no guarantee of getting it if their chosen party trades away their preferred policy in coalition negotiations.
In general people don't care about detailed policies. People don't read manifestos. I suspect that it is rare that a voter would agree with every policy in a manifesto if they cared to read it. There are typically dozens of policies.
People vote for a leader that they approve of and has a positive slogan and demeanour, not detailed policies.
Coalitions represent a majority of electors views, rather than the minority elected dictatorships we have to endure under FPTP.
That is clearly rubbish. The idea that a coalition is simply combining the votes of all those who voted for both parties is an assumption that cannot be made. The only thingh a coalition can be said to represent is the compromise views of the party leaders and, initially at least, the majority of the whipped views of the MPs.
I think, in the ideal world, coalitions are parties coming together in the interest of their voters and members by prioritising their manifesto pledges and trading what they can and can't do together with the interests of their potential coalition partner/s. Again, in an ideal world, I feel such coalition deals should be ratified by a direct vote of the party members (although in systems where coalitions are part of the norm, I assume it is just taken into account by voters and members when they join and vote for certain parties). In a party like GPEW, where party policy is member written and is (unofficially) prioritised - that could be an easy thing to do. For Tories, who generally eschew member democracy (because when you're the party of the aristocracy, for the aristocracy by the aristocracy, why would you let the plebs decide when you're clearly bred to rule?), this could be problematic.
That ideal world never materialises. Everyone likes to pretend it will happen but it never does. Reality and human nature get in the way.
Horrific violence that violates fundamental norms of humanity has claimed the lives of over 1,200 in Israel and 1,400 Palestinians, including 447 children.
The way that war is conducted matters. The IRC is calling on the international community to ensure the following: (1/8)
So are you taking the position essentially expressed by the Twitter/X OP that there is no comparison between the deaths of civilians at the hands of Hamas and the deaths of civilians at the hands of the Israeli state? I thought the whole point of universal human rights and such was that all peoples should be considered of equal worth and, when it comes to even just wars, civilians should not be targeted?
Most of the Palestinian deaths were Hamas combatants, most of the Israeli deaths civilians.
I do not regard them as morally equivalent.
Do you?
Where are you getting the evidence that most of the deaths in Gaza have been of Hamas combatants? Is it only Hamas combatants that are living in tower blocks or using hospitals? The death toll in Gaza is almost 2.5k, with almost 10k casualties. Latest number suggest just over 700 Palestinian children have been killed in air strikes in Gaza, which makes sense given the average age there. Are they mostly Hamas?
I think the deaths of any civilians are equally important, yes. Israel has stated specifically that they are going for a disproportionate response to the attack by Hamas, which is unacceptable.
Which of Hamas and Israel is trying to minimise civilian casualties, and which set out to maximise them?
Neither are trying to minimise them. And of course suddenly when challenged you are changing your tack. Where is your evidence that most of those killed in Gaza in the last week are Hamas?
The problem with this debate is that Hamas' massacre and the forced evacuation of 1.1 million people are incomparable, in the broader sense of the word.
And so the debate goes round in circles. Neither side are trying to minimise casualties - doing so would mean not dropping any bombs or firing rockets.
PBers are on a spectrum from "Hamas are freedom fighters" to "what ensures Israel's long-term security" to "I found a rare butterfly on my holiday in Tuscany" to "push the Palestinians into the sea".
That will be the mantra for a lot of England fans ahead of our 92-3 shellacking by the South Africans on Saturday.
To be fair, I don't think any England fans are unaware that this is a not-particularly-great team who have got into the semis more by dint of a favourable draw than anything else. Almost all hubris-like utterances from England fans are entirely tongue in cheek.
I mean, we might get through the semis. One universe in ten, from here, England will suddenly play out of their skins and/or South Africa will self combust. But we're not really expecting it.
Official results page, posted by @DoubleCarpet on the last thread.
Thanks. So far, in the Sejm, the L&J party seems to be doing somewhat better than the Civic group, who in turn are doing somewhat worse. Currently 39.92 to 26.45. That's quite a lead. In a FPTP system it would be a massacre.
I had completely missed Poland's lurch to the right over the past however long. "Europe", one thinks - none of that religio-mediaeval bollocks here.
Mr. grss, coalitions are possible but highly unlikely under FPTP. Under PR, leaders can also change. And while coalitions might make drastic changes less likely, it also facilitates a new coalition forming, altering the government composition due not to electoral results but the preference of political parties.
The consequence of PR is to shift power from the electorate to party politics. I can understand the superficial appeal (no need for tactical voting, just consider the party you like most and back it) but the more important difference is that once your vote is banked parties can happily jettison whatever drew your support. Indeed, the system's designed to encourage this through coalitions.
Are you saying that FPTP doesn't empower political parties? Because I see the opposite. If we had PR we would arguably have 5 parties that could be part of a government - Tories, Labour, LDs, Greens and whatever far right party Farage leads. That would weaken the Tories and Labour - the main parties of government.
PR does also empowers voters because they can actually pick political parties they agree with rather than the least worst option who can win. Take me - I hate the LDs, but I hate them less than the Tories, so in my seat I felt I had to vote LD to kick out a Tory. That breeds resentment with our political system. If I not only knew I could vote Green but that it could actually lead to more Green representation in parliament - Greens who I know would push policies I agreed with (even if they do have to do some horse trading), then I'd be much happier with our system.
You talk about parties negotiating as if that is a negative or voters dislike it. I think most people understand that lots of people disagree with them and whilst they have a preferred policy preference, some meeting in the middle is fine. The lack of that in our FPTP system leads parties to only talking and negotiating within themselves.
Any system that involves picking between political parties rather than between individual candidates is anathema to me. To repeat my oft heard mantra on here (sorry folks) we should be doing all we can to reduce the power of political parties over MPs not increase it. If you want a syatem that allows us to pick between candidates then great. I can go for that (which is why I was in favour of AV) but any system that has us picking betwen parties any more than we do now is a big leap in the wrong direction.
If you give seats to parties based on 'party share' the you are allowing parties to claim they own the votes rather than the MPs doing so. What price then crossing the floor or rebelling against your own party?
I can see the reasoning of that, and again would be willing to do something that combines both - you could take a model similar to how the GLA and Germany works which (in my limited understanding) uses STV for regional elections and then has a PR top up afterwards. That, in my view, combines the best of both.
I don't necessarily see the need for weak parties inherently - I think weak parties are good in a system where parties alienate the electorate so they aren't engaging in party politics (like now). In a world more like the past, where party membership and union membership was higher, I think political parties are good vehicles for collective political will (like how labour unions are good for the collective political will of workers). Even if we had a system that banned parties and only had individuals standing in individualised seats - people would form governing and opposition coalitions based on their policy agreements and de facto parties would emerge.
No one is talking about banning parties (well I'm not anyway) but we do need to massively reduce their power over MPs. Hence my assertion that all votes in Parliament should be free votes.
I wasn't saying you were, I was just saying that the kind of extreme logical conclusion of your position is one where each local MP election is truly a local election would still lead to national politics and the emergence of things that look like political parties and all the power that comes with that.
I also think every vote should be a free vote and that whipping is bad - seems like you would like the Green Party of England and Wales which takes that position on how their elected members vote (sometimes to the dismay of its members)
Yep but sadly I disagree with many of their core policies
Official results page, posted by @DoubleCarpet on the last thread.
Thanks. So far, in the Sejm, the L&J party seems to be doing somewhat better than the Civic group, who in turn are doing somewhat worse. Currently 39.92 to 26.45. That's quite a lead. In a FPTP system it would be a massacre.
I had completely missed Poland's lurch to the right over the past however long. "Europe", one thinks - none of that religio-mediaeval bollocks here.
If you think Poland's bad, try Hungary.
Hungary I realised something was off yes good point. And when I have been to Hungary (several times a few years ago) I came close to all kinds of drama just because I was overheard speaking English to my hosts.
Horrific violence that violates fundamental norms of humanity has claimed the lives of over 1,200 in Israel and 1,400 Palestinians, including 447 children.
The way that war is conducted matters. The IRC is calling on the international community to ensure the following: (1/8)
So are you taking the position essentially expressed by the Twitter/X OP that there is no comparison between the deaths of civilians at the hands of Hamas and the deaths of civilians at the hands of the Israeli state? I thought the whole point of universal human rights and such was that all peoples should be considered of equal worth and, when it comes to even just wars, civilians should not be targeted?
Most of the Palestinian deaths were Hamas combatants, most of the Israeli deaths civilians.
I do not regard them as morally equivalent.
Do you?
Where are you getting the evidence that most of the deaths in Gaza have been of Hamas combatants? Is it only Hamas combatants that are living in tower blocks or using hospitals? The death toll in Gaza is almost 2.5k, with almost 10k casualties. Latest number suggest just over 700 Palestinian children have been killed in air strikes in Gaza, which makes sense given the average age there. Are they mostly Hamas?
I think the deaths of any civilians are equally important, yes. Israel has stated specifically that they are going for a disproportionate response to the attack by Hamas, which is unacceptable.
Which of Hamas and Israel is trying to minimise civilian casualties, and which set out to maximise them?
Neither are trying to minimise them. And of course suddenly when challenged you are changing your tack. Where is your evidence that most of those killed in Gaza in the last week are Hamas?
The problem with this debate is that Hamas' massacre and the forced evacuation of 1.1 million people are incomparable, in the broader sense of the word.
And so the debate goes round in circles. Neither side are trying to minimise casualties - doing so would mean not dropping any bombs or firing rockets.
PBers are on a spectrum from "Hamas are freedom fighters" to "what ensures Israel's long-term security" to "I found a rare butterfly on my holiday in Tuscany" to "push the Palestinians into the sea".
I wouldn't say that Hamas are freedom fighters - and I don't think anyone here who is sympathetic to the Palestinian cause has said that, nor do most people who are sympathetic to the Palestinian cause say that. What I have said is that Hamas are the inevitable outcome of policy decisions that have increased the oppression of the Palestinian people as well as the outcome of Netanyahu's strategy of purposefully side-lining Palestinian moderate politicians in the aim of never having to negotiate a sincere peaceful solution.
Horrific violence that violates fundamental norms of humanity has claimed the lives of over 1,200 in Israel and 1,400 Palestinians, including 447 children.
The way that war is conducted matters. The IRC is calling on the international community to ensure the following: (1/8)
So are you taking the position essentially expressed by the Twitter/X OP that there is no comparison between the deaths of civilians at the hands of Hamas and the deaths of civilians at the hands of the Israeli state? I thought the whole point of universal human rights and such was that all peoples should be considered of equal worth and, when it comes to even just wars, civilians should not be targeted?
Most of the Palestinian deaths were Hamas combatants, most of the Israeli deaths civilians.
I do not regard them as morally equivalent.
Do you?
More than 700 children already been killed in the bombardment of Gaza in the last few days, IIRC. I'm guessing they're not Hamas combatants.
The only question I would ask at this point is - is that an independent verified number? Or is that Hamas claiming it?
Dr. Foxy, people, under PR, can indeed vote for what they want. And then have no guarantee of getting it if their chosen party trades away their preferred policy in coalition negotiations.
In general people don't care about detailed policies. People don't read manifestos. I suspect that it is rare that a voter would agree with every policy in a manifesto if they cared to read it. There are typically dozens of policies.
People vote for a leader that they approve of and has a positive slogan and demeanour, not detailed policies.
Coalitions represent a majority of electors views, rather than the minority elected dictatorships we have to endure under FPTP.
That is clearly rubbish. The idea that a coalition is simply combining the votes of all those who voted for both parties is an assumption that cannot be made. The only thingh a coalition can be said to represent is the compromise views of the party leaders and, initially at least, the majority of the whipped views of the MPs.
I think, in the ideal world, coalitions are parties coming together in the interest of their voters and members by prioritising their manifesto pledges and trading what they can and can't do together with the interests of their potential coalition partner/s. Again, in an ideal world, I feel such coalition deals should be ratified by a direct vote of the party members (although in systems where coalitions are part of the norm, I assume it is just taken into account by voters and members when they join and vote for certain parties). In a party like GPEW, where party policy is member written and is (unofficially) prioritised - that could be an easy thing to do. For Tories, who generally eschew member democracy (because when you're the party of the aristocracy, for the aristocracy by the aristocracy, why would you let the plebs decide when you're clearly bred to rule?), this could be problematic.
I agree with Morris's reservations about coalitions, but I do have a certain nostalgia for the Con/Lib coalition. Not so much the politics of it, but the need to find a programmes palatable to both parties entailed doing fewer things; and the need for both parties to protect their electoral interests meant that bad decisions had an extra layer of check to go through. Policy was not made on the hoof. You wouldn't have got 'Network North' coming out of the coalition.
Some more results have arrived in Poland and PiS down from 39.92 to 39.63 - that's quite a chunky drop in one update and indicates the remaining votes probably do skew away from PiS. Exit poll looking good I think.
Horrific violence that violates fundamental norms of humanity has claimed the lives of over 1,200 in Israel and 1,400 Palestinians, including 447 children.
The way that war is conducted matters. The IRC is calling on the international community to ensure the following: (1/8)
So are you taking the position essentially expressed by the Twitter/X OP that there is no comparison between the deaths of civilians at the hands of Hamas and the deaths of civilians at the hands of the Israeli state? I thought the whole point of universal human rights and such was that all peoples should be considered of equal worth and, when it comes to even just wars, civilians should not be targeted?
Most of the Palestinian deaths were Hamas combatants, most of the Israeli deaths civilians.
I do not regard them as morally equivalent.
Do you?
Where are you getting the evidence that most of the deaths in Gaza have been of Hamas combatants? Is it only Hamas combatants that are living in tower blocks or using hospitals? The death toll in Gaza is almost 2.5k, with almost 10k casualties. Latest number suggest just over 700 Palestinian children have been killed in air strikes in Gaza, which makes sense given the average age there. Are they mostly Hamas?
I think the deaths of any civilians are equally important, yes. Israel has stated specifically that they are going for a disproportionate response to the attack by Hamas, which is unacceptable.
Which of Hamas and Israel is trying to minimise civilian casualties, and which set out to maximise them?
Neither are trying to minimise them. And of course suddenly when challenged you are changing your tack. Where is your evidence that most of those killed in Gaza in the last week are Hamas?
The problem with this debate is that Hamas' massacre and the forced evacuation of 1.1 million people are incomparable, in the broader sense of the word.
And so the debate goes round in circles. Neither side are trying to minimise casualties - doing so would mean not dropping any bombs or firing rockets.
PBers are on a spectrum from "Hamas are freedom fighters" to "what ensures Israel's long-term security" to "I found a rare butterfly on my holiday in Tuscany" to "push the Palestinians into the sea".
I wouldn't say that Hamas are freedom fighters - and I don't think anyone here who is sympathetic to the Palestinian cause has said that, nor do most people who are sympathetic to the Palestinian cause say that. What I have said is that Hamas are the inevitable outcome of policy decisions that have increased the oppression of the Palestinian people as well as the outcome of Netanyahu's strategy of purposefully side-lining Palestinian moderate politicians in the aim of never having to negotiate a sincere peaceful solution.
AFAICS Hamas was the inevitable outcome of the endemic corruption of the PA, the PLO, and Fatah.
Somewhat startling piece on new homes built to low standards of insulation etc. (i.e. low specifications, rather than jerrybuilding). I am sure some are better, but even so ...
I still don't get why more homes are not built with solar panels as standard from the start. Economies of scale would, I assume, make it cheaper, and who is going to otice an extra few grand in the buying price if you are already spending £200K+.
I would have thought thta madating a minimum number of homes in each new development to haev solar panels would be a good way to up provision easily and cheaply.
I mean, because that would increase the construction price and developers dislike having to spend money and the Tories have, since Thatcher really, been in the role of mediating the interests of developers and home owners.
I'll be interested in the details of this Labour plan for modern garden cities. If the idea is just send it out to developers on current specs, it is going to be awful - huge developments of new builds that will last a decade if we're lucky. If Labour do it seriously and put proper specs on things - solar, insulation, maybe even limit the average car per home design and aim to have things build in line with the idea of walkable cities - then it could be great.
Agree generally but the limiting cars per household idea is one of those that always fails because it runs up against real life. If you can absolutely gaurantee that public transport will be there all the time when people need it then fine. But no one can. So people still buy the cars and then block the streets with them.
Forget shopping etc for a minute. How many people live within walking distance of their work?
I don't think the limiting the number of cars is the way to go. Plenty of trips will still need them, and even in a walking/cycling nirvana overall mileage won't be reduced much as it's the short journeys we wish to eliminate.
In terms of distance to work - 2/3rd of all commutes are under 6 miles, a third under 3 miles. A 30 minute cycle or 15 minute cycle.
How many people are going to want to walk for an hour at the start and end of their working day? I mean, I know that is something of an indictment of modern Britons (most Europeans?) but it is reality. Particularly when you start to take into account weather and light levels (thinking of safety perception particularly for women on their own).
I can't help but feel an agonizing sympathy for the 'France and Ireland will dominate world rugby for the next decade' Brigade.
England fell apart after their loss in the 2019 final. Ireland may well do something similar. Its easy to forget how invested players are in winning the WC, and how much hype there has been around Ireland, number one in the world etc.
Mr. Cooke, a fair point excepting that breaking a manifesto commitment is not meant to happen under FPTP, whereas it's part of the intended design of PR, as the process by which differing parties with differing manifestos can form a coalition.
