Hunt is a tax and spend Brownite who should never have been made Chancellor. He shows no sign of grasping the huge reforms our economy needs if we're to get it growing again - much lower taxes, lower spending and lighter regulation, especially but not only of housing. If he's the best the Conservatives can do, there's little point in anyone voting for them - may as well vote for true socialism as its fake alternative.
I love the idea that keep on doing what we've been doing but harder and faster will do our economy well. Like, what other country that isn't also a global superpower and the defacto global currency, has had success with cutting taxes and lighter regulation? And how much evidence is there that the opposite, Keynesianism, like the New Deal and redistributive taxation actually just does it much better...
Is this a joke? Why do you think Dubai is so successful? There is literally no country on earth that has taxed and regulated itself to success, not one. Even the much vaunted Scandi economies got rich with low tax and regulation and are now stagnating with it.
Dubai - like Singapore - is an entrepot. It’s funded by immense oil wealth and has carved out a small niche as a centre for Middle Eastern and to some extent Indian trade.
It’s also run on very cheap Indian labour.
It’s hardly a scalable model.
As an aside, it’s one of the ironies of global economics that Britain and France, while jealously preserving their very different economic models, have pretty much tracked alongside each other in terms of GDP per capita for about fifty years.
Oil industry only accounts for 1% of Dubai’s economy and it only holds about 4% of the reserves of the UAE so it’s not entirely correct to put it in the Middle Eastern oil wealth category unlike Abu Dhabi which has 90% of the UAE resources.
And how much of the capital investment came from Abu Dhabis oil, or was only available to Dubai because other investors knew it had the backing of Abu Dhabis oil?
Very little. The seven Emirates are very autonomous, rather like US States.
EXC: Pressure piles on Keir Starmer - More than 150 Muslim Labour Councillors have written directly to the Labour leader demanding he call for a ceasefire in Gaza as backlash over his policy from within his party grows
I’m not sure that Starmer is feeling quite as much pressure, as these councillors and activists wish him to be feeling.
Which is generally true of his internal opponents. They are mad at not having more influence and so exagerrate the significance of their petulance.
This example is probably more substantive than that, but I don't get the impression as an outsider that Starmer needs to worry yet
As someone who is much less of an outsider, I have to disagree with you. The criticism from within the Labour Party falls into two quite distinct camps:
1. The usual critics on the far left, who can scarcely contain their glee at being presented with an excuse to weigh in against Keir Starmer as strongly as possible. They see it as an opportunity. The Momentum-supporting Oxford councillor on the radio this morning was an example.
2. A broad swathe of opinion within the wider Labour Party, people who are mostly supportive of the leadership and certainly not those habitually seeking to undermine it from within. That includes amongst others Muslim councillors, most of whom are quite willing to condemn Hamas's actions on 7th October unreservedly but nonetheless are appalled by the humanitarian situation unfolding in Gaza and the relentless killing through bombing and are getting it in the neck from their local communities who are similarly appalled.
In political terms, Keir Starmer should be concerned. The usual critics are not of much relevance, they have already been marginalised within the party and there is no way back now. However, the criticism from within the Muslim community will lose Labour electoral support if not properly addressed, some of it in marginal seats. If Israel continues on its present course, the situation in Gaza is going to get even worse and I think that public opinion will increasingly become critical of the actions of the Israeli government going forward.
The fascinating thing here is the electoral dynamic - and it is reminiscent of Iraq. Essentially the Labour and Tory positions are identical, and a single-issue protest vote is possible...
To be followed by Prime Minister Grant Shapps after Rishi is ousted?
Proof positive that "things can only get better" is not factual.
I think that if the next British Prime Minister was a Jew it would send a non-trivial proportion of the planet into meltdown.
Really?
I think it would hardly be noticed, because it is as irrelevant as Starmers wife.
Was it an issue with Miliband? I don't recall that it was.
I remember pointing out here the anti-Semitism of Daily Mail coverage of Miliband and his father (who they all but called a radical alien Jew who wanted to destroy Britain), and how the whole "he can't even eat a bacon sandwich, look how weird he is" was also pretty Jew-baity, and was told that it wasn't and even if it was it didn't matter because Alastair Campbell was just as bad by putting Howard's face on a flying pig.
Starmer has a relatively free hand on Gaza because where are those lefties going to go. Well of course they might fuck off to the Greens to invigowatermelon them but otherwise, like righties who bemoan this, that or the other Cons policy, they will stay with their own team.
My name's Sunil Prasannan, and I endorse this message.
"It’s hard to say whether the whiff of antisemitism in the image of Ed Miliband eating a bacon sandwich is intentional, but if he becomes PM we’ll need to keep a careful eye on this kind of thing"
Hunt is a tax and spend Brownite who should never have been made Chancellor. He shows no sign of grasping the huge reforms our economy needs if we're to get it growing again - much lower taxes, lower spending and lighter regulation, especially but not only of housing. If he's the best the Conservatives can do, there's little point in anyone voting for them - may as well vote for true socialism as its fake alternative.
I love the idea that keep on doing what we've been doing but harder and faster will do our economy well. Like, what other country that isn't also a global superpower and the defacto global currency, has had success with cutting taxes and lighter regulation? And how much evidence is there that the opposite, Keynesianism, like the New Deal and redistributive taxation actually just does it much better...