Which manifesto commitments? We're talking documents that are 60+ pages long. Do we really think that any Government has enacted all their manifesto commitments?
If not, they broke them. And I'd bet every Government has failed to implement all. At which point we're quibbling over which ones were most important and which ones were lost.
I mean, glancing at the first few pages of the last Conservative one.
Have they delivered 40 new hospitals or are they on track? Do we have 50,000 more nurses? Do we have 6,000 more GPs, 26,000 more primary care professionals, and 7,500 more nurse associates? Is staff morale improved in the NHS? Have there been more than 50 million extra GP appointments per year?
That's from the first page of the specific promises in their last manifesto. Every budget there are discussions about broken manifesto promises.
If that's not meant to happen under FPTP and it always happens under FPTP, then possibly it's not really a solid rule at all?
Horrific violence that violates fundamental norms of humanity has claimed the lives of over 1,200 in Israel and 1,400 Palestinians, including 447 children.
The way that war is conducted matters. The IRC is calling on the international community to ensure the following: (1/8)
So are you taking the position essentially expressed by the Twitter/X OP that there is no comparison between the deaths of civilians at the hands of Hamas and the deaths of civilians at the hands of the Israeli state? I thought the whole point of universal human rights and such was that all peoples should be considered of equal worth and, when it comes to even just wars, civilians should not be targeted?
Most of the Palestinian deaths were Hamas combatants, most of the Israeli deaths civilians.
I do not regard them as morally equivalent.
Do you?
Where are you getting the evidence that most of the deaths in Gaza have been of Hamas combatants? Is it only Hamas combatants that are living in tower blocks or using hospitals? The death toll in Gaza is almost 2.5k, with almost 10k casualties. Latest number suggest just over 700 Palestinian children have been killed in air strikes in Gaza, which makes sense given the average age there. Are they mostly Hamas?
I think the deaths of any civilians are equally important, yes. Israel has stated specifically that they are going for a disproportionate response to the attack by Hamas, which is unacceptable.
Which of Hamas and Israel is trying to minimise civilian casualties, and which set out to maximise them?
Neither are trying to minimise them. And of course suddenly when challenged you are changing your tack. Where is your evidence that most of those killed in Gaza in the last week are Hamas?
The problem with this debate is that Hamas' massacre and the forced evacuation of 1.1 million people are incomparable, in the broader sense of the word.
And so the debate goes round in circles. Neither side are trying to minimise casualties - doing so would mean not dropping any bombs or firing rockets.
PBers are on a spectrum from "Hamas are freedom fighters" to "what ensures Israel's long-term security" to "I found a rare butterfly on my holiday in Tuscany" to "push the Palestinians into the sea".
I wouldn't say that Hamas are freedom fighters - and I don't think anyone here who is sympathetic to the Palestinian cause has said that, nor do most people who are sympathetic to the Palestinian cause say that. What I have said is that Hamas are the inevitable outcome of policy decisions that have increased the oppression of the Palestinian people as well as the outcome of Netanyahu's strategy of purposefully side-lining Palestinian moderate politicians in the aim of never having to negotiate a sincere peaceful solution.
I said spectrum! I think you are closer to "long term security" than freedom fighters, for example.
Horrific violence that violates fundamental norms of humanity has claimed the lives of over 1,200 in Israel and 1,400 Palestinians, including 447 children.
The way that war is conducted matters. The IRC is calling on the international community to ensure the following: (1/8)
So are you taking the position essentially expressed by the Twitter/X OP that there is no comparison between the deaths of civilians at the hands of Hamas and the deaths of civilians at the hands of the Israeli state? I thought the whole point of universal human rights and such was that all peoples should be considered of equal worth and, when it comes to even just wars, civilians should not be targeted?
Most of the Palestinian deaths were Hamas combatants, most of the Israeli deaths civilians.
I do not regard them as morally equivalent.
Do you?
Where are you getting the evidence that most of the deaths in Gaza have been of Hamas combatants? Is it only Hamas combatants that are living in tower blocks or using hospitals? The death toll in Gaza is almost 2.5k, with almost 10k casualties. Latest number suggest just over 700 Palestinian children have been killed in air strikes in Gaza, which makes sense given the average age there. Are they mostly Hamas?
I think the deaths of any civilians are equally important, yes. Israel has stated specifically that they are going for a disproportionate response to the attack by Hamas, which is unacceptable.
Which of Hamas and Israel is trying to minimise civilian casualties, and which set out to maximise them?
The one who is using the biggest bombs from furthest away is obviously doing the most indiscriminate killing
Dr. Foxy, people, under PR, can indeed vote for what they want. And then have no guarantee of getting it if their chosen party trades away their preferred policy in coalition negotiations.
In general people don't care about detailed policies. People don't read manifestos. I suspect that it is rare that a voter would agree with every policy in a manifesto if they cared to read it. There are typically dozens of policies.
People vote for a leader that they approve of and has a positive slogan and demeanour, not detailed policies.
Coalitions represent a majority of electors views, rather than the minority elected dictatorships we have to endure under FPTP.
That is clearly rubbish. The idea that a coalition is simply combining the votes of all those who voted for both parties is an assumption that cannot be made. The only thingh a coalition can be said to represent is the compromise views of the party leaders and, initially at least, the majority of the whipped views of the MPs.
That is clearly rubbish. A coalition is an agreement between the [two] parties on a slate of policies that they can both agree on. It therefore excludes unpopular policies that elected dictatorships under FPTP impose on the majority. Anyone can see that, with a bit of thought.
Really? I am sure most Lib Dems would be surprised to hear you say that regarding tuition fees (to take just one example amongst many)
Horrific violence that violates fundamental norms of humanity has claimed the lives of over 1,200 in Israel and 1,400 Palestinians, including 447 children.
The way that war is conducted matters. The IRC is calling on the international community to ensure the following: (1/8)
So are you taking the position essentially expressed by the Twitter/X OP that there is no comparison between the deaths of civilians at the hands of Hamas and the deaths of civilians at the hands of the Israeli state? I thought the whole point of universal human rights and such was that all peoples should be considered of equal worth and, when it comes to even just wars, civilians should not be targeted?
Most of the Palestinian deaths were Hamas combatants, most of the Israeli deaths civilians.
I do not regard them as morally equivalent.
Do you?
Where are you getting the evidence that most of the deaths in Gaza have been of Hamas combatants? Is it only Hamas combatants that are living in tower blocks or using hospitals? The death toll in Gaza is almost 2.5k, with almost 10k casualties. Latest number suggest just over 700 Palestinian children have been killed in air strikes in Gaza, which makes sense given the average age there. Are they mostly Hamas?
I think the deaths of any civilians are equally important, yes. Israel has stated specifically that they are going for a disproportionate response to the attack by Hamas, which is unacceptable.
Which of Hamas and Israel is trying to minimise civilian casualties, and which set out to maximise them?
Neither are trying to minimise them. And of course suddenly when challenged you are changing your tack. Where is your evidence that most of those killed in Gaza in the last week are Hamas?
The problem with this debate is that Hamas' massacre and the forced evacuation of 1.1 million people are incomparable, in the broader sense of the word.
And so the debate goes round in circles. Neither side are trying to minimise casualties - doing so would mean not dropping any bombs or firing rockets.
PBers are on a spectrum from "Hamas are freedom fighters" to "what ensures Israel's long-term security" to "I found a rare butterfly on my holiday in Tuscany" to "push the Palestinians into the sea".
I wouldn't say that Hamas are freedom fighters - and I don't think anyone here who is sympathetic to the Palestinian cause has said that, nor do most people who are sympathetic to the Palestinian cause say that. What I have said is that Hamas are the inevitable outcome of policy decisions that have increased the oppression of the Palestinian people as well as the outcome of Netanyahu's strategy of purposefully side-lining Palestinian moderate politicians in the aim of never having to negotiate a sincere peaceful solution.
AFAICS Hamas was the inevitable outcome of the endemic corruption of the PA, the PLO, and Fatah.
Yes, plus the tendency of peoples in conflict to go to the extremes such as the DUP and Sinn Fein in NI.
Angry people are angry that a pro-Palestine protest has set up shop next to the Cenotaph. A Tory MP blamed Westminster Council for approving it, but the council denies it, as do the police. As an aside, some are also annoyed that the police are storing their kit on the Cenotaph.
On the face of it, storing your kit directly on the cenotaph does seem more disrespectful than setting up next to it. But then it seems the angry MPs are also saying that any pro-Palestinian protests (as opposed to just pro-Hamas ones) should be made illegal so I would suggest he can probably just go fuck himself.
Everyone has the right to peaceful assembly and protest. It is an absolute core of our approach to citizenship. That isn't to say that I approve of every protest - that would be ridiculous.
So if the PSC people want to go and march, they should be allowed. The balance to tread is when their banners and chants are genocidal - do we send the police in to remove such things? You can't stand in the street demanding the murder of someone else in the street - why should you be able to do so for the murder of someone elsewhere?
S.1 of the Terrorism Act 2006 says hello.
Quite a few of the statements being made on the streets of London and other cities over the last few days would appear to be in breach of this provision.
Lots of talk about hate crimes and, yet, shouting hate at Jews is somehow ok. Well, not to me it isn't and not I hope to lots of other people. If we're going to have such crimes then we apply them properly to everybody not just to a select few who seem to think they should have a free pass to spew hate at others while claiming they are the victims if anyone dares point out what they're doing.
Some more results have arrived in Poland and PiS down from 39.92 to 39.63 - that's quite a chunky drop in one update and indicates the remaining votes probably do skew away from PiS. Exit poll looking good I think.
I think that you would need to be more confident about where the votes have come from. According to the exit poll the Coalition did a lot better in the western half of the country than the east. The numbers are coming in quite fast, now up to 6.3m so we should know soon enough.
Mr Bell, who has worked at the Guardian for more than four decades, said the newspaper had refused to publish any more of his cartoons, although it will continue to employ him until April 2024.
Well, there was certainly a lack of funny ones... Does that count?
Nah because otherwise he’d have been sacked years ago!
(Seriously, though, this latest one - with Netenyahu as a surgeon with boxing gloves. It seems a stretch to read that as a reference to “a pound of flesh”. I suspect that the Guardian is being hyper sensitive and/or was looking for an excuse to cut costs without paying a massive redundancy payment)
My guess is their advertisers had a word, and/or staff got fed up of Bell pinning the racist label on the paper. I'd agree with you that in this instance Bell is largely innocent, except insofar as it is insensitive at best to attack any Israeli leader immediately after the Hamas attack.
Meh.
“Not proven” rather than “largely innocent” methinks
Steve Bell has been missing the mark quite a bit over the last decade. He’s not really ‘nailed’ a PM since Cameron (the rubber johnny Cam was spot on).
Might’ve been time to move on anyway tbh. Sometimes employers are just waiting for the right excuse (cf Danny Baker at the BBC).
His Starmer is pretty good, so he’s nailed a future pm. Just to prick the consensus I often like Bell’s drawing but his humour tends to the lumbering and hits the target with a 2x4 rather than a rapier. I think he’d be more at home with the scabrous Gilray and Hogarth in the C18th rather than our milquetoast times.
That will be the mantra for a lot of England fans ahead of our 92-3 shellacking by the South Africans on Saturday.
To be fair, I don't think any England fans are unaware that this is a not-particularly-great team who have got into the semis more by dint of a favourable draw than anything else. Almost all hubris-like utterances from England fans are entirely tongue in cheek.
I mean, we might get through the semis. One universe in ten, from here, England will suddenly play out of their skins and/or South Africa will self combust. But we're not really expecting it.
Chances from here, I reckon:
Eng 5% Arg 3% SA 45% NZ 47%
Its really hard to say where England are. The only team to have won all five games, but all games they 'should' have won. And yet I sense they are better than they were in the 6N. Don't forget that recent games against Ireland, for instance, have been blighted by ludicrous (and ludicrously early) red cards, at least one of which should not have stood, and on both occasions England gave as good as they got, at least until the last 10-15 minutes.
I'd probably suggest 10% for Eng, 1% Arg, and then the other two equally split. But sport is weird. After thrashing Australia, and stunning NZ, England went into the 2019 final as firm favourites and it all went wrong. SA had a plan, England lost a key player almost as soon as the whistle blew to start the match and nothing went right for England, while every bounce (and 50:50 call) went right for SA.
So no English hubris, but at least we still have a slim chance.
Horrific violence that violates fundamental norms of humanity has claimed the lives of over 1,200 in Israel and 1,400 Palestinians, including 447 children.
The way that war is conducted matters. The IRC is calling on the international community to ensure the following: (1/8)
So are you taking the position essentially expressed by the Twitter/X OP that there is no comparison between the deaths of civilians at the hands of Hamas and the deaths of civilians at the hands of the Israeli state? I thought the whole point of universal human rights and such was that all peoples should be considered of equal worth and, when it comes to even just wars, civilians should not be targeted?
Most of the Palestinian deaths were Hamas combatants, most of the Israeli deaths civilians.
I do not regard them as morally equivalent.
Do you?
More than 700 children already been killed in the bombardment of Gaza in the last few days, IIRC. I'm guessing they're not Hamas combatants.
The only question I would ask at this point is - is that an independent verified number? Or is that Hamas claiming it?
It has been reported widely as fact in the Western media. I have not visited Gaza independently to verify, if you want to go over there and do a body count be my guest. It doesn't seem implausible given that half the population of Gaza are children and neither air strikes nor artillery bombardments are known for their ability to target individual victims in a heavily populated area.
Horrific violence that violates fundamental norms of humanity has claimed the lives of over 1,200 in Israel and 1,400 Palestinians, including 447 children.
The way that war is conducted matters. The IRC is calling on the international community to ensure the following: (1/8)
So are you taking the position essentially expressed by the Twitter/X OP that there is no comparison between the deaths of civilians at the hands of Hamas and the deaths of civilians at the hands of the Israeli state? I thought the whole point of universal human rights and such was that all peoples should be considered of equal worth and, when it comes to even just wars, civilians should not be targeted?
Most of the Palestinian deaths were Hamas combatants, most of the Israeli deaths civilians.
I do not regard them as morally equivalent.
Do you?
Where are you getting the evidence that most of the deaths in Gaza have been of Hamas combatants? Is it only Hamas combatants that are living in tower blocks or using hospitals? The death toll in Gaza is almost 2.5k, with almost 10k casualties. Latest number suggest just over 700 Palestinian children have been killed in air strikes in Gaza, which makes sense given the average age there. Are they mostly Hamas?
I think the deaths of any civilians are equally important, yes. Israel has stated specifically that they are going for a disproportionate response to the attack by Hamas, which is unacceptable.
Which of Hamas and Israel is trying to minimise civilian casualties, and which set out to maximise them?
The one who is using the biggest bombs from furthest away is obviously doing the most indiscriminate killing
Not only utterly facile, but also clearly ill-informed: Hamas's rockets aimed at central Israel are coming from much further away than anything Israel is currently doing.
Landlord kills Muslim boy, stabs boy’s mother in hate crime motivated by Israel-Hamas war: police https://thehill.com/homenews/4257733-landlord-kills-muslim-boy-stabs-boys-mother-in-hate-crime-motivated-by-israel-hamas-war-police/ An Illinois-based landlord was arrested and charged with murder and hate crimes after authorities said the individual stabbed and killed a six-year-old boy and seriously wounded his mother, who are Muslims, in an apparent hate crime stemming from the Israel-Hamas conflict. In the news release on Sunday, the Will County Sheriffs Office said that Joseph M. Czuba, a native of Plainfield, Illinois, was charged with first degree murder. He was also charged with attempted first degree murder, two counts of a hate crime, and aggravated battery with a deadly weapon. The sheriff’s office said investigators were able to determine that the child and his mother were “targeted by the suspect due to them being Muslim and the on-going Middle Eastern conflict involving Hamas and the Israelis.” ..
Mr. grss, coalitions are possible but highly unlikely under FPTP. Under PR, leaders can also change. And while coalitions might make drastic changes less likely, it also facilitates a new coalition forming, altering the government composition due not to electoral results but the preference of political parties.
The consequence of PR is to shift power from the electorate to party politics. I can understand the superficial appeal (no need for tactical voting, just consider the party you like most and back it) but the more important difference is that once your vote is banked parties can happily jettison whatever drew your support. Indeed, the system's designed to encourage this through coalitions.
Are you saying that FPTP doesn't empower political parties? Because I see the opposite. If we had PR we would arguably have 5 parties that could be part of a government - Tories, Labour, LDs, Greens and whatever far right party Farage leads. That would weaken the Tories and Labour - the main parties of government.
PR does also empowers voters because they can actually pick political parties they agree with rather than the least worst option who can win. Take me - I hate the LDs, but I hate them less than the Tories, so in my seat I felt I had to vote LD to kick out a Tory. That breeds resentment with our political system. If I not only knew I could vote Green but that it could actually lead to more Green representation in parliament - Greens who I know would push policies I agreed with (even if they do have to do some horse trading), then I'd be much happier with our system.
You talk about parties negotiating as if that is a negative or voters dislike it. I think most people understand that lots of people disagree with them and whilst they have a preferred policy preference, some meeting in the middle is fine. The lack of that in our FPTP system leads parties to only talking and negotiating within themselves.
Any system that involves picking between political parties rather than between individual candidates is anathema to me. To repeat my oft heard mantra on here (sorry folks) we should be doing all we can to reduce the power of political parties over MPs not increase it. If you want a syatem that allows us to pick between candidates then great. I can go for that (which is why I was in favour of AV) but any system that has us picking betwen parties any more than we do now is a big leap in the wrong direction.
If you give seats to parties based on 'party share' the you are allowing parties to claim they own the votes rather than the MPs doing so. What price then crossing the floor or rebelling against your own party?
One reason I like STV.
You can pick between candidates within a given party. Want an Orange Book Lib Dem, or a centrist Tory? You can pick whichever one of the candidates is closest. FPTP is effectively single-candidate party list. As most people do vote by party (if they didn't, what are opinion polls all about?), you get the party empowered to offer a single candidate, and if you don't like that candidate, tough. You'll let in Corbyn (or Johnson, or whoever).
I prefer AV but could live with STV. As long as it is not based on party.
It is a real pity that the only time politicians from all parties came together in a sustained attempt to reform the electoral system on a non-partisan/cross-party basis and came to a unanimous agreement, key parts were set aside by the wider House for personal electoral benefit.
The Speaker's Conference was a fascinating experiment, and reportedly Speaker Lowther (much respected, formerly a Conservative before being elected to the Speaker's Chair) was very disappointed indeed that the move to a blend of AV and STV fell in battles between the two Houses.
Partly due to MPs worrying about their own seats (how would they do under a new system) and partly (apparently) because Lloyd George was concerned that the Liberal total dominance of Wales wouldn't happen under an STV system. (Well, how did that work out for you in the long run, David?)
I wonder how many of the US ones are private/civil rather than state/government? I suspect we know the answer for China....
There is a huge difference between people having a Ring doorbell cameras and a camera on a tall pole in the middle of a street that feeds a government controlled surveillance system. It's stupid to just count the numbers.
I mean personally I have more concern about the Ring doorbell cameras on people's doors. CCTV, from my understanding, has a system of checks to make sure police aren't abusing it. Ring just sells the data straight to the cops (in the US at least), and allows profiteering off of the modern Panopticon.
CCTV in the UK maybe, but not in all other countries.
If people are comparing CCTV numbers in different countries it's idiotic to lump together all the different types of CCTV that exist as though they are the same. China operates massive face recognition CCTV networks, and integrates them with other biometric measures, it's not the same thing as a camera in a corner shop by the till or on somebody's front door. Counting camera numbers is utterly misleading.
What was even more scary was the programme on Al Jazeera a few months ago showing China have developed 'walk recognition' which allows them to identify people even with their faces covered.
Horrific violence that violates fundamental norms of humanity has claimed the lives of over 1,200 in Israel and 1,400 Palestinians, including 447 children.
The way that war is conducted matters. The IRC is calling on the international community to ensure the following: (1/8)
So are you taking the position essentially expressed by the Twitter/X OP that there is no comparison between the deaths of civilians at the hands of Hamas and the deaths of civilians at the hands of the Israeli state? I thought the whole point of universal human rights and such was that all peoples should be considered of equal worth and, when it comes to even just wars, civilians should not be targeted?
Most of the Palestinian deaths were Hamas combatants, most of the Israeli deaths civilians.
I do not regard them as morally equivalent.
Do you?
Where are you getting the evidence that most of the deaths in Gaza have been of Hamas combatants? Is it only Hamas combatants that are living in tower blocks or using hospitals? The death toll in Gaza is almost 2.5k, with almost 10k casualties. Latest number suggest just over 700 Palestinian children have been killed in air strikes in Gaza, which makes sense given the average age there. Are they mostly Hamas?
I think the deaths of any civilians are equally important, yes. Israel has stated specifically that they are going for a disproportionate response to the attack by Hamas, which is unacceptable.
Which of Hamas and Israel is trying to minimise civilian casualties, and which set out to maximise them?
Neither are trying to minimise them. And of course suddenly when challenged you are changing your tack. Where is your evidence that most of those killed in Gaza in the last week are Hamas?
The problem with this debate is that Hamas' massacre and the forced evacuation of 1.1 million people are incomparable, in the broader sense of the word.
And so the debate goes round in circles. Neither side are trying to minimise casualties - doing so would mean not dropping any bombs or firing rockets.
PBers are on a spectrum from "Hamas are freedom fighters" to "what ensures Israel's long-term security" to "I found a rare butterfly on my holiday in Tuscany" to "push the Palestinians into the sea".
I wouldn't say that Hamas are freedom fighters - and I don't think anyone here who is sympathetic to the Palestinian cause has said that, nor do most people who are sympathetic to the Palestinian cause say that. What I have said is that Hamas are the inevitable outcome of policy decisions that have increased the oppression of the Palestinian people as well as the outcome of Netanyahu's strategy of purposefully side-lining Palestinian moderate politicians in the aim of never having to negotiate a sincere peaceful solution.
AFAICS Hamas was the inevitable outcome of the endemic corruption of the PA, the PLO, and Fatah.
The fact of the matter is that Hamas, in part, is at the strength it is due to Netanyahu's policies:
According to various reports, Netanyahu made a similar point at a Likud faction meeting in early 2019, when he was quoted as saying that those who oppose a Palestinian state should support the transfer of funds to Gaza, because maintaining the separation between the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank and Hamas in Gaza would prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state.
That the left and right in Israel understand and agree on this - that Netanyahu's decisions directly helped and emboldened Hamas - should go far to help explain that to you.
As for the oppression of people - we can look at the history of many oppressed people that led to the creation of violent resistance, some of which is justified in the eyes of history, some of which is not. The ANC was a recognised terrorist organisation because of its violent resistance to South African apartheid. From slave rebellions to internal civil wars - the violent oppression of people leads to the eventual violent attempts at freedom.
Horrific violence that violates fundamental norms of humanity has claimed the lives of over 1,200 in Israel and 1,400 Palestinians, including 447 children.
The way that war is conducted matters. The IRC is calling on the international community to ensure the following: (1/8)
So are you taking the position essentially expressed by the Twitter/X OP that there is no comparison between the deaths of civilians at the hands of Hamas and the deaths of civilians at the hands of the Israeli state? I thought the whole point of universal human rights and such was that all peoples should be considered of equal worth and, when it comes to even just wars, civilians should not be targeted?
Most of the Palestinian deaths were Hamas combatants, most of the Israeli deaths civilians.
I do not regard them as morally equivalent.
Do you?
Where are you getting the evidence that most of the deaths in Gaza have been of Hamas combatants? Is it only Hamas combatants that are living in tower blocks or using hospitals? The death toll in Gaza is almost 2.5k, with almost 10k casualties. Latest number suggest just over 700 Palestinian children have been killed in air strikes in Gaza, which makes sense given the average age there. Are they mostly Hamas?
I think the deaths of any civilians are equally important, yes. Israel has stated specifically that they are going for a disproportionate response to the attack by Hamas, which is unacceptable.
Which of Hamas and Israel is trying to minimise civilian casualties, and which set out to maximise them?
The one who is using the biggest bombs from furthest away is obviously doing the most indiscriminate killing
What, more indiscriminate than going around a nursery cutting babies heads off?
Mr Bell, who has worked at the Guardian for more than four decades, said the newspaper had refused to publish any more of his cartoons, although it will continue to employ him until April 2024.
Well, there was certainly a lack of funny ones... Does that count?
Nah because otherwise he’d have been sacked years ago!
(Seriously, though, this latest one - with Netenyahu as a surgeon with boxing gloves. It seems a stretch to read that as a reference to “a pound of flesh”. I suspect that the Guardian is being hyper sensitive and/or was looking for an excuse to cut costs without paying a massive redundancy payment)
My guess is their advertisers had a word, and/or staff got fed up of Bell pinning the racist label on the paper. I'd agree with you that in this instance Bell is largely innocent, except insofar as it is insensitive at best to attack any Israeli leader immediately after the Hamas attack.
Meh.
“Not proven” rather than “largely innocent” methinks
Steve Bell has been missing the mark quite a bit over the last decade. He’s not really ‘nailed’ a PM since Cameron (the rubber johnny Cam was spot on).
Might’ve been time to move on anyway tbh. Sometimes employers are just waiting for the right excuse (cf Danny Baker at the BBC).
His Starmer is pretty good, so he’s nailed a future pm. Just to prick the consensus I often like Bell’s drawing but his humour tends to the lumbering and hits the target with a 2x4 rather than a rapier. I think he’d be more at home with the scabrous Gilray and Hogarth in the C18th rather than our milquetoast times.
No one comes close to the unequivocally best cartoonist of our times - Brant.
Horrific violence that violates fundamental norms of humanity has claimed the lives of over 1,200 in Israel and 1,400 Palestinians, including 447 children.
The way that war is conducted matters. The IRC is calling on the international community to ensure the following: (1/8)
So are you taking the position essentially expressed by the Twitter/X OP that there is no comparison between the deaths of civilians at the hands of Hamas and the deaths of civilians at the hands of the Israeli state? I thought the whole point of universal human rights and such was that all peoples should be considered of equal worth and, when it comes to even just wars, civilians should not be targeted?
Most of the Palestinian deaths were Hamas combatants, most of the Israeli deaths civilians.
I do not regard them as morally equivalent.
Do you?
Where are you getting the evidence that most of the deaths in Gaza have been of Hamas combatants? Is it only Hamas combatants that are living in tower blocks or using hospitals? The death toll in Gaza is almost 2.5k, with almost 10k casualties. Latest number suggest just over 700 Palestinian children have been killed in air strikes in Gaza, which makes sense given the average age there. Are they mostly Hamas?
I think the deaths of any civilians are equally important, yes. Israel has stated specifically that they are going for a disproportionate response to the attack by Hamas, which is unacceptable.
Which of Hamas and Israel is trying to minimise civilian casualties, and which set out to maximise them?
The one who is using the biggest bombs from furthest away is obviously doing the most indiscriminate killing
Not only utterly facile, but also clearly ill-informed: Hamas's rockets aimed at central Israel are coming from much further away than anything Israel is currently doing.
Yes, and would only work as an argument if when Hamas got the opportunity to kill up close they targeted the military targets rather than the babies and old women.
Horrific violence that violates fundamental norms of humanity has claimed the lives of over 1,200 in Israel and 1,400 Palestinians, including 447 children.
The way that war is conducted matters. The IRC is calling on the international community to ensure the following: (1/8)
So are you taking the position essentially expressed by the Twitter/X OP that there is no comparison between the deaths of civilians at the hands of Hamas and the deaths of civilians at the hands of the Israeli state? I thought the whole point of universal human rights and such was that all peoples should be considered of equal worth and, when it comes to even just wars, civilians should not be targeted?
Most of the Palestinian deaths were Hamas combatants, most of the Israeli deaths civilians.
I do not regard them as morally equivalent.
Do you?
Where are you getting the evidence that most of the deaths in Gaza have been of Hamas combatants? Is it only Hamas combatants that are living in tower blocks or using hospitals? The death toll in Gaza is almost 2.5k, with almost 10k casualties. Latest number suggest just over 700 Palestinian children have been killed in air strikes in Gaza, which makes sense given the average age there. Are they mostly Hamas?
I think the deaths of any civilians are equally important, yes. Israel has stated specifically that they are going for a disproportionate response to the attack by Hamas, which is unacceptable.
Which of Hamas and Israel is trying to minimise civilian casualties, and which set out to maximise them?
Neither are trying to minimise them. And of course suddenly when challenged you are changing your tack. Where is your evidence that most of those killed in Gaza in the last week are Hamas?
The problem with this debate is that Hamas' massacre and the forced evacuation of 1.1 million people are incomparable, in the broader sense of the word.
And so the debate goes round in circles. Neither side are trying to minimise casualties - doing so would mean not dropping any bombs or firing rockets.
PBers are on a spectrum from "Hamas are freedom fighters" to "what ensures Israel's long-term security" to "I found a rare butterfly on my holiday in Tuscany" to "push the Palestinians into the sea".
I wouldn't say that Hamas are freedom fighters - and I don't think anyone here who is sympathetic to the Palestinian cause has said that, nor do most people who are sympathetic to the Palestinian cause say that. What I have said is that Hamas are the inevitable outcome of policy decisions that have increased the oppression of the Palestinian people as well as the outcome of Netanyahu's strategy of purposefully side-lining Palestinian moderate politicians in the aim of never having to negotiate a sincere peaceful solution.
I said spectrum! I think you are closer to "long term security" than freedom fighters, for example.
Has anyone called Hamas freedom fighters here? If so, I haven't seen it.
Dr. Foxy, people, under PR, can indeed vote for what they want. And then have no guarantee of getting it if their chosen party trades away their preferred policy in coalition negotiations.
In general people don't care about detailed policies. People don't read manifestos. I suspect that it is rare that a voter would agree with every policy in a manifesto if they cared to read it. There are typically dozens of policies.
People vote for a leader that they approve of and has a positive slogan and demeanour, not detailed policies.
Coalitions represent a majority of electors views, rather than the minority elected dictatorships we have to endure under FPTP.
That is clearly rubbish. The idea that a coalition is simply combining the votes of all those who voted for both parties is an assumption that cannot be made. The only thingh a coalition can be said to represent is the compromise views of the party leaders and, initially at least, the majority of the whipped views of the MPs.
That is clearly rubbish. A coalition is an agreement between the [two] parties on a slate of policies that they can both agree on. It therefore excludes unpopular policies that elected dictatorships under FPTP impose on the majority. Anyone can see that, with a bit of thought.
Really? I am sure most Lib Dems would be surprised to hear you say that regarding tuition fees (to take just one example amongst many)
I actually see that as a wonderful example that parties abandoning key manifesto committments in colaition negotiations can indeed end up making them pay for it in subsequent elections. Under any electoral system, the Lib Dems would have received a pasting after that.
So, yes, politicians would have to bear in mind that electors will have key commitments that they would not accept parties trading away. And it would make those politicians' task more difficult.
Fine by me. Them being kept on their toes out of concern for what electors will think and will hold against them in future is a feature rather than a bug, and if it means they have to think and work harder to work it out - well, they'd better take a good look at which members of their party did better, which wings did better (under STV), which statements went down better electorally and so forth.
Horrific violence that violates fundamental norms of humanity has claimed the lives of over 1,200 in Israel and 1,400 Palestinians, including 447 children.
The way that war is conducted matters. The IRC is calling on the international community to ensure the following: (1/8)
So are you taking the position essentially expressed by the Twitter/X OP that there is no comparison between the deaths of civilians at the hands of Hamas and the deaths of civilians at the hands of the Israeli state? I thought the whole point of universal human rights and such was that all peoples should be considered of equal worth and, when it comes to even just wars, civilians should not be targeted?
Most of the Palestinian deaths were Hamas combatants, most of the Israeli deaths civilians.
I do not regard them as morally equivalent.
Do you?
Where are you getting the evidence that most of the deaths in Gaza have been of Hamas combatants? Is it only Hamas combatants that are living in tower blocks or using hospitals? The death toll in Gaza is almost 2.5k, with almost 10k casualties. Latest number suggest just over 700 Palestinian children have been killed in air strikes in Gaza, which makes sense given the average age there. Are they mostly Hamas?
I think the deaths of any civilians are equally important, yes. Israel has stated specifically that they are going for a disproportionate response to the attack by Hamas, which is unacceptable.
Which of Hamas and Israel is trying to minimise civilian casualties, and which set out to maximise them?
Neither are trying to minimise them. And of course suddenly when challenged you are changing your tack. Where is your evidence that most of those killed in Gaza in the last week are Hamas?
The problem with this debate is that Hamas' massacre and the forced evacuation of 1.1 million people are incomparable, in the broader sense of the word.
And so the debate goes round in circles. Neither side are trying to minimise casualties - doing so would mean not dropping any bombs or firing rockets.
PBers are on a spectrum from "Hamas are freedom fighters" to "what ensures Israel's long-term security" to "I found a rare butterfly on my holiday in Tuscany" to "push the Palestinians into the sea".
I wouldn't say that Hamas are freedom fighters - and I don't think anyone here who is sympathetic to the Palestinian cause has said that, nor do most people who are sympathetic to the Palestinian cause say that. What I have said is that Hamas are the inevitable outcome of policy decisions that have increased the oppression of the Palestinian people as well as the outcome of Netanyahu's strategy of purposefully side-lining Palestinian moderate politicians in the aim of never having to negotiate a sincere peaceful solution.
AFAICS Hamas was the inevitable outcome of the endemic corruption of the PA, the PLO, and Fatah.
The fact of the matter is that Hamas, in part, is at the strength it is due to Netanyahu's policies:
According to various reports, Netanyahu made a similar point at a Likud faction meeting in early 2019, when he was quoted as saying that those who oppose a Palestinian state should support the transfer of funds to Gaza, because maintaining the separation between the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank and Hamas in Gaza would prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state.
That the left and right in Israel understand and agree on this - that Netanyahu's decisions directly helped and emboldened Hamas - should go far to help explain that to you.
As for the oppression of people - we can look at the history of many oppressed people that led to the creation of violent resistance, some of which is justified in the eyes of history, some of which is not. The ANC was a recognised terrorist organisation because of its violent resistance to South African apartheid. From slave rebellions to internal civil wars - the violent oppression of people leads to the eventual violent attempts at freedom.
For me the biggest difference is looking at the crowds that attend the pro-Palestinian and pro-Israeli demonstrations and marches.