Why do you think Dubai is so successful?
Is is successful? It's a environmental catastrophe and dystopian hell full of cashed up, alcohol dependent chavs in Gucci drip.
It’s very different now, to when you were last in port and scraping around the old town in the middle of the night looking for some ‘entertainment’.
Go to place for crime families now.
There’s so much crime here, that I leave my iPad, keys, and wallet on the bar when I go for a pee.
If the future of the human race is megacities in environmental wastelands with nothing much to do other than spending ill gotten gains on bling then the sooner we have an AI apocalypse the better.
Hunt is a tax and spend Brownite who should never have been made Chancellor. He shows no sign of grasping the huge reforms our economy needs if we're to get it growing again - much lower taxes, lower spending and lighter regulation, especially but not only of housing. If he's the best the Conservatives can do, there's little point in anyone voting for them - may as well vote for true socialism as its fake alternative.
I love the idea that keep on doing what we've been doing but harder and faster will do our economy well. Like, what other country that isn't also a global superpower and the defacto global currency, has had success with cutting taxes and lighter regulation? And how much evidence is there that the opposite, Keynesianism, like the New Deal and redistributive taxation actually just does it much better...
Why do you think Dubai is so successful?
Is is successful? It's a environmental catastrophe and dystopian hell full of cashed up, alcohol dependent chavs in Gucci drip.
It’s very different now, to when you were last in port and scraping around the old town in the middle of the night looking for some ‘entertainment’.
Go to place for crime families now.
There’s so much crime here, that I leave my iPad, keys, and wallet on the bar when I go for a pee.
If the future of the human race is megacities in environmental wastelands with nothing much to do other than spending ill gotten gains on bling then the sooner we have an AI apocalypse the better.
Starmer has a relatively free hand on Gaza because where are those lefties going to go. Well of course they might fuck off to the Greens to invigowatermelon them but otherwise, like righties who bemoan this, that or the other Cons policy, they will stay with their own team.
Disagree. I think the left has an inbuilt capacity for fighting amongst itself, whereas generally the right pulls together in the end.
Hunt is a tax and spend Brownite who should never have been made Chancellor. He shows no sign of grasping the huge reforms our economy needs if we're to get it growing again - much lower taxes, lower spending and lighter regulation, especially but not only of housing. If he's the best the Conservatives can do, there's little point in anyone voting for them - may as well vote for true socialism as its fake alternative.
I love the idea that keep on doing what we've been doing but harder and faster will do our economy well. Like, what other country that isn't also a global superpower and the defacto global currency, has had success with cutting taxes and lighter regulation? And how much evidence is there that the opposite, Keynesianism, like the New Deal and redistributive taxation actually just does it much better...
Is this a joke? Why do you think Dubai is so successful? There is literally no country on earth that has taxed and regulated itself to success, not one. Even the much vaunted Scandi economies got rich with low tax and regulation and are now stagnating with it.
Dubai - like Singapore - is an entrepot. It’s funded by immense oil wealth and has carved out a small niche as a centre for Middle Eastern and to some extent Indian trade.
It’s also run on very cheap Indian labour.
It’s hardly a scalable model.
As an aside, it’s one of the ironies of global economics that Britain and France, while jealously preserving their very different economic models, have pretty much tracked alongside each other in terms of GDP per capita for about fifty years.
Oil industry only accounts for 1% of Dubai’s economy and it only holds about 4% of the reserves of the UAE so it’s not entirely correct to put it in the Middle Eastern oil wealth category unlike Abu Dhabi which has 90% of the UAE resources.
And how much of the capital investment came from Abu Dhabis oil, or was only available to Dubai because other investors knew it had the backing of Abu Dhabis oil?
Very little. The seven Emirates are very autonomous, rather like US States.
Dubai is a success. But it used oil wealth (which used to provide 50% of its economy) to seed the infrastructure roll-out required to become an entrepot.
That’s fantastic, but the point is this is not scalable to a country the size of the UK. In any case, we already have a world leading entrepot in London.
Where's the verification of 6,000. Please don't tell me it is simply coming from the Hamas controlled authorities. Are there aid agencies or other authorities doing independent analysis?
EXC: Pressure piles on Keir Starmer - More than 150 Muslim Labour Councillors have written directly to the Labour leader demanding he call for a ceasefire in Gaza as backlash over his policy from within his party grows
I’m not sure that Starmer is feeling quite as much pressure, as these councillors and activists wish him to be feeling.
Which is generally true of his internal opponents. They are mad at not having more influence and so exagerrate the significance of their petulance.
This example is probably more substantive than that, but I don't get the impression as an outsider that Starmer needs to worry yet
As someone who is much less of an outsider, I have to disagree with you. The criticism from within the Labour Party falls into two quite distinct camps:
1. The usual critics on the far left, who can scarcely contain their glee at being presented with an excuse to weigh in against Keir Starmer as strongly as possible. They see it as an opportunity. The Momentum-supporting Oxford councillor on the radio this morning was an example.