The Pro-Palestinian ones are clearly very aggressive, seemingly filled with hate. Instances where they've seen someone on the other side and have gone after them. Also cases where they are shouting incredibly offensive chants - I believe "gas the Jews" was shouted outside the Sydney Opera House, for shame.
The Pro-Israeli demonstrations have, from what I've seen, been very quiet and dignified instances. Often vigils more than demonstrations. No one is shouting and you don't fear that one of them is going to suddenly attack someone else.
I think the Jews have far more to fear right now and I hope that if it comes to it that I would stand shoulder-to-shoulder with them to protect them.
It doesn't help that uncritical support of the Palestinian cause is a core article of faith on the far left. There are mobs ready to go, and to protest with, if not violence, certainly aggression. And it's easy enough for the actual antisemites to mobilise within this.
I'd hope most of these Momentum types still have enough between their ears to know the difference between 'Jewish' and 'Israeli' but it is a deeply unsettling time for Jewish people in the UK right now. I know a lot of people who are very upset and fearful.
Note - if you happen to know any Jewish people, do reach out to them and let them know you're thinking of them. Even just a little acknowledgement would mean a lot.
Some heartening news for a change this morning then. After a series of reverses, the latest in Australia, the Forces of the Enlightenment strike back in Poland.
There's a tendency to try to find a common narrative across countries - I'm not sure I see one at the moment, or at least not on the same timescale.
My hope is that basically each country that tries right wing populism, discovers it doesn't fix their problems, and moves on, the wiser if the poorer for it.
That's a realistic hope in time imo. Let's cling to it.
As for a common narrative, there isn't but there is a common theme. There's a battle going on between 2 types of politics and it's not as simple as Left v Right, that's a bit outdated, it's between a politics that seeks to appeal to the best in people and one that seeks to appeal to the worst.
Horrific violence that violates fundamental norms of humanity has claimed the lives of over 1,200 in Israel and 1,400 Palestinians, including 447 children.
The way that war is conducted matters. The IRC is calling on the international community to ensure the following: (1/8)
So are you taking the position essentially expressed by the Twitter/X OP that there is no comparison between the deaths of civilians at the hands of Hamas and the deaths of civilians at the hands of the Israeli state? I thought the whole point of universal human rights and such was that all peoples should be considered of equal worth and, when it comes to even just wars, civilians should not be targeted?
Most of the Palestinian deaths were Hamas combatants, most of the Israeli deaths civilians.
I do not regard them as morally equivalent.
Do you?
More than 700 children already been killed in the bombardment of Gaza in the last few days, IIRC. I'm guessing they're not Hamas combatants.
The only question I would ask at this point is - is that an independent verified number? Or is that Hamas claiming it?
It has been reported widely as fact in the Western media. I have not visited Gaza independently to verify, if you want to go over there and do a body count be my guest. It doesn't seem implausible given that half the population of Gaza are children and neither air strikes nor artillery bombardments are known for their ability to target individual victims in a heavily populated area.
Mr Bell, who has worked at the Guardian for more than four decades, said the newspaper had refused to publish any more of his cartoons, although it will continue to employ him until April 2024.
Well, there was certainly a lack of funny ones... Does that count?
Nah because otherwise he’d have been sacked years ago!
(Seriously, though, this latest one - with Netenyahu as a surgeon with boxing gloves. It seems a stretch to read that as a reference to “a pound of flesh”. I suspect that the Guardian is being hyper sensitive and/or was looking for an excuse to cut costs without paying a massive redundancy payment)
My guess is their advertisers had a word, and/or staff got fed up of Bell pinning the racist label on the paper. I'd agree with you that in this instance Bell is largely innocent, except insofar as it is insensitive at best to attack any Israeli leader immediately after the Hamas attack.
Meh.
“Not proven” rather than “largely innocent” methinks
Steve Bell has been missing the mark quite a bit over the last decade. He’s not really ‘nailed’ a PM since Cameron (the rubber johnny Cam was spot on).
Might’ve been time to move on anyway tbh. Sometimes employers are just waiting for the right excuse (cf Danny Baker at the BBC).
His Starmer is pretty good, so he’s nailed a future pm. Just to prick the consensus I often like Bell’s drawing but his humour tends to the lumbering and hits the target with a 2x4 rather than a rapier. I think he’d be more at home with the scabrous Gilray and Hogarth in the C18th rather than our milquetoast times.
Gilray had a facility for political comment that Bell couldn't dream of, though. Very much the rapier versus the 2x4.
Horrific violence that violates fundamental norms of humanity has claimed the lives of over 1,200 in Israel and 1,400 Palestinians, including 447 children.
The way that war is conducted matters. The IRC is calling on the international community to ensure the following: (1/8)
So are you taking the position essentially expressed by the Twitter/X OP that there is no comparison between the deaths of civilians at the hands of Hamas and the deaths of civilians at the hands of the Israeli state? I thought the whole point of universal human rights and such was that all peoples should be considered of equal worth and, when it comes to even just wars, civilians should not be targeted?
Most of the Palestinian deaths were Hamas combatants, most of the Israeli deaths civilians.
I do not regard them as morally equivalent.
Do you?
More than 700 children already been killed in the bombardment of Gaza in the last few days, IIRC. I'm guessing they're not Hamas combatants.
The only question I would ask at this point is - is that an independent verified number? Or is that Hamas claiming it?
It has been reported widely as fact in the Western media. I have not visited Gaza independently to verify, if you want to go over there and do a body count be my guest. It doesn't seem implausible given that half the population of Gaza are children and neither air strikes nor artillery bombardments are known for their ability to target individual victims in a heavily populated area.
I don't expect you to know - I just worry about dis-information.
Horrific violence that violates fundamental norms of humanity has claimed the lives of over 1,200 in Israel and 1,400 Palestinians, including 447 children.
The way that war is conducted matters. The IRC is calling on the international community to ensure the following: (1/8)
So are you taking the position essentially expressed by the Twitter/X OP that there is no comparison between the deaths of civilians at the hands of Hamas and the deaths of civilians at the hands of the Israeli state? I thought the whole point of universal human rights and such was that all peoples should be considered of equal worth and, when it comes to even just wars, civilians should not be targeted?
Most of the Palestinian deaths were Hamas combatants, most of the Israeli deaths civilians.
I do not regard them as morally equivalent.
Do you?
Where are you getting the evidence that most of the deaths in Gaza have been of Hamas combatants? Is it only Hamas combatants that are living in tower blocks or using hospitals? The death toll in Gaza is almost 2.5k, with almost 10k casualties. Latest number suggest just over 700 Palestinian children have been killed in air strikes in Gaza, which makes sense given the average age there. Are they mostly Hamas?
I think the deaths of any civilians are equally important, yes. Israel has stated specifically that they are going for a disproportionate response to the attack by Hamas, which is unacceptable.
Which of Hamas and Israel is trying to minimise civilian casualties, and which set out to maximise them?
Neither are trying to minimise them. And of course suddenly when challenged you are changing your tack. Where is your evidence that most of those killed in Gaza in the last week are Hamas?
The problem with this debate is that Hamas' massacre and the forced evacuation of 1.1 million people are incomparable, in the broader sense of the word.
And so the debate goes round in circles. Neither side are trying to minimise casualties - doing so would mean not dropping any bombs or firing rockets.
PBers are on a spectrum from "Hamas are freedom fighters" to "what ensures Israel's long-term security" to "I found a rare butterfly on my holiday in Tuscany" to "push the Palestinians into the sea".
I wouldn't say that Hamas are freedom fighters - and I don't think anyone here who is sympathetic to the Palestinian cause has said that, nor do most people who are sympathetic to the Palestinian cause say that. What I have said is that Hamas are the inevitable outcome of policy decisions that have increased the oppression of the Palestinian people as well as the outcome of Netanyahu's strategy of purposefully side-lining Palestinian moderate politicians in the aim of never having to negotiate a sincere peaceful solution.
I said spectrum! I think you are closer to "long term security" than freedom fighters, for example.
Has anyone called Hamas freedom fighters here? If so, I haven't seen it.
I mean I'm not going to have a day's worth of this but you yourself just did. How else do we interpret this passage when you use it wrt Hamas' activities. I have helped by adding bold formatting to the relevant elements.
"we can look at the history of many oppressed people that led to the creation of violent resistance, some of which is justified in the eyes of history, some of which is not. The ANC was a recognised terrorist organisation because of its violent resistance to South African apartheid. From slave rebellions to internal civil wars - the violent oppression of people leads to the eventual violent attempts at freedom."
You are literally explaining to me how and why Hamas is fighting for freedom.
Somewhat startling piece on new homes built to low standards of insulation etc. (i.e. low specifications, rather than jerrybuilding). I am sure some are better, but even so ...
I still don't get why more homes are not built with solar panels as standard from the start. Economies of scale would, I assume, make it cheaper, and who is going to otice an extra few grand in the buying price if you are already spending £200K+.
I would have thought thta madating a minimum number of homes in each new development to haev solar panels would be a good way to up provision easily and cheaply.
I mean, because that would increase the construction price and developers dislike having to spend money and the Tories have, since Thatcher really, been in the role of mediating the interests of developers and home owners.
I'll be interested in the details of this Labour plan for modern garden cities. If the idea is just send it out to developers on current specs, it is going to be awful - huge developments of new builds that will last a decade if we're lucky. If Labour do it seriously and put proper specs on things - solar, insulation, maybe even limit the average car per home design and aim to have things build in line with the idea of walkable cities - then it could be great.
Agree generally but the limiting cars per household idea is one of those that always fails because it runs up against real life. If you can absolutely gaurantee that public transport will be there all the time when people need it then fine. But no one can. So people still buy the cars and then block the streets with them.
Forget shopping etc for a minute. How many people live within walking distance of their work?
I don't think the limiting the number of cars is the way to go. Plenty of trips will still need them, and even in a walking/cycling nirvana overall mileage won't be reduced much as it's the short journeys we wish to eliminate.
In terms of distance to work - 2/3rd of all commutes are under 6 miles, a third under 3 miles. A 30 minute cycle or 15 minute cycle.
How many people are going to want to walk for an hour at the start and end of their working day? I mean, I know that is something of an indictment of modern Britons (most Europeans?) but it is reality. Particularly when you start to take into account weather and light levels (thinking of safety perception particularly for women on their own).
Why walk when you can cycle? Weather doesn't seem to affect cycle commuting rates at all in the UK, going by monthly data.
But yes, there is a sort of cultural cringe around getting any sort of exercise in. I consider my 30 minute walk or 15 minute cycle time I don't need to spend in the gym. #savetheNHS
Angry people are angry that a pro-Palestine protest has set up shop next to the Cenotaph. A Tory MP blamed Westminster Council for approving it, but the council denies it, as do the police. As an aside, some are also annoyed that the police are storing their kit on the Cenotaph.
On the face of it, storing your kit directly on the cenotaph does seem more disrespectful than setting up next to it. But then it seems the angry MPs are also saying that any pro-Palestinian protests (as opposed to just pro-Hamas ones) should be made illegal so I would suggest he can probably just go fuck himself.
Everyone has the right to peaceful assembly and protest. It is an absolute core of our approach to citizenship. That isn't to say that I approve of every protest - that would be ridiculous.
So if the PSC people want to go and march, they should be allowed. The balance to tread is when their banners and chants are genocidal - do we send the police in to remove such things? You can't stand in the street demanding the murder of someone else in the street - why should you be able to do so for the murder of someone elsewhere?
S.1 of the Terrorism Act 2006 says hello.
Quite a few of the statements being made on the streets of London and other cities over the last few days would appear to be in breach of this provision.
Lots of talk about hate crimes and, yet, shouting hate at Jews is somehow ok. Well, not to me it isn't and not I hope to lots of other people. If we're going to have such crimes then we apply them properly to everybody not just to a select few who seem to think they should have a free pass to spew hate at others while claiming they are the victims if anyone dares point out what they're doing.
A lot of that depends on whether you think that verbally attacking Israel is the same as verbally attacking Jews.
I don't.
I think Israel under its current administration is the epitome of strong arm bullying and their treatment of Palestinians is utterly indefensible. That has abosolutely nothing to doing with them being Jewish and everything to do with them currenlty being ruled by a bunch of ultra right wing religious nutters.
I think people should have the right to say this and protest about it.
Somewhat startling piece on new homes built to low standards of insulation etc. (i.e. low specifications, rather than jerrybuilding). I am sure some are better, but even so ...
I still don't get why more homes are not built with solar panels as standard from the start. Economies of scale would, I assume, make it cheaper, and who is going to otice an extra few grand in the buying price if you are already spending £200K+.
I would have thought thta madating a minimum number of homes in each new development to haev solar panels would be a good way to up provision easily and cheaply.
IMO nearly everybody will notice a few extra grand on the buying price, because you can get a posher kitchen, more furniture, a small conservatory, or a posh holiday, or a car, instead of slightly lower bills each month for 10 years.
The values of our culture are "I want it NOW", rather than "let's spend now for the future benefits".
Why do people in older houses (yes I know you have an unusual situation - most eg 1930s semis or 1980ss 3-beds are not listed) do not invest in their properties to cut their heating bills by half?
It's a very small minority who do the investment.
Surely it's because the cost/benefit ratios often aren't very good. I halved my gas bill by putting in a wood burner, it cost my under £1k to save £600 a year. I'm not going to be fitting triple glazing at a likely cost of £3k to save me £100 a year, the payback time is probably longer than the life of the windows. My parents have a fancy solar + batteries install on their new house, it's taken their electricity bill to almost zero. It cost £14k. If I put that on my house, it would be a payback time of over 20 years, given my current electricity bill is £55/month.
In my situation, and I'm not that unusual, there’s the additional fact that I'm likely to have a family and want to sell up and upsize in the next 3-5 years. Given that I'm unlikely to get much more for the house when sold with extra insulation etc than without, anything with a payback time of over 5 years probably loses me money (even if it's great for the next owner).
Btw, if anyone's looking for book recommendations, I just picked up a copy of This New Ocean. It's an great account of the origins of the space age. Pulitzer runner up a couple of decades ago.
Horrific violence that violates fundamental norms of humanity has claimed the lives of over 1,200 in Israel and 1,400 Palestinians, including 447 children.
The way that war is conducted matters. The IRC is calling on the international community to ensure the following: (1/8)
So are you taking the position essentially expressed by the Twitter/X OP that there is no comparison between the deaths of civilians at the hands of Hamas and the deaths of civilians at the hands of the Israeli state? I thought the whole point of universal human rights and such was that all peoples should be considered of equal worth and, when it comes to even just wars, civilians should not be targeted?
Most of the Palestinian deaths were Hamas combatants, most of the Israeli deaths civilians.
I do not regard them as morally equivalent.
Do you?
Where are you getting the evidence that most of the deaths in Gaza have been of Hamas combatants? Is it only Hamas combatants that are living in tower blocks or using hospitals? The death toll in Gaza is almost 2.5k, with almost 10k casualties. Latest number suggest just over 700 Palestinian children have been killed in air strikes in Gaza, which makes sense given the average age there. Are they mostly Hamas?
I think the deaths of any civilians are equally important, yes. Israel has stated specifically that they are going for a disproportionate response to the attack by Hamas, which is unacceptable.
Which of Hamas and Israel is trying to minimise civilian casualties, and which set out to maximise them?
Neither are trying to minimise them. And of course suddenly when challenged you are changing your tack. Where is your evidence that most of those killed in Gaza in the last week are Hamas?
The problem with this debate is that Hamas' massacre and the forced evacuation of 1.1 million people are incomparable, in the broader sense of the word.
And so the debate goes round in circles. Neither side are trying to minimise casualties - doing so would mean not dropping any bombs or firing rockets.
PBers are on a spectrum from "Hamas are freedom fighters" to "what ensures Israel's long-term security" to "I found a rare butterfly on my holiday in Tuscany" to "push the Palestinians into the sea".
I wouldn't say that Hamas are freedom fighters - and I don't think anyone here who is sympathetic to the Palestinian cause has said that, nor do most people who are sympathetic to the Palestinian cause say that. What I have said is that Hamas are the inevitable outcome of policy decisions that have increased the oppression of the Palestinian people as well as the outcome of Netanyahu's strategy of purposefully side-lining Palestinian moderate politicians in the aim of never having to negotiate a sincere peaceful solution.
AFAICS Hamas was the inevitable outcome of the endemic corruption of the PA, the PLO, and Fatah.
The fact of the matter is that Hamas, in part, is at the strength it is due to Netanyahu's policies:
According to various reports, Netanyahu made a similar point at a Likud faction meeting in early 2019, when he was quoted as saying that those who oppose a Palestinian state should support the transfer of funds to Gaza, because maintaining the separation between the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank and Hamas in Gaza would prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state.
That the left and right in Israel understand and agree on this - that Netanyahu's decisions directly helped and emboldened Hamas - should go far to help explain that to you.
As for the oppression of people - we can look at the history of many oppressed people that led to the creation of violent resistance, some of which is justified in the eyes of history, some of which is not. The ANC was a recognised terrorist organisation because of its violent resistance to South African apartheid. From slave rebellions to internal civil wars - the violent oppression of people leads to the eventual violent attempts at freedom.
Yeah it's Israel's fault I get it.
Bit problematic to say Netanyahu/Likud = Israel, just as it is to say Hamas = Palestine/Gaza. Nothing these twats would like more than to be identified with the nation of course.
Horrific violence that violates fundamental norms of humanity has claimed the lives of over 1,200 in Israel and 1,400 Palestinians, including 447 children.