2. A broad swathe of opinion within the wider Labour Party, people who are mostly supportive of the leadership and certainly not those habitually seeking to undermine it from within. That includes amongst others Muslim councillors, most of whom are quite willing to condemn Hamas's actions on 7th October unreservedly but nonetheless are appalled by the humanitarian situation unfolding in Gaza and the relentless killing through bombing and are getting it in the neck from their local communities who are similarly appalled.
In political terms, Keir Starmer should be concerned. The usual critics are not of much relevance, they have already been marginalised within the party and there is no way back now. However, the criticism from within the Muslim community will lose Labour electoral support if not properly addressed, some of it in marginal seats. If Israel continues on its present course, the situation in Gaza is going to get even worse and I think that public opinion will increasingly become critical of the actions of the Israeli government going forward.
Sir K knows that for millions of centrists, of all religions and none, the rational next course (which should already have happened) is to call for all hostages to be released and then a ceasefire. Any call for that release, immediately to be followed by ceasefire at least has a thread of argument behind it.
To argue for ceasefire while an undeniable war crime continues by holding the hostages has little appeal for most centrists. Those are the votes Sir K has acquired and needs to retain.
Most centerists would actually say that Israel at least has the right to act against Hamas. No organisation can kill 1400 + citizens and not expect a massive response.
By calling for a ceasefire, what people are saying is that Israel should never act back against terrorism.
The true respond should be that Isreal has a right to act against Hamas, but every action should be lawful, measured and no open ended.
Which is basically Starmers position, He is right, and should hold right against those which are anti-israel.
What's the reasonable response for 5,000 civilians killed?
To reflect on the folly of taking and refusing to release hostages when to do so would slightly ameliorate the effect of the 1400 murders committed in cold blood and would lay the ground for your sympathisers to ask for a ceasefire.
If anyone had even suggested that Israel's reaction to 1,400 dead should be to reflect on the folly of managing an apartheid state and illegal occupation they would have been called an anti-Semite.
I would much rather the people here who do not care about the number of dead Palestinians just say so, or take TOPPINGs position, which is at least honest. I can have an honest disagreement with them when their idea of war morality is essentially just "might decides right". But to all the people who say how horrified they are of 1,400 killed - including babies! - and then hand wave away years of Palestinian children being killed or the civilians death now - your morality is hollow. You don't care about life. You care about your side, your team, your allies - but not human life.
Thanks for this. I feel like an atheist in the bad old days of Northern Ireland. I support good people on all sides and oppose bad people on all sides. I have supported Palestinian charities for many years and will continue to do so.
Blimey - multiple Labour MPs telling me that a couple of shadow cabinet members are considering resigning over Keir Starmer’s handling of the Gaza situation
I listened to the LBC interview when Starmer was at peak Israel shall we call it. He's rowed back from that but that morning it was as if @BartholomewRoberts himself was on the radio.
Seems a very unforced error this row from Keir.
I think the Labour antisemitism battle is still quite fresh for him. He had to go OTT to 'win' that and maybe he's still doing it a little bit. It's making him reluctant to criticize Israel. It'll be an interesting one to watch.
Putting Gaza to one side, this does perhaps lend support to the criticism that Starmer cannot think on his feet.
Where's the verification of 6,000. Please don't tell me it is simply coming from the Hamas controlled authorities. Are there aid agencies or other authorities doing independent analysis?
But again - this is just a continuation of Israeli lives mattering and Palestinian lives don't.
No, not if its just quoting Hamas. From the article:
"Latest media reports citing the Gaza Ministry of Health indicate that the number of people killed in Gaza since 7 October has risen to 5,087"
This is NOT Israeli lives mattering and Palestinians not. Its about not trusting a terrorist organisation putting out numbers with no way of verifying. Its like Goebbels saying 200,000 were killed in Hamburg in 1943.
Hunt is a tax and spend Brownite who should never have been made Chancellor. He shows no sign of grasping the huge reforms our economy needs if we're to get it growing again - much lower taxes, lower spending and lighter regulation, especially but not only of housing. If he's the best the Conservatives can do, there's little point in anyone voting for them - may as well vote for true socialism as its fake alternative.
I love the idea that keep on doing what we've been doing but harder and faster will do our economy well. Like, what other country that isn't also a global superpower and the defacto global currency, has had success with cutting taxes and lighter regulation? And how much evidence is there that the opposite, Keynesianism, like the New Deal and redistributive taxation actually just does it much better...
Why do you think Dubai is so successful?
Is is successful? It's a environmental catastrophe and dystopian hell full of cashed up, alcohol dependent chavs in Gucci drip.
It’s very different now, to when you were last in port and scraping around the old town in the middle of the night looking for some ‘entertainment’.
Go to place for crime families now.
There’s so much crime here, that I leave my iPad, keys, and wallet on the bar when I go for a pee.
If the future of the human race is megacities in environmental wastelands with nothing much to do other than spending ill gotten gains on bling then the sooner we have an AI apocalypse the better.
Thankfully, I know how to run the computers!
I'm exaggerating, obviously. But I wouldn't be tempted there for any salary, I have to say.
Hunt is a tax and spend Brownite who should never have been made Chancellor. He shows no sign of grasping the huge reforms our economy needs if we're to get it growing again - much lower taxes, lower spending and lighter regulation, especially but not only of housing. If he's the best the Conservatives can do, there's little point in anyone voting for them - may as well vote for true socialism as its fake alternative.