The way that war is conducted matters. The IRC is calling on the international community to ensure the following: (1/8)
So are you taking the position essentially expressed by the Twitter/X OP that there is no comparison between the deaths of civilians at the hands of Hamas and the deaths of civilians at the hands of the Israeli state? I thought the whole point of universal human rights and such was that all peoples should be considered of equal worth and, when it comes to even just wars, civilians should not be targeted?
Most of the Palestinian deaths were Hamas combatants, most of the Israeli deaths civilians.
I do not regard them as morally equivalent.
Do you?
Where are you getting the evidence that most of the deaths in Gaza have been of Hamas combatants? Is it only Hamas combatants that are living in tower blocks or using hospitals? The death toll in Gaza is almost 2.5k, with almost 10k casualties. Latest number suggest just over 700 Palestinian children have been killed in air strikes in Gaza, which makes sense given the average age there. Are they mostly Hamas?
I think the deaths of any civilians are equally important, yes. Israel has stated specifically that they are going for a disproportionate response to the attack by Hamas, which is unacceptable.
Which of Hamas and Israel is trying to minimise civilian casualties, and which set out to maximise them?
The one who is using the biggest bombs from furthest away is obviously doing the most indiscriminate killing
What, more indiscriminate than going around a nursery cutting babies heads off?
You're going to get a "but they didn't cut off 40 babies heads" for that one.
AIUI Israel supplied about 10% of Gaza's electricity, and most water was from the aquifer under Gaza - or it was until Hamas dug up the pipes to make rocket launchers to attack Israel. These rockets frequently malfunction, falling short and killing Gazans - but the Gaza health board always ascribes those deaths to Israel.
Somewhat startling piece on new homes built to low standards of insulation etc. (i.e. low specifications, rather than jerrybuilding). I am sure some are better, but even so ...
I still don't get why more homes are not built with solar panels as standard from the start. Economies of scale would, I assume, make it cheaper, and who is going to otice an extra few grand in the buying price if you are already spending £200K+.
I would have thought thta madating a minimum number of homes in each new development to haev solar panels would be a good way to up provision easily and cheaply.
I mean, because that would increase the construction price and developers dislike having to spend money and the Tories have, since Thatcher really, been in the role of mediating the interests of developers and home owners.
I'll be interested in the details of this Labour plan for modern garden cities. If the idea is just send it out to developers on current specs, it is going to be awful - huge developments of new builds that will last a decade if we're lucky. If Labour do it seriously and put proper specs on things - solar, insulation, maybe even limit the average car per home design and aim to have things build in line with the idea of walkable cities - then it could be great.
I'm not sure that people understand just how wretched new builds tend to be. It isn't universal - some are decent. But for so many (myself included) a new build home quickly shows just how cheaply it was thrown together. My former estate of 1,100 new homes from three builders had serious issues on all house designs from all three builders. So it didn;'t matter what you bought or from whom, it was crap.
In our case we had a house that audibly creaked in windy weather, with cracking plaster on various walls and as we discovered several years after buying it, empty cavity walls where Barratts had "forgotten" to install insulation. On every house they built. To say nothing about the garden made from rubble etc etc etc.
House prices have gone bonkers, yet the housebuilders construct the cheapest possible crap. This is the british problem in full effect - crap product at top money.
In Victorian/Edwardian times, builders built what they could get away with, as well.
The limiting factor was people having choice and checking quality. The houses that have survived from that period were the good ones. Plenty of references from that period of new houses being unsold as shoddy, ugly etc. - they were often knocked down, having never been occupied.
Today we have the problem that any crap sells. There is massive under supply of housing. Enforcement is crap as well, but it’s the under supply that is the biggest problem in my view.
Horrific violence that violates fundamental norms of humanity has claimed the lives of over 1,200 in Israel and 1,400 Palestinians, including 447 children.
The way that war is conducted matters. The IRC is calling on the international community to ensure the following: (1/8)
So are you taking the position essentially expressed by the Twitter/X OP that there is no comparison between the deaths of civilians at the hands of Hamas and the deaths of civilians at the hands of the Israeli state? I thought the whole point of universal human rights and such was that all peoples should be considered of equal worth and, when it comes to even just wars, civilians should not be targeted?
Most of the Palestinian deaths were Hamas combatants, most of the Israeli deaths civilians.
I do not regard them as morally equivalent.
Do you?
More than 700 children already been killed in the bombardment of Gaza in the last few days, IIRC. I'm guessing they're not Hamas combatants.
The only question I would ask at this point is - is that an independent verified number? Or is that Hamas claiming it?
It has been reported widely as fact in the Western media. I have not visited Gaza independently to verify, if you want to go over there and do a body count be my guest. It doesn't seem implausible given that half the population of Gaza are children and neither air strikes nor artillery bombardments are known for their ability to target individual victims in a heavily populated area.
I don't expect you to know - I just worry about dis-information.
The number has been quoted by news sources that I would trust to take appropriate steps to verify information. Disinflation in this conflict is widespread - there is an interesting article on this topic in the FT today. Personally, I would not pay attention to anything on Twitter etc that isn't from a proper news source, as it is at least as likely to be untrue as true. There are two quotations about war that to my mind sum up the current situation entirely. "War is hell" and "the first casualty of war is the truth". There's really nothing else to be said about it.
I can't help but feel an agonizing sympathy for the 'France and Ireland will dominate world rugby for the next decade' Brigade.
Have a lot of people said that?
Part of the disappointment for Irish rugby fans is that this was probably their last really great opportunity following another couple of tournaments where they were up there in the rankings but ultimately fell short. As well as Johnny Sexton, there are quite a few other key players who won't be around in 2027 - it'll be a very different team.
France are a different matter. Incredibly disappointing for them to lose in a home World Cup (and you'd have expected them to have gone on to win it had they made it through yesterday). But it's not a rebuilding job.
Angry people are angry that a pro-Palestine protest has set up shop next to the Cenotaph. A Tory MP blamed Westminster Council for approving it, but the council denies it, as do the police. As an aside, some are also annoyed that the police are storing their kit on the Cenotaph.
On the face of it, storing your kit directly on the cenotaph does seem more disrespectful than setting up next to it. But then it seems the angry MPs are also saying that any pro-Palestinian protests (as opposed to just pro-Hamas ones) should be made illegal so I would suggest he can probably just go fuck himself.
Everyone has the right to peaceful assembly and protest. It is an absolute core of our approach to citizenship. That isn't to say that I approve of every protest - that would be ridiculous.
So if the PSC people want to go and march, they should be allowed. The balance to tread is when their banners and chants are genocidal - do we send the police in to remove such things? You can't stand in the street demanding the murder of someone else in the street - why should you be able to do so for the murder of someone elsewhere?
S.1 of the Terrorism Act 2006 says hello.
Quite a few of the statements being made on the streets of London and other cities over the last few days would appear to be in breach of this provision.
Lots of talk about hate crimes and, yet, shouting hate at Jews is somehow ok. Well, not to me it isn't and not I hope to lots of other people. If we're going to have such crimes then we apply them properly to everybody not just to a select few who seem to think they should have a free pass to spew hate at others while claiming they are the victims if anyone dares point out what they're doing.
I was at the march on Saturday in London. Outside of some football fash trying to attack the march, everything was peaceful. I saw multiple different Jewish organisations there - some religious, some secular - making the point that not all Jewish people are Zionists, and even some Zionist Jewish people were there making the argument in favour of a peaceful two state solution and decrying the current acts of the Israeli government. I didn't hear a single person shouting at Jewish people, I didn't even hear anyone say anything about Jewish people or Jews and the only material I saw that discussed Jewish people rather than Israel directly were some weirdo (white) Marxist Leninists, but most people stayed the away from them. The few arrests made were mostly for people refusing to remove face coverings after the Met imposing a pre-covid restriction about how, if a police officer believes you covering your face to conceal your identity, they can arrest you if you refuse to remove it when asked. This was used against people wearing keffiyehs - a pretty significant item of cultural solidarity within Palestinian communities.
Dr. Foxy, people, under PR, can indeed vote for what they want. And then have no guarantee of getting it if their chosen party trades away their preferred policy in coalition negotiations.
In general people don't care about detailed policies. People don't read manifestos. I suspect that it is rare that a voter would agree with every policy in a manifesto if they cared to read it. There are typically dozens of policies.
People vote for a leader that they approve of and has a positive slogan and demeanour, not detailed policies.
Coalitions represent a majority of electors views, rather than the minority elected dictatorships we have to endure under FPTP.
That is clearly rubbish. The idea that a coalition is simply combining the votes of all those who voted for both parties is an assumption that cannot be made. The only thingh a coalition can be said to represent is the compromise views of the party leaders and, initially at least, the majority of the whipped views of the MPs.
That is clearly rubbish. A coalition is an agreement between the [two] parties on a slate of policies that they can both agree on. It therefore excludes unpopular policies that elected dictatorships under FPTP impose on the majority. Anyone can see that, with a bit of thought.
Really? I am sure most Lib Dems would be surprised to hear you say that regarding tuition fees (to take just one example amongst many)
I actually see that as a wonderful example that parties abandoning key manifesto committments in colaition negotiations can indeed end up making them pay for it in subsequent elections. Under any electoral system, the Lib Dems would have received a pasting after that.
So, yes, politicians would have to bear in mind that electors will have key commitments that they would not accept parties trading away. And it would make those politicians' task more difficult.
Fine by me. Them being kept on their toes out of concern for what electors will think and will hold against them in future is a feature rather than a bug, and if it means they have to think and work harder to work it out - well, they'd better take a good look at which members of their party did better, which wings did better (under STV), which statements went down better electorally and so forth.
Except they won't. When they get back into power in coalition next time they will make similar mistakes and compromises that will alienate large parts of their electorate for another few years.
Remember that the coalition was also the government of austerity that everyone attacks so vehemently these days.
Somewhat startling piece on new homes built to low standards of insulation etc. (i.e. low specifications, rather than jerrybuilding). I am sure some are better, but even so ...
That's a strange article. It is the complaints that 15 years ago would have been applied to an EPC-E grade dwelling, applied in this case to one EPC A-Grade, and 2x EPC-B Grades - not clarifying whether that is the Performance or Impact number.
Including "my windows are soaking when the temperature is below 10C", which is ventilation / lifestyle issue not an energy issue.
And a desire to have "new legislation for higher standards" - I thought that was in place for 2025/6, unless Rishi has burnt that down as well. He *has* burnt down improved standards for older stock to feed Schrodinger's Tory Voter, which is a problem at least 20x bigger than newbuild standards.
Roughly A-Grade is top 3-5%, and B-Grade is top 10-15%, of the housing stock, and newbuilds are little more than rounding error on the energy wasted by older stock.
The only heating bill number mentioned is one man lamenting that his total energy bills for both gas and electric have not been better (ie much lower) than £30 per month in the A-Grade 3 bed semi.
(At £30 per month ie 3.6k for 10 years of energy at today's very high prices it sounds like they got the fabric right, and it is difficult to justify further investment in either cost or emissions terms to save perhaps £150-250 per annum if that, eg £5-6k for a heat pump plus annual checks etc.
There is a wrinkle that iirc the Heat Pump Grant is for retrofits only, not newbuild. So for the developer it is logical not to fit one and knock ££ off the price or ££ on the profit or ££ in things that look like lollipops.)
There's also a bit of an outbreak of British self-hating disease. "But Sweden .." - Sweden where energy consumption per head is double what it is here, and flats are mainly heated by district heating schemes (transmission losses are 20-40%).
So - some interesting points, but it looks in large measure to be 'bash the developers and ignore the rest' to me.
Angry people are angry that a pro-Palestine protest has set up shop next to the Cenotaph. A Tory MP blamed Westminster Council for approving it, but the council denies it, as do the police. As an aside, some are also annoyed that the police are storing their kit on the Cenotaph.
On the face of it, storing your kit directly on the cenotaph does seem more disrespectful than setting up next to it. But then it seems the angry MPs are also saying that any pro-Palestinian protests (as opposed to just pro-Hamas ones) should be made illegal so I would suggest he can probably just go fuck himself.
Everyone has the right to peaceful assembly and protest. It is an absolute core of our approach to citizenship. That isn't to say that I approve of every protest - that would be ridiculous.
So if the PSC people want to go and march, they should be allowed. The balance to tread is when their banners and chants are genocidal - do we send the police in to remove such things? You can't stand in the street demanding the murder of someone else in the street - why should you be able to do so for the murder of someone elsewhere?
S.1 of the Terrorism Act 2006 says hello.
Quite a few of the statements being made on the streets of London and other cities over the last few days would appear to be in breach of this provision.
Lots of talk about hate crimes and, yet, shouting hate at Jews is somehow ok. Well, not to me it isn't and not I hope to lots of other people. If we're going to have such crimes then we apply them properly to everybody not just to a select few who seem to think they should have a free pass to spew hate at others while claiming they are the victims if anyone dares point out what they're doing.
A lot of that depends on whether you think that verbally attacking Israel is the same as verbally attacking Jews.
I don't.
I think Israel under its current administration is the epitome of strong arm bullying and their treatment of Palestinians is utterly indefensible. That has abosolutely nothing to doing with them being Jewish and everything to do with them currenlty being ruled by a bunch of ultra right wing religious nutters.
I think people should have the right to say this and protest about it.
Indeed, I would go further and argue that conflating Jewish people and Jewishness with Israelis or the state of Israel is in and of itself anti-Semitic. Not all Jewish people are Zionists or pro Israel - lots of the criticism of Israel comes from Jewish organisations. To make criticism of Israel a marker of anti-Semitism is ludicrous.
Horrific violence that violates fundamental norms of humanity has claimed the lives of over 1,200 in Israel and 1,400 Palestinians, including 447 children.
The way that war is conducted matters. The IRC is calling on the international community to ensure the following: (1/8)
So are you taking the position essentially expressed by the Twitter/X OP that there is no comparison between the deaths of civilians at the hands of Hamas and the deaths of civilians at the hands of the Israeli state? I thought the whole point of universal human rights and such was that all peoples should be considered of equal worth and, when it comes to even just wars, civilians should not be targeted?
Most of the Palestinian deaths were Hamas combatants, most of the Israeli deaths civilians.
I do not regard them as morally equivalent.
Do you?
More than 700 children already been killed in the bombardment of Gaza in the last few days, IIRC. I'm guessing they're not Hamas combatants.
The only question I would ask at this point is - is that an independent verified number? Or is that Hamas claiming it?
It has been reported widely as fact in the Western media. I have not visited Gaza independently to verify, if you want to go over there and do a body count be my guest. It doesn't seem implausible given that half the population of Gaza are children and neither air strikes nor artillery bombardments are known for their ability to target individual victims in a heavily populated area.
I don't expect you to know - I just worry about dis-information.
The number has been quoted by news sources that I would trust to take appropriate steps to verify information. Disinflation in this conflict is widespread - there is an interesting article on this topic in the FT today. Personally, I would not pay attention to anything on Twitter etc that isn't from a proper news source, as it is at least as likely to be untrue as true. There are two quotations about war that to my mind sum up the current situation entirely. "War is hell" and "the first casualty of war is the truth". There's really nothing else to be said about it.
I can't disagree with that. Ultimately none of this needed to happen and their is blame on all sides, but it was Hamas who chose to attack civilians indiscriminately. I have huge sympathy for innocent Palestinians, They are trapped in the same situation of ordinary, decent Germans in 1945. Ultimately their government is evil, and also really hard to remove. And that government will be lying its head off.
Horrific violence that violates fundamental norms of humanity has claimed the lives of over 1,200 in Israel and 1,400 Palestinians, including 447 children.
The way that war is conducted matters. The IRC is calling on the international community to ensure the following: (1/8)
So are you taking the position essentially expressed by the Twitter/X OP that there is no comparison between the deaths of civilians at the hands of Hamas and the deaths of civilians at the hands of the Israeli state? I thought the whole point of universal human rights and such was that all peoples should be considered of equal worth and, when it comes to even just wars, civilians should not be targeted?
Most of the Palestinian deaths were Hamas combatants, most of the Israeli deaths civilians.
I do not regard them as morally equivalent.
Do you?
Where are you getting the evidence that most of the deaths in Gaza have been of Hamas combatants? Is it only Hamas combatants that are living in tower blocks or using hospitals? The death toll in Gaza is almost 2.5k, with almost 10k casualties. Latest number suggest just over 700 Palestinian children have been killed in air strikes in Gaza, which makes sense given the average age there. Are they mostly Hamas?
I think the deaths of any civilians are equally important, yes. Israel has stated specifically that they are going for a disproportionate response to the attack by Hamas, which is unacceptable.
Which of Hamas and Israel is trying to minimise civilian casualties, and which set out to maximise them?
Neither are trying to minimise them. And of course suddenly when challenged you are changing your tack. Where is your evidence that most of those killed in Gaza in the last week are Hamas?
The problem with this debate is that Hamas' massacre and the forced evacuation of 1.1 million people are incomparable, in the broader sense of the word.
And so the debate goes round in circles. Neither side are trying to minimise casualties - doing so would mean not dropping any bombs or firing rockets.
PBers are on a spectrum from "Hamas are freedom fighters" to "what ensures Israel's long-term security" to "I found a rare butterfly on my holiday in Tuscany" to "push the Palestinians into the sea".