I love the idea that keep on doing what we've been doing but harder and faster will do our economy well. Like, what other country that isn't also a global superpower and the defacto global currency, has had success with cutting taxes and lighter regulation? And how much evidence is there that the opposite, Keynesianism, like the New Deal and redistributive taxation actually just does it much better...
Why do you think Dubai is so successful?
Is is successful? It's a environmental catastrophe and dystopian hell full of cashed up, alcohol dependent chavs in Gucci drip.
It’s very different now, to when you were last in port and scraping around the old town in the middle of the night looking for some ‘entertainment’.
Go to place for crime families now.
There’s so much crime here, that I leave my iPad, keys, and wallet on the bar when I go for a pee.
If the future of the human race is megacities in environmental wastelands with nothing much to do other than spending ill gotten gains on bling then the sooner we have an AI apocalypse the better.
Thankfully, I know how to run the computers!
I'm exaggerating, obviously. But I wouldn't be tempted there for any salary, I have to say.
A lot of people stick it for a few years and save like crazy, go back to the UK and buy a house.
Many more people party like it’s 1999 and don’t save anything!
EXC: Pressure piles on Keir Starmer - More than 150 Muslim Labour Councillors have written directly to the Labour leader demanding he call for a ceasefire in Gaza as backlash over his policy from within his party grows
I’m not sure that Starmer is feeling quite as much pressure, as these councillors and activists wish him to be feeling.
Which is generally true of his internal opponents. They are mad at not having more influence and so exagerrate the significance of their petulance.
This example is probably more substantive than that, but I don't get the impression as an outsider that Starmer needs to worry yet
As someone who is much less of an outsider, I have to disagree with you. The criticism from within the Labour Party falls into two quite distinct camps:
1. The usual critics on the far left, who can scarcely contain their glee at being presented with an excuse to weigh in against Keir Starmer as strongly as possible. They see it as an opportunity. The Momentum-supporting Oxford councillor on the radio this morning was an example.
2. A broad swathe of opinion within the wider Labour Party, people who are mostly supportive of the leadership and certainly not those habitually seeking to undermine it from within. That includes amongst others Muslim councillors, most of whom are quite willing to condemn Hamas's actions on 7th October unreservedly but nonetheless are appalled by the humanitarian situation unfolding in Gaza and the relentless killing through bombing and are getting it in the neck from their local communities who are similarly appalled.
In political terms, Keir Starmer should be concerned. The usual critics are not of much relevance, they have already been marginalised within the party and there is no way back now. However, the criticism from within the Muslim community will lose Labour electoral support if not properly addressed, some of it in marginal seats. If Israel continues on its present course, the situation in Gaza is going to get even worse and I think that public opinion will increasingly become critical of the actions of the Israeli government going forward.
Sir K knows that for millions of centrists, of all religions and none, the rational next course (which should already have happened) is to call for all hostages to be released and then a ceasefire. Any call for that release, immediately to be followed by ceasefire at least has a thread of argument behind it.
To argue for ceasefire while an undeniable war crime continues by holding the hostages has little appeal for most centrists. Those are the votes Sir K has acquired and needs to retain.
Most centerists would actually say that Israel at least has the right to act against Hamas. No organisation can kill 1400 + citizens and not expect a massive response.
By calling for a ceasefire, what people are saying is that Israel should never act back against terrorism.
The true respond should be that Isreal has a right to act against Hamas, but every action should be lawful, measured and no open ended.
Which is basically Starmers position, He is right, and should hold right against those which are anti-israel.
What's the reasonable response for 5,000 civilians killed?
To reflect on the folly of taking and refusing to release hostages when to do so would slightly ameliorate the effect of the 1400 murders committed in cold blood and would lay the ground for your sympathisers to ask for a ceasefire.
If anyone had even suggested that Israel's reaction to 1,400 dead should be to reflect on the folly of managing an apartheid state and illegal occupation they would have been called an anti-Semite.
I would much rather the people here who do not care about the number of dead Palestinians just say so, or take TOPPINGs position, which is at least honest. I can have an honest disagreement with them when their idea of war morality is essentially just "might decides right". But to all the people who say how horrified they are of 1,400 killed - including babies! - and then hand wave away years of Palestinian children being killed or the civilians death now - your morality is hollow. You don't care about life. You care about your side, your team, your allies - but not human life.
Personally, I care about the number of dead Palestinians. I would prefer for there to be *no* dead Palestinians or Israelis.
The question is, how do we get from here to that sunlit upland?
I'd argue your final words apply to yourself more than to others on here. You have a 'vision' for peace that is utterly unworkable (a single state solution), and one that will lead to the Jews in Israel being destroyed. You have a rather odd reading of history in the Middle East. And you evidently do not care for Israeli lives.
Hunt is a tax and spend Brownite who should never have been made Chancellor. He shows no sign of grasping the huge reforms our economy needs if we're to get it growing again - much lower taxes, lower spending and lighter regulation, especially but not only of housing. If he's the best the Conservatives can do, there's little point in anyone voting for them - may as well vote for true socialism as its fake alternative.
I love the idea that keep on doing what we've been doing but harder and faster will do our economy well. Like, what other country that isn't also a global superpower and the defacto global currency, has had success with cutting taxes and lighter regulation? And how much evidence is there that the opposite, Keynesianism, like the New Deal and redistributive taxation actually just does it much better...