I wouldn't say that Hamas are freedom fighters - and I don't think anyone here who is sympathetic to the Palestinian cause has said that, nor do most people who are sympathetic to the Palestinian cause say that. What I have said is that Hamas are the inevitable outcome of policy decisions that have increased the oppression of the Palestinian people as well as the outcome of Netanyahu's strategy of purposefully side-lining Palestinian moderate politicians in the aim of never having to negotiate a sincere peaceful solution.
AFAICS Hamas was the inevitable outcome of the endemic corruption of the PA, the PLO, and Fatah.
The fact of the matter is that Hamas, in part, is at the strength it is due to Netanyahu's policies:
According to various reports, Netanyahu made a similar point at a Likud faction meeting in early 2019, when he was quoted as saying that those who oppose a Palestinian state should support the transfer of funds to Gaza, because maintaining the separation between the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank and Hamas in Gaza would prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state.
That the left and right in Israel understand and agree on this - that Netanyahu's decisions directly helped and emboldened Hamas - should go far to help explain that to you.
As for the oppression of people - we can look at the history of many oppressed people that led to the creation of violent resistance, some of which is justified in the eyes of history, some of which is not. The ANC was a recognised terrorist organisation because of its violent resistance to South African apartheid. From slave rebellions to internal civil wars - the violent oppression of people leads to the eventual violent attempts at freedom.
Yeah it's Israel's fault I get it.
Bit problematic to say Netanyahu/Likud = Israel, just as it is to say Hamas = Palestine/Gaza. Nothing these twats would like more than to be identified with the nation of course.
Hamas came to power two years before Netanyahu became PM. So Business Insider tells me. And as I see that Business Insider is now the go-to independent arbiter of what is happening in the Middle East I have no qualms about linking to the article google presented me with following my "Netanyahu Hamas" search.
Angry people are angry that a pro-Palestine protest has set up shop next to the Cenotaph. A Tory MP blamed Westminster Council for approving it, but the council denies it, as do the police. As an aside, some are also annoyed that the police are storing their kit on the Cenotaph.
On the face of it, storing your kit directly on the cenotaph does seem more disrespectful than setting up next to it. But then it seems the angry MPs are also saying that any pro-Palestinian protests (as opposed to just pro-Hamas ones) should be made illegal so I would suggest he can probably just go fuck himself.
Everyone has the right to peaceful assembly and protest. It is an absolute core of our approach to citizenship. That isn't to say that I approve of every protest - that would be ridiculous.
So if the PSC people want to go and march, they should be allowed. The balance to tread is when their banners and chants are genocidal - do we send the police in to remove such things? You can't stand in the street demanding the murder of someone else in the street - why should you be able to do so for the murder of someone elsewhere?
S.1 of the Terrorism Act 2006 says hello.
Quite a few of the statements being made on the streets of London and other cities over the last few days would appear to be in breach of this provision.
Lots of talk about hate crimes and, yet, shouting hate at Jews is somehow ok. Well, not to me it isn't and not I hope to lots of other people. If we're going to have such crimes then we apply them properly to everybody not just to a select few who seem to think they should have a free pass to spew hate at others while claiming they are the victims if anyone dares point out what they're doing.
A lot of that depends on whether you think that verbally attacking Israel is the same as verbally attacking Jews.
I don't.
I think Israel under its current administration is the epitome of strong arm bullying and their treatment of Palestinians is utterly indefensible. That has abosolutely nothing to doing with them being Jewish and everything to do with them currenlty being ruled by a bunch of ultra right wing religious nutters.
I think people should have the right to say this and protest about it.
I think you need to look at what the Act actually says and the statements that have been made. Some of them went way beyond attacking the policies of the Israeli government. They seem to me to fall squarely within the definition of "glorification" of the "commission" of acts of terrorism, as defined, both in the past and future.
There is something disingenuous - and, frankly, utterly indecent - in claiming (though to be clear I am not making this accusation of you) that a description of the torture and murder of children as "beautiful" and "inspiring" is a criticism of the Israeli government's policies.
Mr Bell, who has worked at the Guardian for more than four decades, said the newspaper had refused to publish any more of his cartoons, although it will continue to employ him until April 2024.
Well, there was certainly a lack of funny ones... Does that count?
Nah because otherwise he’d have been sacked years ago!
(Seriously, though, this latest one - with Netenyahu as a surgeon with boxing gloves. It seems a stretch to read that as a reference to “a pound of flesh”. I suspect that the Guardian is being hyper sensitive and/or was looking for an excuse to cut costs without paying a massive redundancy payment)
My guess is their advertisers had a word, and/or staff got fed up of Bell pinning the racist label on the paper. I'd agree with you that in this instance Bell is largely innocent, except insofar as it is insensitive at best to attack any Israeli leader immediately after the Hamas attack.
Meh.
“Not proven” rather than “largely innocent” methinks
Steve Bell has been missing the mark quite a bit over the last decade. He’s not really ‘nailed’ a PM since Cameron (the rubber johnny Cam was spot on).
Might’ve been time to move on anyway tbh. Sometimes employers are just waiting for the right excuse (cf Danny Baker at the BBC).
His Starmer is pretty good, so he’s nailed a future pm. Just to prick the consensus I often like Bell’s drawing but his humour tends to the lumbering and hits the target with a 2x4 rather than a rapier. I think he’d be more at home with the scabrous Gilray and Hogarth in the C18th rather than our milquetoast times.
Gilray had a facility for political comment that Bell couldn't dream of, though. Very much the rapier versus the 2x4.
Not averse to crudity in portrayal if not execution though.
Angry people are angry that a pro-Palestine protest has set up shop next to the Cenotaph. A Tory MP blamed Westminster Council for approving it, but the council denies it, as do the police. As an aside, some are also annoyed that the police are storing their kit on the Cenotaph.
On the face of it, storing your kit directly on the cenotaph does seem more disrespectful than setting up next to it. But then it seems the angry MPs are also saying that any pro-Palestinian protests (as opposed to just pro-Hamas ones) should be made illegal so I would suggest he can probably just go fuck himself.
Everyone has the right to peaceful assembly and protest. It is an absolute core of our approach to citizenship. That isn't to say that I approve of every protest - that would be ridiculous.
So if the PSC people want to go and march, they should be allowed. The balance to tread is when their banners and chants are genocidal - do we send the police in to remove such things? You can't stand in the street demanding the murder of someone else in the street - why should you be able to do so for the murder of someone elsewhere?
S.1 of the Terrorism Act 2006 says hello.
Quite a few of the statements being made on the streets of London and other cities over the last few days would appear to be in breach of this provision.
Lots of talk about hate crimes and, yet, shouting hate at Jews is somehow ok. Well, not to me it isn't and not I hope to lots of other people. If we're going to have such crimes then we apply them properly to everybody not just to a select few who seem to think they should have a free pass to spew hate at others while claiming they are the victims if anyone dares point out what they're doing.
A lot of that depends on whether you think that verbally attacking Israel is the same as verbally attacking Jews.
I don't.
I think Israel under its current administration is the epitome of strong arm bullying and their treatment of Palestinians is utterly indefensible. That has abosolutely nothing to doing with them being Jewish and everything to do with them currenlty being ruled by a bunch of ultra right wing religious nutters.
I think people should have the right to say this and protest about it.
I think you need to look at what the Act actually says and the statements that have been made. Some of them went way beyond attacking the policies of the Israeli government. They seem to me to fall squarely within the definition of "glorification" of the "commission" of acts of terrorism, as defined, both in the past and future.
There is something disingenuous - and, frankly, utterly indecent - in claiming (though to be clear I am not making this accusation of you) that a description of the torture and murder of children as "beautiful" and "inspiring" is a criticism of the Israeli government's policies.
I agree but you seem to have been moving way beyond just attacking those sorts of comments to attacking any sort of protest against Israel as being anti-semitic. Whilst I can accept that may not be your intent it is certainly the impression you give,
Angry people are angry that a pro-Palestine protest has set up shop next to the Cenotaph. A Tory MP blamed Westminster Council for approving it, but the council denies it, as do the police. As an aside, some are also annoyed that the police are storing their kit on the Cenotaph.
On the face of it, storing your kit directly on the cenotaph does seem more disrespectful than setting up next to it. But then it seems the angry MPs are also saying that any pro-Palestinian protests (as opposed to just pro-Hamas ones) should be made illegal so I would suggest he can probably just go fuck himself.
Everyone has the right to peaceful assembly and protest. It is an absolute core of our approach to citizenship. That isn't to say that I approve of every protest - that would be ridiculous.
So if the PSC people want to go and march, they should be allowed. The balance to tread is when their banners and chants are genocidal - do we send the police in to remove such things? You can't stand in the street demanding the murder of someone else in the street - why should you be able to do so for the murder of someone elsewhere?
S.1 of the Terrorism Act 2006 says hello.
Quite a few of the statements being made on the streets of London and other cities over the last few days would appear to be in breach of this provision.
Lots of talk about hate crimes and, yet, shouting hate at Jews is somehow ok. Well, not to me it isn't and not I hope to lots of other people. If we're going to have such crimes then we apply them properly to everybody not just to a select few who seem to think they should have a free pass to spew hate at others while claiming they are the victims if anyone dares point out what they're doing.
A lot of that depends on whether you think that verbally attacking Israel is the same as verbally attacking Jews.
I don't.
I think Israel under its current administration is the epitome of strong arm bullying and their treatment of Palestinians is utterly indefensible. That has abosolutely nothing to doing with them being Jewish and everything to do with them currenlty being ruled by a bunch of ultra right wing religious nutters.
I think people should have the right to say this and protest about it.
Indeed, I would go further and argue that conflating Jewish people and Jewishness with Israelis or the state of Israel is in and of itself anti-Semitic. Not all Jewish people are Zionists or pro Israel - lots of the criticism of Israel comes from Jewish organisations. To make criticism of Israel a marker of anti-Semitism is ludicrous.
It is complicated by the fact though that many, probably most, Jewish people have some sort of relationship with the state of Israel. Often as simple of family ties or friends who live there, but also just 'having a view', which if you're Jewish you are generally kind of expected to have vs the way that you wouldn't have a view on, say, Uruguay or Liberia.
Which is to say that criticism of Israel, which is often of the 'river to the sea' saying-without-saying kind, can still feel personal to a Jewish person, even one who is deeply critical of the Israeli government and its actions.
I can't help but feel an agonizing sympathy for the 'France and Ireland will dominate world rugby for the next decade' Brigade.
Have a lot of people said that?
Part of the disappointment for Irish rugby fans is that this was probably their last really great opportunity following another couple of tournaments where they were up there in the rankings but ultimately fell short. As well as Johnny Sexton, there are quite a few other key players who won't be around in 2027 - it'll be a very different team.
France are a different matter. Incredibly disappointing for them to lose in a home World Cup (and you'd have expected them to have gone on to win it had they made it through yesterday). But it's not a rebuilding job.
It was certainly being said earlier this year, and a quick Google shows it was still being said last week (by Scotland coach Gregor Townsend):
The way Irish rugby is set up they could dominate world rugby for the next five, 10 years. They’re the number one team in the world and they have a pro rugby system that is very strong and they’ve got an age-group system that is very strong.”
Angry people are angry that a pro-Palestine protest has set up shop next to the Cenotaph. A Tory MP blamed Westminster Council for approving it, but the council denies it, as do the police. As an aside, some are also annoyed that the police are storing their kit on the Cenotaph.
On the face of it, storing your kit directly on the cenotaph does seem more disrespectful than setting up next to it. But then it seems the angry MPs are also saying that any pro-Palestinian protests (as opposed to just pro-Hamas ones) should be made illegal so I would suggest he can probably just go fuck himself.
Everyone has the right to peaceful assembly and protest. It is an absolute core of our approach to citizenship. That isn't to say that I approve of every protest - that would be ridiculous.
So if the PSC people want to go and march, they should be allowed. The balance to tread is when their banners and chants are genocidal - do we send the police in to remove such things? You can't stand in the street demanding the murder of someone else in the street - why should you be able to do so for the murder of someone elsewhere?
S.1 of the Terrorism Act 2006 says hello.
Quite a few of the statements being made on the streets of London and other cities over the last few days would appear to be in breach of this provision.
Lots of talk about hate crimes and, yet, shouting hate at Jews is somehow ok. Well, not to me it isn't and not I hope to lots of other people. If we're going to have such crimes then we apply them properly to everybody not just to a select few who seem to think they should have a free pass to spew hate at others while claiming they are the victims if anyone dares point out what they're doing.
A lot of that depends on whether you think that verbally attacking Israel is the same as verbally attacking Jews.
I don't.
I think Israel under its current administration is the epitome of strong arm bullying and their treatment of Palestinians is utterly indefensible. That has abosolutely nothing to doing with them being Jewish and everything to do with them currenlty being ruled by a bunch of ultra right wing religious nutters.
I think people should have the right to say this and protest about it.
Indeed, I would go further and argue that conflating Jewish people and Jewishness with Israelis or the state of Israel is in and of itself anti-Semitic. Not all Jewish people are Zionists or pro Israel - lots of the criticism of Israel comes from Jewish organisations. To make criticism of Israel a marker of anti-Semitism is ludicrous.
It is complicated by the fact though that many, probably most, Jewish people have some sort of relationship with the state of Israel. Often as simple of family ties or friends who live there, but also just 'having a view', which if you're Jewish you are generally kind of expected to have vs the way that you wouldn't have a view on, say, Uruguay or Liberia.
Which is to say that criticism of Israel, which is often of the 'river to the sea' saying-without-saying kind, can still feel personal to a Jewish person, even one who is deeply critical of the Israeli government and its actions.
As a matter of record Israel is a Jewish state (as per UN 181). So it appears that while it is of course legitimate and necessary to criticise any state's actions if you disagree with them, blah, blah, in criticising Israel people are also criticising (the) Jewish people.
Somewhat startling piece on new homes built to low standards of insulation etc. (i.e. low specifications, rather than jerrybuilding). I am sure some are better, but even so ...
I still don't get why more homes are not built with solar panels as standard from the start. Economies of scale would, I assume, make it cheaper, and who is going to otice an extra few grand in the buying price if you are already spending £200K+.
I would have thought thta madating a minimum number of homes in each new development to haev solar panels would be a good way to up provision easily and cheaply.
I mean, because that would increase the construction price and developers dislike having to spend money and the Tories have, since Thatcher really, been in the role of mediating the interests of developers and home owners.
I'll be interested in the details of this Labour plan for modern garden cities. If the idea is just send it out to developers on current specs, it is going to be awful - huge developments of new builds that will last a decade if we're lucky. If Labour do it seriously and put proper specs on things - solar, insulation, maybe even limit the average car per home design and aim to have things build in line with the idea of walkable cities - then it could be great.
Agree generally but the limiting cars per household idea is one of those that always fails because it runs up against real life. If you can absolutely gaurantee that public transport will be there all the time when people need it then fine. But no one can. So people still buy the cars and then block the streets with them.
Forget shopping etc for a minute. How many people live within walking distance of their work?
I don't think the limiting the number of cars is the way to go. Plenty of trips will still need them, and even in a walking/cycling nirvana overall mileage won't be reduced much as it's the short journeys we wish to eliminate.
In terms of distance to work - 2/3rd of all commutes are under 6 miles, a third under 3 miles. A 30 minute cycle or 15 minute cycle.
Even if you *give* them driveways for three cars each, the buggers *still* park them on the pavements, because in general they are not aware and don't care or don't think about neighbours being forced into the traffic by their antisocial behaviour.
Around here the speciality is driving into a roadside parallel parking bay, then driving *out* of the other side of the parking bay half onto the pavement - so the driver can get out into the parking bay and bugger the pedestrians, wheelchair users, guide dog users etc who will therefore be in danger.
I can't help but feel an agonizing sympathy for the 'France and Ireland will dominate world rugby for the next decade' Brigade.
Have a lot of people said that?
Part of the disappointment for Irish rugby fans is that this was probably their last really great opportunity following another couple of tournaments where they were up there in the rankings but ultimately fell short. As well as Johnny Sexton, there are quite a few other key players who won't be around in 2027 - it'll be a very different team.
France are a different matter. Incredibly disappointing for them to lose in a home World Cup (and you'd have expected them to have gone on to win it had they made it through yesterday). But it's not a rebuilding job.
It was certainly being said earlier this year, and a quick Google shows it was still being said last week (by Scotland coach Gregor Townsend):
The way Irish rugby is set up they could dominate world rugby for the next five, 10 years. They’re the number one team in the world and they have a pro rugby system that is very strong and they’ve got an age-group system that is very strong.”
Might still happen, of course, but sport has a funny way of ebbing and flowing.
One of the reasons for Irish success is the essential club side nature of the Ireland team. The choice of having provinces in the Heineken cup (as for Wales and Scotland) leads to a concentration of talent in provinces, something seen less in English rugby (which enters club sides into the tournament). How many of the Ireland team play together for their province too? I think it makes a huge difference.
That said I think this Irish team may well have a post WC slump now. But I am often wrong.
The voting system isn't crooked, everyone starts each election with zero votes and then the voters decide. Just put forward what you believe in and convince the most voters to back you. If you can't do that, take some responsibility for your own actions.
And Labour and Lib Dems aren't interchangeable. If they were, they'd be the same party not two very different ones.
FWIW my view is that the LibDems were wrong to target the seat and even now should ease off since it's really clear they're not in a position to win and they're simply increasing the chance that the Tories will hold the seat.