Is this a joke? Why do you think Dubai is so successful? There is literally no country on earth that has taxed and regulated itself to success, not one. Even the much vaunted Scandi economies got rich with low tax and regulation and are now stagnating with it.
Dubai - like Singapore - is an entrepot. It’s funded by immense oil wealth and has carved out a small niche as a centre for Middle Eastern and to some extent Indian trade.
It’s also run on very cheap Indian labour.
It’s hardly a scalable model.
As an aside, it’s one of the ironies of global economics that Britain and France, while jealously preserving their very different economic models, have pretty much tracked alongside each other in terms of GDP per capita for about fifty years.
Oil industry only accounts for 1% of Dubai’s economy and it only holds about 4% of the reserves of the UAE so it’s not entirely correct to put it in the Middle Eastern oil wealth category unlike Abu Dhabi which has 90% of the UAE resources.
And how much of the capital investment came from Abu Dhabis oil, or was only available to Dubai because other investors knew it had the backing of Abu Dhabis oil?
Very little. The seven Emirates are very autonomous, rather like US States.
Dubai is a success. But it used oil wealth (which used to provide 50% of its economy) to seed the infrastructure roll-out required to become an entrepot.
That’s fantastic, but the point is this is not scalable to a country the size of the UK. In any case, we already have a world leading entrepot in London.
There are always these other factors - Dubai has oil, Monaco is sunny, Ireland is... Irish, but the simple fact remains that economical activity takes place more where states take less of the proceeds and allow that activity to take place more freely, concentrating instead on being really good at the things we DO need Government for - like safety and security. Why is anyone bothering to make an argument against this?
We raise the taxes on smoking when we want less people to smoke. We raise the taxes on alcohol when we want less people to drink. That is a clearly established disincentive - so what do we think happens when we raise CT?
Hunt is a tax and spend Brownite who should never have been made Chancellor. He shows no sign of grasping the huge reforms our economy needs if we're to get it growing again - much lower taxes, lower spending and lighter regulation, especially but not only of housing. If he's the best the Conservatives can do, there's little point in anyone voting for them - may as well vote for true socialism as its fake alternative.
I love the idea that keep on doing what we've been doing but harder and faster will do our economy well. Like, what other country that isn't also a global superpower and the defacto global currency, has had success with cutting taxes and lighter regulation? And how much evidence is there that the opposite, Keynesianism, like the New Deal and redistributive taxation actually just does it much better...
Is this a joke? Why do you think Dubai is so successful? There is literally no country on earth that has taxed and regulated itself to success, not one. Even the much vaunted Scandi economies got rich with low tax and regulation and are now stagnating with it.
I think Dubai has been successful because they were sitting on a lot of oil.
Hunt is a tax and spend Brownite who should never have been made Chancellor. He shows no sign of grasping the huge reforms our economy needs if we're to get it growing again - much lower taxes, lower spending and lighter regulation, especially but not only of housing. If he's the best the Conservatives can do, there's little point in anyone voting for them - may as well vote for true socialism as its fake alternative.
I love the idea that keep on doing what we've been doing but harder and faster will do our economy well. Like, what other country that isn't also a global superpower and the defacto global currency, has had success with cutting taxes and lighter regulation? And how much evidence is there that the opposite, Keynesianism, like the New Deal and redistributive taxation actually just does it much better...
Is this a joke? Why do you think Dubai is so successful? There is literally no country on earth that has taxed and regulated itself to success, not one. Even the much vaunted Scandi economies got rich with low tax and regulation and are now stagnating with it.
I think Dubai has been successful because they were sitting on a lot of oil.
Dubai has little oil, it is nearly all next door in Abu Dhabi.
Hunt is a tax and spend Brownite who should never have been made Chancellor. He shows no sign of grasping the huge reforms our economy needs if we're to get it growing again - much lower taxes, lower spending and lighter regulation, especially but not only of housing. If he's the best the Conservatives can do, there's little point in anyone voting for them - may as well vote for true socialism as its fake alternative.
Again, because I ask this everytime people say cut spending - what day to day spending do you cut?
And if you want growth you need infrastructure - so clearly Hunt and co don't want growth because all the infrastructure projects have been cancelled....
I've posted on here several times what spending I think should be cut. Ending foreign aid, for instance, would pay for abolishing inheritance tax and taking a penny or slightly less off the basic rate of income tax. Stopping subsidies to Northern Ireland, or hopefully withdrawing altogether, would enable us to reduce the basic rate of income tax by about 2-2.5p. Ending farming subsidies would allow the abolition of the top rate of income tax. Etc. I think I've found about £60-80 billion or so in similar savings, which is about 5-7% of government spending. Not particularly dramatic if phased in over two or three years.
Much more extra revenue could be got through faster economic growth, in particular by streamlining the planning system and scrapping net zero and useless or unproven regulations. The amount raised will of course be uncertain, but is likely to be very substantial.
To be followed by Prime Minister Grant Shapps after Rishi is ousted?
Proof positive that "things can only get better" is not factual.
I think that if the next British Prime Minister was a Jew it would send a non-trivial proportion of the planet into meltdown.
Really?
I think it would hardly be noticed, because it is as irrelevant as Starmers wife.
Was it an issue with Miliband? I don't recall that it was.
But was there a link with bacon-sandwich-gate?
(Either due to a lack of practice on his part from an early age or an unhealthy media obsession with Miliband's consumption of a bacon sandwich)
ETA: Ah, Topping and the Guardian beat me to it (the latter by several years )
Well we all remember that, yes. Not much is out of bounds when it comes to monstering Labour leaders who have the cheek to not be Tony Blair and try and be PM.
Hunt is a tax and spend Brownite who should never have been made Chancellor. He shows no sign of grasping the huge reforms our economy needs if we're to get it growing again - much lower taxes, lower spending and lighter regulation, especially but not only of housing. If he's the best the Conservatives can do, there's little point in anyone voting for them - may as well vote for true socialism as its fake alternative.
I love the idea that keep on doing what we've been doing but harder and faster will do our economy well. Like, what other country that isn't also a global superpower and the defacto global currency, has had success with cutting taxes and lighter regulation? And how much evidence is there that the opposite, Keynesianism, like the New Deal and redistributive taxation actually just does it much better...
Is this a joke? Why do you think Dubai is so successful? There is literally no country on earth that has taxed and regulated itself to success, not one. Even the much vaunted Scandi economies got rich with low tax and regulation and are now stagnating with it.
Dubai - like Singapore - is an entrepot. It’s funded by immense oil wealth and has carved out a small niche as a centre for Middle Eastern and to some extent Indian trade.
It’s also run on very cheap Indian labour.
It’s hardly a scalable model.
As an aside, it’s one of the ironies of global economics that Britain and France, while jealously preserving their very different economic models, have pretty much tracked alongside each other in terms of GDP per capita for about fifty years.
Oil industry only accounts for 1% of Dubai’s economy and it only holds about 4% of the reserves of the UAE so it’s not entirely correct to put it in the Middle Eastern oil wealth category unlike Abu Dhabi which has 90% of the UAE resources.
And how much of the capital investment came from Abu Dhabis oil, or was only available to Dubai because other investors knew it had the backing of Abu Dhabis oil?
Very little. The seven Emirates are very autonomous, rather like US States.
Dubai is a success. But it used oil wealth (which used to provide 50% of its economy) to seed the infrastructure roll-out required to become an entrepot.
That’s fantastic, but the point is this is not scalable to a country the size of the UK. In any case, we already have a world leading entrepot in London.
There are always these other factors - Dubai has oil, Monaco is sunny, Ireland is... Irish, but the simple fact remains that economical activity takes place more where states take less of the proceeds and allow that activity to take place more freely, concentrating instead on being really good at the things we DO need Government for - like safety and security. Why is anyone bothering to make an argument against this?
We raise the taxes on smoking when we want less people to smoke. We raise the taxes on alcohol when we want less people to drink. That is a clearly established disincentive - so what do we think happens when we raise CT?
I’m not arguing to raise CT and I think Britain over-taxes productive economic activity.
I am just here to say that the idea low-tax, low-regulation economies necessarily become rich isn’t borne out by the evidence, and citing Monaco alongside Dubai is kind of WTF.
As for Ireland, nobody believes their economic statistics, but their path has essentially been tax arbitrage too. I am not criticising it per se, but it’s essentially predatory on other countries.
Hunt is a tax and spend Brownite who should never have been made Chancellor. He shows no sign of grasping the huge reforms our economy needs if we're to get it growing again - much lower taxes, lower spending and lighter regulation, especially but not only of housing. If he's the best the Conservatives can do, there's little point in anyone voting for them - may as well vote for true socialism as its fake alternative.
I love the idea that keep on doing what we've been doing but harder and faster will do our economy well. Like, what other country that isn't also a global superpower and the defacto global currency, has had success with cutting taxes and lighter regulation? And how much evidence is there that the opposite, Keynesianism, like the New Deal and redistributive taxation actually just does it much better...
Is this a joke? Why do you think Dubai is so successful? There is literally no country on earth that has taxed and regulated itself to success, not one. Even the much vaunted Scandi economies got rich with low tax and regulation and are now stagnating with it.
Dubai is so successful because of oil money and leveraging independent wealth into allowing rich people to do what the hell they want, along with foreign workers to do the work of building and keeping that up where their passports get stolen, their pay gets withheld and they work 12 hour (or longer) shifts. Should we copy that, too?
The UK and US taxed and regulated themselves into growth in the - the hay day for workers and goods was under the highest taxes on the richest people, and - the UK specifically - went from being hollowed out by the WW2 to rebuilding itself better with the NHS, council homes, state run schools and a social safety net. Every action from the right wing since has been to chip away at the successes of that era.
Utter rubbish. The post-war consensus and following stagnation was disastrous for the British economy. It took us 35 years to learn that socialism was a one way ticket to penury, and now apparently we have to learn it all again.
We've had a Tory Government for 13 years (and in many ways a Tory Government for the past 40 years because Blair and Brown were not running left wing economic policies ). Yet growth is still crap....
It's like the other argument that corporation tax should be lower - we had low corporation tax rates for 12 years but that didn't result in companies investing money - they just continued to run short term profit maximising low investment operations..