But to respond to your point, after talking to hundreds of voters over the weekend, it's clear that most voters don't see the parties as different in any significant way, and the appeals for tactical voting strengthen that perception (nobody asks for tactical votes from Reform UK, do they?). That might be a mistake - after all, we can all point to policy differences - but they elude the only vaguely engaged voter. After Starmer's move to the centre, and the general perception that the LibDems (and even, bizarrely, the Corbynite Greens) are centrists, what floating voters see is three similar parties squabbling, and it annoys them. In some cases it even means they don't vote for any of us.
I'm not actually arguing against tactical voting. But it would be good if the non-Tory parties agreed on some basic principles which respect the right of every party to make an effort:
1. The party that sees itself in the best position in win should use phrases like ". The Tories are [usual criticisms]. If you want to vote tactically to get them out, lend us your vote because ...". Don't use voodoo polls or disproportionate bar charts.
2. If a party can see that they're not in a position to win, they should argue for a positive vote. "You only get the chance to say how you think the country should be run every 4-5 years. Don't waste your vote on parochial and negative tactical voting, vote positively for us because..."
You'll still see parties who both think they can win adopting the first strategy, but put like that it avoids actually pissing everyone off, including the voters who we're all trying to impress.
"(and even, bizarrely, the Corbynite Greens) are centrists"
Corbyn's policies were, in general, popular with the majority of voters. Even the majority of Tory voters are happy with the idea of renationalising lots of essential things - electricity, rail, water. Green policy is radical, that's why I support them, but the "mainstream" idea of where the centre is policy wise is dead off imho.
I don't know the Green Party in Beds, they may be an actual centrist local branch (I consider my branch here in Herts quite centrist). I know lots of Greens in Tory areas tend to be on the pragmatic / conservationist side of the general green movement, versus the more radical wings amongst younger Greens and those from the cities.
Yes, once you got away from the identity politics stuff, a lot of Corbyn's more more traditional politics (nationalisation, what the state spends its money on, etc) were popular. What they were not were credible. People liked them, but didn't believe the money raised by taxing other people would pay for them. So they didn't vote for them.
More people voted Labour in 2017 than at any other time this Century
Yet they still lost to Theresa May. That and the Brexit vote and the 2019 Boris Johnson win makes you despair of this country.
You can't be much of a fan of democracy when more people voted in the Brexit vote - 33.5m - than in general elections.
Horrific violence that violates fundamental norms of humanity has claimed the lives of over 1,200 in Israel and 1,400 Palestinians, including 447 children.
The way that war is conducted matters. The IRC is calling on the international community to ensure the following: (1/8)
So are you taking the position essentially expressed by the Twitter/X OP that there is no comparison between the deaths of civilians at the hands of Hamas and the deaths of civilians at the hands of the Israeli state? I thought the whole point of universal human rights and such was that all peoples should be considered of equal worth and, when it comes to even just wars, civilians should not be targeted?
Most of the Palestinian deaths were Hamas combatants, most of the Israeli deaths civilians.
I do not regard them as morally equivalent.
Do you?
Where are you getting the evidence that most of the deaths in Gaza have been of Hamas combatants? Is it only Hamas combatants that are living in tower blocks or using hospitals? The death toll in Gaza is almost 2.5k, with almost 10k casualties. Latest number suggest just over 700 Palestinian children have been killed in air strikes in Gaza, which makes sense given the average age there. Are they mostly Hamas?
I think the deaths of any civilians are equally important, yes. Israel has stated specifically that they are going for a disproportionate response to the attack by Hamas, which is unacceptable.
Which of Hamas and Israel is trying to minimise civilian casualties, and which set out to maximise them?
Neither are trying to minimise them. And of course suddenly when challenged you are changing your tack. Where is your evidence that most of those killed in Gaza in the last week are Hamas?
The problem with this debate is that Hamas' massacre and the forced evacuation of 1.1 million people are incomparable, in the broader sense of the word.
And so the debate goes round in circles. Neither side are trying to minimise casualties - doing so would mean not dropping any bombs or firing rockets.
PBers are on a spectrum from "Hamas are freedom fighters" to "what ensures Israel's long-term security" to "I found a rare butterfly on my holiday in Tuscany" to "push the Palestinians into the sea".
I wouldn't say that Hamas are freedom fighters - and I don't think anyone here who is sympathetic to the Palestinian cause has said that, nor do most people who are sympathetic to the Palestinian cause say that. What I have said is that Hamas are the inevitable outcome of policy decisions that have increased the oppression of the Palestinian people as well as the outcome of Netanyahu's strategy of purposefully side-lining Palestinian moderate politicians in the aim of never having to negotiate a sincere peaceful solution.
AFAICS Hamas was the inevitable outcome of the endemic corruption of the PA, the PLO, and Fatah.
The fact of the matter is that Hamas, in part, is at the strength it is due to Netanyahu's policies:
According to various reports, Netanyahu made a similar point at a Likud faction meeting in early 2019, when he was quoted as saying that those who oppose a Palestinian state should support the transfer of funds to Gaza, because maintaining the separation between the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank and Hamas in Gaza would prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state.
That the left and right in Israel understand and agree on this - that Netanyahu's decisions directly helped and emboldened Hamas - should go far to help explain that to you.
As for the oppression of people - we can look at the history of many oppressed people that led to the creation of violent resistance, some of which is justified in the eyes of history, some of which is not. The ANC was a recognised terrorist organisation because of its violent resistance to South African apartheid. From slave rebellions to internal civil wars - the violent oppression of people leads to the eventual violent attempts at freedom.
Yeah it's Israel's fault I get it.
Bit problematic to say Netanyahu/Likud = Israel, just as it is to say Hamas = Palestine/Gaza. Nothing these twats would like more than to be identified with the nation of course.
Hamas came to power two years before Netanyahu became PM. So Business Insider tells me. And as I see that Business Insider is now the go-to independent arbiter of what is happening in the Middle East I have no qualms about linking to the article google presented me with following my "Netanyahu Hamas" search.
Whilst it is an interesting article, the "mowing the grass" idea is part of the symbiosis between Netanyahu's politics and Hamas - to make sure they aren't a "real" threat but also keep committing acts that justify its existence.
And yes, Hamas came to power before Netanyahu, but the policy of backing them so peace wasn't possible has been repeated throughout his party.
I also trust Israeli sentiment slightly more than the sentiment of the western media / academia because I view the almost fetishistic relationship many western political parties have with Israel to be based in geopolitics and a form of anti-Semitism that tries to show itself to be philo-Semitism. I agree in part with James Baldwin writing in the late 70s:
But the state of Israel was not created for the salvation of the Jews; it was created for the salvation of the Western interests. This is what is becoming clear (I must say that it was always clear to me). The Palestinians have been paying for the British colonial policy of "divide and rule" and for Europe’s guilty Christian conscience for more than thirty years.
Angry people are angry that a pro-Palestine protest has set up shop next to the Cenotaph. A Tory MP blamed Westminster Council for approving it, but the council denies it, as do the police. As an aside, some are also annoyed that the police are storing their kit on the Cenotaph.
On the face of it, storing your kit directly on the cenotaph does seem more disrespectful than setting up next to it. But then it seems the angry MPs are also saying that any pro-Palestinian protests (as opposed to just pro-Hamas ones) should be made illegal so I would suggest he can probably just go fuck himself.
Everyone has the right to peaceful assembly and protest. It is an absolute core of our approach to citizenship. That isn't to say that I approve of every protest - that would be ridiculous.
So if the PSC people want to go and march, they should be allowed. The balance to tread is when their banners and chants are genocidal - do we send the police in to remove such things? You can't stand in the street demanding the murder of someone else in the street - why should you be able to do so for the murder of someone elsewhere?
S.1 of the Terrorism Act 2006 says hello.
Quite a few of the statements being made on the streets of London and other cities over the last few days would appear to be in breach of this provision.
Lots of talk about hate crimes and, yet, shouting hate at Jews is somehow ok. Well, not to me it isn't and not I hope to lots of other people. If we're going to have such crimes then we apply them properly to everybody not just to a select few who seem to think they should have a free pass to spew hate at others while claiming they are the victims if anyone dares point out what they're doing.
It is not that shouting hate at Jews is OK but that policing crowds of thousands of people takes nuance. The Home Secretary has tweeted that police will use video footage to target offenders later.
Angry people are angry that a pro-Palestine protest has set up shop next to the Cenotaph. A Tory MP blamed Westminster Council for approving it, but the council denies it, as do the police. As an aside, some are also annoyed that the police are storing their kit on the Cenotaph.
On the face of it, storing your kit directly on the cenotaph does seem more disrespectful than setting up next to it. But then it seems the angry MPs are also saying that any pro-Palestinian protests (as opposed to just pro-Hamas ones) should be made illegal so I would suggest he can probably just go fuck himself.
Everyone has the right to peaceful assembly and protest. It is an absolute core of our approach to citizenship. That isn't to say that I approve of every protest - that would be ridiculous.
So if the PSC people want to go and march, they should be allowed. The balance to tread is when their banners and chants are genocidal - do we send the police in to remove such things? You can't stand in the street demanding the murder of someone else in the street - why should you be able to do so for the murder of someone elsewhere?
S.1 of the Terrorism Act 2006 says hello.
Quite a few of the statements being made on the streets of London and other cities over the last few days would appear to be in breach of this provision.
Lots of talk about hate crimes and, yet, shouting hate at Jews is somehow ok. Well, not to me it isn't and not I hope to lots of other people. If we're going to have such crimes then we apply them properly to everybody not just to a select few who seem to think they should have a free pass to spew hate at others while claiming they are the victims if anyone dares point out what they're doing.
I was at the march on Saturday in London. Outside of some football fash trying to attack the march, everything was peaceful. I saw multiple different Jewish organisations there - some religious, some secular - making the point that not all Jewish people are Zionists, and even some Zionist Jewish people were there making the argument in favour of a peaceful two state solution and decrying the current acts of the Israeli government. I didn't hear a single person shouting at Jewish people, I didn't even hear anyone say anything about Jewish people or Jews and the only material I saw that discussed Jewish people rather than Israel directly were some weirdo (white) Marxist Leninists, but most people stayed the away from them. The few arrests made were mostly for people refusing to remove face coverings after the Met imposing a pre-covid restriction about how, if a police officer believes you covering your face to conceal your identity, they can arrest you if you refuse to remove it when asked. This was used against people wearing keffiyehs - a pretty significant item of cultural solidarity within Palestinian communities.
On the fringes:
I would like to thank the London @metpoliceuk who I believe saved my life from certain death on Saturday, when I was attacked by the supporters of terrorist organisations such as Hamas, Hezbollah and the Islamic Republic's IRGC. One of these pro-Palestinian protesters threatened to behead me, before being arrested and being found in possession of a knife. [VIDEO]
The voting system isn't crooked, everyone starts each election with zero votes and then the voters decide. Just put forward what you believe in and convince the most voters to back you. If you can't do that, take some responsibility for your own actions.
And Labour and Lib Dems aren't interchangeable. If they were, they'd be the same party not two very different ones.
FWIW my view is that the LibDems were wrong to target the seat and even now should ease off since it's really clear they're not in a position to win and they're simply increasing the chance that the Tories will hold the seat.
But to respond to your point, after talking to hundreds of voters over the weekend, it's clear that most voters don't see the parties as different in any significant way, and the appeals for tactical voting strengthen that perception (nobody asks for tactical votes from Reform UK, do they?). That might be a mistake - after all, we can all point to policy differences - but they elude the only vaguely engaged voter. After Starmer's move to the centre, and the general perception that the LibDems (and even, bizarrely, the Corbynite Greens) are centrists, what floating voters see is three similar parties squabbling, and it annoys them. In some cases it even means they don't vote for any of us.
I'm not actually arguing against tactical voting. But it would be good if the non-Tory parties agreed on some basic principles which respect the right of every party to make an effort:
1. The party that sees itself in the best position in win should use phrases like ". The Tories are [usual criticisms]. If you want to vote tactically to get them out, lend us your vote because ...". Don't use voodoo polls or disproportionate bar charts.
2. If a party can see that they're not in a position to win, they should argue for a positive vote. "You only get the chance to say how you think the country should be run every 4-5 years. Don't waste your vote on parochial and negative tactical voting, vote positively for us because..."
You'll still see parties who both think they can win adopting the first strategy, but put like that it avoids actually pissing everyone off, including the voters who we're all trying to impress.
"(and even, bizarrely, the Corbynite Greens) are centrists"
Corbyn's policies were, in general, popular with the majority of voters. Even the majority of Tory voters are happy with the idea of renationalising lots of essential things - electricity, rail, water. Green policy is radical, that's why I support them, but the "mainstream" idea of where the centre is policy wise is dead off imho.
I don't know the Green Party in Beds, they may be an actual centrist local branch (I consider my branch here in Herts quite centrist). I know lots of Greens in Tory areas tend to be on the pragmatic / conservationist side of the general green movement, versus the more radical wings amongst younger Greens and those from the cities.
Yes, once you got away from the identity politics stuff, a lot of Corbyn's more more traditional politics (nationalisation, what the state spends its money on, etc) were popular. What they were not were credible. People liked them, but didn't believe the money raised by taxing other people would pay for them. So they didn't vote for them.
More people voted Labour in 2017 than at any other time this Century
Yet they still lost to Theresa May. That and the Brexit vote and the 2019 Boris Johnson win makes you despair of this country.
You can't be much of a fan of democracy when more people voted in the Brexit vote - 33.5m - than in general elections.
The normal ebb and flow of politics in this country should never be a cause for "despair". There are much, much, worse political cultures in this world.
OT is there a more Twitter-dependent politician than Suella Braverman? She always seems to be tweeting about something or other. Often something her government has ballsed up.
Angry people are angry that a pro-Palestine protest has set up shop next to the Cenotaph. A Tory MP blamed Westminster Council for approving it, but the council denies it, as do the police. As an aside, some are also annoyed that the police are storing their kit on the Cenotaph.
On the face of it, storing your kit directly on the cenotaph does seem more disrespectful than setting up next to it. But then it seems the angry MPs are also saying that any pro-Palestinian protests (as opposed to just pro-Hamas ones) should be made illegal so I would suggest he can probably just go fuck himself.
Everyone has the right to peaceful assembly and protest. It is an absolute core of our approach to citizenship. That isn't to say that I approve of every protest - that would be ridiculous.
So if the PSC people want to go and march, they should be allowed. The balance to tread is when their banners and chants are genocidal - do we send the police in to remove such things? You can't stand in the street demanding the murder of someone else in the street - why should you be able to do so for the murder of someone elsewhere?
S.1 of the Terrorism Act 2006 says hello.
Quite a few of the statements being made on the streets of London and other cities over the last few days would appear to be in breach of this provision.
Lots of talk about hate crimes and, yet, shouting hate at Jews is somehow ok. Well, not to me it isn't and not I hope to lots of other people. If we're going to have such crimes then we apply them properly to everybody not just to a select few who seem to think they should have a free pass to spew hate at others while claiming they are the victims if anyone dares point out what they're doing.
A lot of that depends on whether you think that verbally attacking Israel is the same as verbally attacking Jews.
I don't.
I think Israel under its current administration is the epitome of strong arm bullying and their treatment of Palestinians is utterly indefensible. That has abosolutely nothing to doing with them being Jewish and everything to do with them currenlty being ruled by a bunch of ultra right wing religious nutters.
I think people should have the right to say this and protest about it.
I think you need to look at what the Act actually says and the statements that have been made. Some of them went way beyond attacking the policies of the Israeli government. They seem to me to fall squarely within the definition of "glorification" of the "commission" of acts of terrorism, as defined, both in the past and future.
There is something disingenuous - and, frankly, utterly indecent - in claiming (though to be clear I am not making this accusation of you) that a description of the torture and murder of children as "beautiful" and "inspiring" is a criticism of the Israeli government's policies.
I agree but you seem to have been moving way beyond just attacking those sorts of comments to attacking any sort of protest against Israel as being anti-semitic. Whilst I can accept that may not be your intent it is certainly the impression you give,
I have not said that at all. Indeed from the start I have made some pretty severe criticisms of the Israeli government.
I think there are plenty of good faith criticisms to be made of Israel. There are plenty which are made in bad faith. And there have been plenty of statements made which have glorified and praised acts of appalling violence against Jews in Israel and elsewhere, including in this country. It has put Jews here in fear. That is an utter disgrace and it shames us as a country.
It ought to shame those individuals doing it, those who turn a blind eye to it and those who justify it. I have nothing but contempt for such people.
Angry people are angry that a pro-Palestine protest has set up shop next to the Cenotaph. A Tory MP blamed Westminster Council for approving it, but the council denies it, as do the police. As an aside, some are also annoyed that the police are storing their kit on the Cenotaph.
On the face of it, storing your kit directly on the cenotaph does seem more disrespectful than setting up next to it. But then it seems the angry MPs are also saying that any pro-Palestinian protests (as opposed to just pro-Hamas ones) should be made illegal so I would suggest he can probably just go fuck himself.
Everyone has the right to peaceful assembly and protest. It is an absolute core of our approach to citizenship. That isn't to say that I approve of every protest - that would be ridiculous.
So if the PSC people want to go and march, they should be allowed. The balance to tread is when their banners and chants are genocidal - do we send the police in to remove such things? You can't stand in the street demanding the murder of someone else in the street - why should you be able to do so for the murder of someone elsewhere?