That's an extraordinarily superficial reading of the situation. Just because we've elected people wearing blue rosettes does not mean we've had low tax, low regulation Government - the state has continued to grow, and Sunak's public spending is more than Jeremy Corbyn recommended in his manifesto!
When Blair and Brown stuck to Tory spending plans in the early years of their rule, the economy continued to perform strongly (though the storm clouds were gathering as they were already ramping up spending via PPPs). When they threw off this discipline, things went progressively to shit.
Far less superficial than your idea that cut taxes and suddenly the economy will boom. And Remember Osbourne was Chancellor from 2010 to 2016 and look what all his spending cuts resulted in...
I note that you don't have an answer to my second point.
EXC: Pressure piles on Keir Starmer - More than 150 Muslim Labour Councillors have written directly to the Labour leader demanding he call for a ceasefire in Gaza as backlash over his policy from within his party grows
I’m not sure that Starmer is feeling quite as much pressure, as these councillors and activists wish him to be feeling.
Which is generally true of his internal opponents. They are mad at not having more influence and so exagerrate the significance of their petulance.
This example is probably more substantive than that, but I don't get the impression as an outsider that Starmer needs to worry yet
As someone who is much less of an outsider, I have to disagree with you. The criticism from within the Labour Party falls into two quite distinct camps:
1. The usual critics on the far left, who can scarcely contain their glee at being presented with an excuse to weigh in against Keir Starmer as strongly as possible. They see it as an opportunity. The Momentum-supporting Oxford councillor on the radio this morning was an example.
2. A broad swathe of opinion within the wider Labour Party, people who are mostly supportive of the leadership and certainly not those habitually seeking to undermine it from within. That includes amongst others Muslim councillors, most of whom are quite willing to condemn Hamas's actions on 7th October unreservedly but nonetheless are appalled by the humanitarian situation unfolding in Gaza and the relentless killing through bombing and are getting it in the neck from their local communities who are similarly appalled.
In political terms, Keir Starmer should be concerned. The usual critics are not of much relevance, they have already been marginalised within the party and there is no way back now. However, the criticism from within the Muslim community will lose Labour electoral support if not properly addressed, some of it in marginal seats. If Israel continues on its present course, the situation in Gaza is going to get even worse and I think that public opinion will increasingly become critical of the actions of the Israeli government going forward.
Sir K knows that for millions of centrists, of all religions and none, the rational next course (which should already have happened) is to call for all hostages to be released and then a ceasefire. Any call for that release, immediately to be followed by ceasefire at least has a thread of argument behind it.
To argue for ceasefire while an undeniable war crime continues by holding the hostages has little appeal for most centrists. Those are the votes Sir K has acquired and needs to retain.
Most centerists would actually say that Israel at least has the right to act against Hamas. No organisation can kill 1400 + citizens and not expect a massive response.
By calling for a ceasefire, what people are saying is that Israel should never act back against terrorism.
The true respond should be that Isreal has a right to act against Hamas, but every action should be lawful, measured and no open ended.
Which is basically Starmers position, He is right, and should hold right against those which are anti-israel.
What's the reasonable response for 5,000 civilians killed?
To reflect on the folly of taking and refusing to release hostages when to do so would slightly ameliorate the effect of the 1400 murders committed in cold blood and would lay the ground for your sympathisers to ask for a ceasefire.
If anyone had even suggested that Israel's reaction to 1,400 dead should be to reflect on the folly of managing an apartheid state and illegal occupation they would have been called an anti-Semite.
I would much rather the people here who do not care about the number of dead Palestinians just say so, or take TOPPINGs position, which is at least honest. I can have an honest disagreement with them when their idea of war morality is essentially just "might decides right". But to all the people who say how horrified they are of 1,400 killed - including babies! - and then hand wave away years of Palestinian children being killed or the civilians death now - your morality is hollow. You don't care about life. You care about your side, your team, your allies - but not human life.
Personally, I care about the number of dead Palestinians. I would prefer for there to be *no* dead Palestinians or Israelis.
The question is, how do we get from here to that sunlit upland?
I'd argue your final words apply to yourself more than to others on here. You have a 'vision' for peace that is utterly unworkable (a single state solution), and one that will lead to the Jews in Israel being destroyed. You have a rather odd reading of history in the Middle East. And you evidently do not care for Israeli lives.
Boring centrist here but both arguments will tend to be stronger rather than weaker, once you accept that people can have different views on the conflict without jumping to the conclusion that therefore they are not caring about lives from one side or the other.
Hunt is a tax and spend Brownite who should never have been made Chancellor. He shows no sign of grasping the huge reforms our economy needs if we're to get it growing again - much lower taxes, lower spending and lighter regulation, especially but not only of housing. If he's the best the Conservatives can do, there's little point in anyone voting for them - may as well vote for true socialism as its fake alternative.
Again, because I ask this everytime people say cut spending - what day to day spending do you cut?
And if you want growth you need infrastructure - so clearly Hunt and co don't want growth because all the infrastructure projects have been cancelled....