S.1 of the Terrorism Act 2006 says hello.
Quite a few of the statements being made on the streets of London and other cities over the last few days would appear to be in breach of this provision.
Lots of talk about hate crimes and, yet, shouting hate at Jews is somehow ok. Well, not to me it isn't and not I hope to lots of other people. If we're going to have such crimes then we apply them properly to everybody not just to a select few who seem to think they should have a free pass to spew hate at others while claiming they are the victims if anyone dares point out what they're doing.
A lot of that depends on whether you think that verbally attacking Israel is the same as verbally attacking Jews.
I don't.
I think Israel under its current administration is the epitome of strong arm bullying and their treatment of Palestinians is utterly indefensible. That has abosolutely nothing to doing with them being Jewish and everything to do with them currenlty being ruled by a bunch of ultra right wing religious nutters.
I think people should have the right to say this and protest about it.
Indeed, I would go further and argue that conflating Jewish people and Jewishness with Israelis or the state of Israel is in and of itself anti-Semitic. Not all Jewish people are Zionists or pro Israel - lots of the criticism of Israel comes from Jewish organisations. To make criticism of Israel a marker of anti-Semitism is ludicrous.
It is complicated by the fact though that many, probably most, Jewish people have some sort of relationship with the state of Israel. Often as simple of family ties or friends who live there, but also just 'having a view', which if you're Jewish you are generally kind of expected to have vs the way that you wouldn't have a view on, say, Uruguay or Liberia.
Which is to say that criticism of Israel, which is often of the 'river to the sea' saying-without-saying kind, can still feel personal to a Jewish person, even one who is deeply critical of the Israeli government and its actions.
As a matter of record Israel is a Jewish state (as per UN 181). So it appears that while it is of course legitimate and necessary to criticise any state's actions if you disagree with them, blah, blah, in criticising Israel people are also criticising (the) Jewish people.
I have anti-Zionist Jewish friends with Zionist-Israeli family - they would categorically deny that Israel = Jewishness and visa versa. Sure, they have connections to it through family and history, but they, like many other Jewish people, do not accept this idea that criticism of Israel is criticism of them as Jews or anti-Semitic. I explained my (loose) familial connection to Jewishness and how that made me interested in the history of Jewishness in a previous thread - I won't go into that again. But part of that journey has been learning, as someone who does not identify with Jewishness and was not raised with any cultural understanding of my own familial ties to Jewishness, how strongly some Jewish people reject the notion of association with Israel on the grounds that continues the propagation of the "dual loyalties" trope of Jewish people, as well as political and religious grounds.
Comments
One of ours shows the road so I checked with the ICO website and at the time it looked like it was going to cost us £36 per year to register the camera (which for some reason I never got round to).
Checking now they seem to have given up on that requirement with the interesting quote that: "It is highly unlikely the ICO will consider it fair or balanced to take enforcement action against a domestic CCTV user."
https://ico.org.uk/for-the-public/domestic-cctv-systems/#rules
That's a different 1500 plus, and definitely not included in that number.
One poll had Trump leading in Michigan by +7, two polls show ahead in PA (+9 / +2), Wisconsin by +2 and Iowa by +10. Another had Biden +9 in Illinois which he won by +17 in 2020.
State polls are notoriously unreliable and we are still 12+ months out but the consistency across the mid-West looks pretty clear.
Then there is the Louisiana Governor's race. Yes, no surprise the GOP won it back but the surprise was there was no run off - Louisiana is one of those states that the winner has to get 50%+. Trump's endorsed candidate Jeff Landry won with 52% beating the Democrat candidate by +26 in a state Trump won by +19. That probably underestimates the party split as the Democrat candidate had consolidated their vote but the Republicans had several candidates.
Against this are the Special Elections which have been more positive for the Democrats.
We will probably have a better idea of things post-Virginia's vote and also with Kentucky Governor's race but no signs yet Trump's indictments are hurting him and some evidence to suggest they are helping.
If people are comparing CCTV numbers in different countries it's idiotic to lump together all the different types of CCTV that exist as though they are the same. China operates massive face recognition CCTV networks, and integrates them with other biometric measures, it's not the same thing as a camera in a corner shop by the till or on somebody's front door. Counting camera numbers is utterly misleading.
Of course, voters will remember at the next election. In both cases.
Tactical voting has come a long way since the early 90s and, contrary to popular opinion, was alive and well in 2019:
https://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2022/01/23/analysing-labour-lib-dem-tactical-voting-since-1983/
You can pick between candidates within a given party. Want an Orange Book Lib Dem, or a centrist Tory? You can pick whichever one of the candidates is closest.
FPTP is effectively single-candidate party list. As most people do vote by party (if they didn't, what are opinion polls all about?), you get the party empowered to offer a single candidate, and if you don't like that candidate, tough. You'll let in Corbyn (or Johnson, or whoever).
The difference is that Hamas deliberately targets civilians; Israel for now doesn't much seem to care, in its pursuit of Hamas.
We do not accept people from outside Parliament threatening or bribing MPs (which is what whippping is) so why should we accept it from parties. Why should MPs be forced to vote against the best interests of their constituents because it is the best interest of their party?
We already have licenced bribery and threats. It is called whipping.
My hope is that basically each country that tries right wing populism, discovers it doesn't fix their problems, and moves on, the wiser if the poorer for it.
And so the debate goes round in circles. Neither side are trying to minimise casualties - doing so would mean not dropping any bombs or firing rockets.
PBers are on a spectrum from "Hamas are freedom fighters" to "what ensures Israel's long-term security" to "I found a rare butterfly on my holiday in Tuscany" to "push the Palestinians into the sea".
https://twitter.com/anneapplebaum/status/1713836884948873589
I mean, we might get through the semis. One universe in ten, from here, England will suddenly play out of their skins and/or South Africa will self combust. But we're not really expecting it.
Chances from here, I reckon:
Eng 5%
Arg 3%
SA 45%
NZ 47%
If not, they broke them. And I'd bet every Government has failed to implement all. At which point we're quibbling over which ones were most important and which ones were lost.
I mean, glancing at the first few pages of the last Conservative one.
Have they delivered 40 new hospitals or are they on track?
Do we have 50,000 more nurses? Do we have 6,000 more GPs, 26,000 more primary care professionals, and 7,500 more nurse associates?
Is staff morale improved in the NHS?
Have there been more than 50 million extra GP appointments per year?
That's from the first page of the specific promises in their last manifesto.
Every budget there are discussions about broken manifesto promises.
If that's not meant to happen under FPTP and it always happens under FPTP, then possibly it's not really a solid rule at all?
Quite a few of the statements being made on the streets of London and other cities over the last few days would appear to be in breach of this provision.
Lots of talk about hate crimes and, yet, shouting hate at Jews is somehow ok. Well, not to me it isn't and not I hope to lots of other people. If we're going to have such crimes then we apply them properly to everybody not just to a select few who seem to think they should have a free pass to spew hate at others while claiming they are the victims if anyone dares point out what they're doing.
Just to prick the consensus I often like Bell’s drawing but his humour tends to the lumbering and hits the target with a 2x4 rather than a rapier. I think he’d be more at home with the scabrous Gilray and Hogarth in the C18th rather than our milquetoast times.
I'd probably suggest 10% for Eng, 1% Arg, and then the other two equally split. But sport is weird. After thrashing Australia, and stunning NZ, England went into the 2019 final as firm favourites and it all went wrong. SA had a plan, England lost a key player almost as soon as the whistle blew to start the match and nothing went right for England, while every bounce (and 50:50 call) went right for SA.
So no English hubris, but at least we still have a slim chance.
https://thehill.com/homenews/4257733-landlord-kills-muslim-boy-stabs-boys-mother-in-hate-crime-motivated-by-israel-hamas-war-police/
An Illinois-based landlord was arrested and charged with murder and hate crimes after authorities said the individual stabbed and killed a six-year-old boy and seriously wounded his mother, who are Muslims, in an apparent hate crime stemming from the Israel-Hamas conflict.
In the news release on Sunday, the Will County Sheriffs Office said that Joseph M. Czuba, a native of Plainfield, Illinois, was charged with first degree murder. He was also charged with attempted first degree murder, two counts of a hate crime, and aggravated battery with a deadly weapon.
The sheriff’s office said investigators were able to determine that the child and his mother were “targeted by the suspect due to them being Muslim and the on-going Middle Eastern conflict involving Hamas and the Israelis.” ..
The Speaker's Conference was a fascinating experiment, and reportedly Speaker Lowther (much respected, formerly a Conservative before being elected to the Speaker's Chair) was very disappointed indeed that the move to a blend of AV and STV fell in battles between the two Houses.
Partly due to MPs worrying about their own seats (how would they do under a new system) and partly (apparently) because Lloyd George was concerned that the Liberal total dominance of Wales wouldn't happen under an STV system.
(Well, how did that work out for you in the long run, David?)
According to various reports, Netanyahu made a similar point at a Likud faction meeting in early 2019, when he was quoted as saying that those who oppose a Palestinian state should support the transfer of funds to Gaza, because maintaining the separation between the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank and Hamas in Gaza would prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state.
https://www.timesofisrael.com/for-years-netanyahu-propped-up-hamas-now-its-blown-up-in-our-faces/
That the left and right in Israel understand and agree on this - that Netanyahu's decisions directly helped and emboldened Hamas - should go far to help explain that to you.
As for the oppression of people - we can look at the history of many oppressed people that led to the creation of violent resistance, some of which is justified in the eyes of history, some of which is not. The ANC was a recognised terrorist organisation because of its violent resistance to South African apartheid. From slave rebellions to internal civil wars - the violent oppression of people leads to the eventual violent attempts at freedom.
So, yes, politicians would have to bear in mind that electors will have key commitments that they would not accept parties trading away. And it would make those politicians' task more difficult.
Fine by me. Them being kept on their toes out of concern for what electors will think and will hold against them in future is a feature rather than a bug, and if it means they have to think and work harder to work it out - well, they'd better take a good look at which members of their party did better, which wings did better (under STV), which statements went down better electorally and so forth.
I'd hope most of these Momentum types still have enough between their ears to know the difference between 'Jewish' and 'Israeli' but it is a deeply unsettling time for Jewish people in the UK right now. I know a lot of people who are very upset and fearful.
Note - if you happen to know any Jewish people, do reach out to them and let them know you're thinking of them. Even just a little acknowledgement would mean a lot.
As for a common narrative, there isn't but there is a common theme. There's a battle going on between 2 types of politics and it's not as simple as Left v Right, that's a bit outdated, it's between a politics that seeks to appeal to the best in people and one that seeks to appeal to the worst.
Israel dropped more bombs on Gaza in 6 days than the US-led coalition dropped in any month fighting ISIS
Doesn't scream precision bombing, does it?
"we can look at the history of many oppressed people that led to the creation of violent resistance, some of which is justified in the eyes of history, some of which is not. The ANC was a recognised terrorist organisation because of its violent resistance to South African apartheid. From slave rebellions to internal civil wars - the violent oppression of people leads to the eventual violent attempts at freedom."
You are literally explaining to me how and why Hamas is fighting for freedom.
But yes, there is a sort of cultural cringe around getting any sort of exercise in. I consider my 30 minute walk or 15 minute cycle time I don't need to spend in the gym. #savetheNHS
I don't.
I think Israel under its current administration is the epitome of strong arm bullying and their treatment of Palestinians is utterly indefensible. That has abosolutely nothing to doing with them being Jewish and everything to do with them currenlty being ruled by a bunch of ultra right wing religious nutters.
I think people should have the right to say this and protest about it.
I'm not going to be fitting triple glazing at a likely cost of £3k to save me £100 a year, the payback time is probably longer than the life of the windows.
My parents have a fancy solar + batteries install on their new house, it's taken their electricity bill to almost zero. It cost £14k. If I put that on my house, it would be a payback time of over 20 years, given my current electricity bill is £55/month.
In my situation, and I'm not that unusual, there’s the additional fact that I'm likely to have a family and want to sell up and upsize in the next 3-5 years. Given that I'm unlikely to get much more for the house when sold with extra insulation etc than without, anything with a payback time of over 5 years probably loses me money (even if it's great for the next owner).
It's an great account of the origins of the space age. Pulitzer runner up a couple of decades ago.
AIUI Israel supplied about 10% of Gaza's electricity, and most water was from the aquifer under Gaza - or it was until Hamas dug up the pipes to make rocket launchers to attack Israel. These rockets frequently malfunction, falling short and killing Gazans - but the Gaza health board always ascribes those deaths to Israel.
The limiting factor was people having choice and checking quality. The houses that have survived from that period were the good ones. Plenty of references from that period of new houses being unsold as shoddy, ugly etc. - they were often knocked down, having never been occupied.
Today we have the problem that any crap sells. There is massive under supply of housing. Enforcement is crap as well, but it’s the under supply that is the biggest problem in my view.
Part of the disappointment for Irish rugby fans is that this was probably their last really great opportunity following another couple of tournaments where they were up there in the rankings but ultimately fell short. As well as Johnny Sexton, there are quite a few other key players who won't be around in 2027 - it'll be a very different team.
France are a different matter. Incredibly disappointing for them to lose in a home World Cup (and you'd have expected them to have gone on to win it had they made it through yesterday). But it's not a rebuilding job.
Remember that the coalition was also the government of austerity that everyone attacks so vehemently these days.
Including "my windows are soaking when the temperature is below 10C", which is ventilation / lifestyle issue not an energy issue.
And a desire to have "new legislation for higher standards" - I thought that was in place for 2025/6, unless Rishi has burnt that down as well. He *has* burnt down improved standards for older stock to feed Schrodinger's Tory Voter, which is a problem at least 20x bigger than newbuild standards.
Roughly A-Grade is top 3-5%, and B-Grade is top 10-15%, of the housing stock, and newbuilds are little more than rounding error on the energy wasted by older stock.
The only heating bill number mentioned is one man lamenting that his total energy bills for both gas and electric have not been better (ie much lower) than £30 per month in the A-Grade 3 bed semi.
(At £30 per month ie 3.6k for 10 years of energy at today's very high prices it sounds like they got the fabric right, and it is difficult to justify further investment in either cost or emissions terms to save perhaps £150-250 per annum if that, eg £5-6k for a heat pump plus annual checks etc.
There is a wrinkle that iirc the Heat Pump Grant is for retrofits only, not newbuild. So for the developer it is logical not to fit one and knock ££ off the price or ££ on the profit or ££ in things that look like lollipops.)
There's also a bit of an outbreak of British self-hating disease. "But Sweden .." - Sweden where energy consumption per head is double what it is here, and flats are mainly heated by district heating schemes (transmission losses are 20-40%).
So - some interesting points, but it looks in large measure to be 'bash the developers and ignore the rest' to me.
https://www.businessinsider.com/middle-east-analysts-dispute-claims-that-netanyahu-propped-hamas-up-2023-10?r=US&IR=T
There is something disingenuous - and, frankly, utterly indecent - in claiming (though to be clear I am not making this accusation of you) that a description of the torture and murder of children as "beautiful" and "inspiring" is a criticism of the Israeli government's policies.
Which is to say that criticism of Israel, which is often of the 'river to the sea' saying-without-saying kind, can still feel personal to a Jewish person, even one who is deeply critical of the Israeli government and its actions.
The way Irish rugby is set up they could dominate world rugby for the next five, 10 years. They’re the number one team in the world and they have a pro rugby system that is very strong and they’ve got an age-group system that is very strong.”
https://www.rugbypass.com/news/gregor-townsend-admits-ireland-were-too-good-after-scotlands-world-cup-exit/
Might still happen, of course, but sport has a funny way of ebbing and flowing.
Around here the speciality is driving into a roadside parallel parking bay, then driving *out* of the other side of the parking bay half onto the pavement - so the driver can get out into the parking bay and bugger the pedestrians, wheelchair users, guide dog users etc who will therefore be in danger.
https://twitter.com/guidedogs/status/1709856297439379870
That said I think this Irish team may well have a post WC slump now. But I am often wrong.
And yes, Hamas came to power before Netanyahu, but the policy of backing them so peace wasn't possible has been repeated throughout his party.
I also trust Israeli sentiment slightly more than the sentiment of the western media / academia because I view the almost fetishistic relationship many western political parties have with Israel to be based in geopolitics and a form of anti-Semitism that tries to show itself to be philo-Semitism. I agree in part with James Baldwin writing in the late 70s:
But the state of Israel was not created for the salvation of the Jews; it was created for the salvation of the Western interests. This is what is becoming clear (I must say that it was always clear to me). The Palestinians have been paying for the British colonial policy of "divide and rule" and for Europe’s guilty Christian conscience for more than thirty years.
I would like to thank the London @metpoliceuk who I believe saved my life from certain death on Saturday, when I was attacked by the supporters of terrorist organisations such as Hamas, Hezbollah and the Islamic Republic's IRGC. One of these pro-Palestinian protesters threatened to behead me, before being arrested and being found in possession of a knife. [VIDEO]
https://x.com/Vahid_Beheshti/status/1713844210900639947?s=20
I think there are plenty of good faith criticisms to be made of Israel. There are plenty which are made in bad faith. And there have been plenty of statements made which have glorified and praised acts of appalling violence against Jews in Israel and elsewhere, including in this country. It has put Jews here in fear. That is an utter disgrace and it shames us as a country.
It ought to shame those individuals doing it, those who turn a blind eye to it and those who justify it. I have nothing but contempt for such people.