I've posted on here several times what spending I think should be cut. Ending foreign aid, for instance, would pay for abolishing inheritance tax and taking a penny or slightly less off the basic rate of income tax. Stopping subsidies to Northern Ireland, or hopefully withdrawing altogether, would enable us to reduce the basic rate of income tax by about 2-2.5p. Ending farming subsidies would allow the abolition of the top rate of income tax. Etc. I think I've found about £60-80 billion or so in similar savings, which is about 5-7% of government spending. Not particularly dramatic if phased in over two or three years.
Much more extra revenue could be got through faster economic growth, in particular by streamlining the planning system and scrapping net zero and useless or unproven regulations. The amount raised will of course be uncertain, but is likely to be very substantial.
Whenever I've advocated (meaningful) spending cuts I've found them far more vigorously opposed than tax rises.
That's why the former rarely happen, but the latter do.
Starmer has a relatively free hand on Gaza because where are those lefties going to go. Well of course they might fuck off to the Greens to invigowatermelon them but otherwise, like righties who bemoan this, that or the other Cons policy, they will stay with their own team.
Disagree. I think the left has an inbuilt capacity for fighting amongst itself, whereas generally the right pulls together in the end.
Rishi is hoping for the imminent arrival of "the right pulls together in the end".
Britain’s core issue in my view is essentially underspend in infrastructure and misallocation of resource via bad planning etc rather than “high taxation”, although the latter doesn’t help.
Hunt is a tax and spend Brownite who should never have been made Chancellor. He shows no sign of grasping the huge reforms our economy needs if we're to get it growing again - much lower taxes, lower spending and lighter regulation, especially but not only of housing. If he's the best the Conservatives can do, there's little point in anyone voting for them - may as well vote for true socialism as its fake alternative.
I love the idea that keep on doing what we've been doing but harder and faster will do our economy well. Like, what other country that isn't also a global superpower and the defacto global currency, has had success with cutting taxes and lighter regulation? And how much evidence is there that the opposite, Keynesianism, like the New Deal and redistributive taxation actually just does it much better...
Why do you think Dubai is so successful?
Is is successful? It's a environmental catastrophe and dystopian hell full of cashed up, alcohol dependent chavs in Gucci drip.
It’s very different now, to when you were last in port and scraping around the old town in the middle of the night looking for some ‘entertainment’.
Go to place for crime families now.
There’s so much crime here, that I leave my iPad, keys, and wallet on the bar when I go for a pee.
If the future of the human race is megacities in environmental wastelands with nothing much to do other than spending ill gotten gains on bling then the sooner we have an AI apocalypse the better.
Thankfully, I know how to run the computers!
I'm exaggerating, obviously. But I wouldn't be tempted there for any salary, I have to say.
A lot of people stick it for a few years and save like crazy, go back to the UK and buy a house.
Many more people party like it’s 1999 and don’t save anything!
Some of my relatives did this in Riyadh in the 1970s. I think they did well out of it but it wasn't something they talked about much.
They were definitely of the former persuasion rather than the latter.
It is all too easy to get sucked into a lifestyle though. You could argue that applies to the UK as a whole, too...
Hunt is a tax and spend Brownite who should never have been made Chancellor. He shows no sign of grasping the huge reforms our economy needs if we're to get it growing again - much lower taxes, lower spending and lighter regulation, especially but not only of housing. If he's the best the Conservatives can do, there's little point in anyone voting for them - may as well vote for true socialism as its fake alternative.
Again, because I ask this everytime people say cut spending - what day to day spending do you cut?
And if you want growth you need infrastructure - so clearly Hunt and co don't want growth because all the infrastructure projects have been cancelled....
I've posted on here several times what spending I think should be cut. Ending foreign aid, for instance, would pay for abolishing inheritance tax and taking a penny or slightly less off the basic rate of income tax. Stopping subsidies to Northern Ireland, or hopefully withdrawing altogether, would enable us to reduce the basic rate of income tax by about 2-2.5p. Ending farming subsidies would allow the abolition of the top rate of income tax. Etc. I think I've found about £60-80 billion or so in similar savings, which is about 5-7% of government spending. Not particularly dramatic if phased in over two or three years.
Much more extra revenue could be got through faster economic growth, in particular by streamlining the planning system and scrapping net zero and useless or unproven regulations. The amount raised will of course be uncertain, but is likely to be very substantial.
Those are worth exploring, but for a start, the Government is funding the Bank if England's bond sell off to the tune of £80billion (it's projected to significantly overrun that) this year. We are literally borrowing money for the Bank to make it into a loss. That could and would be stopped by any serious Chancellor, and would be miraculous for the public finances.
Hunt is a tax and spend Brownite who should never have been made Chancellor. He shows no sign of grasping the huge reforms our economy needs if we're to get it growing again - much lower taxes, lower spending and lighter regulation, especially but not only of housing. If he's the best the Conservatives can do, there's little point in anyone voting for them - may as well vote for true socialism as its fake alternative.
I love the idea that keep on doing what we've been doing but harder and faster will do our economy well. Like, what other country that isn't also a global superpower and the defacto global currency, has had success with cutting taxes and lighter regulation? And how much evidence is there that the opposite, Keynesianism, like the New Deal and redistributive taxation actually just does it much better...
Is this a joke? Why do you think Dubai is so successful? There is literally no country on earth that has taxed and regulated itself to success, not one. Even the much vaunted Scandi economies got rich with low tax and regulation and are now stagnating with it.
I think Dubai has been successful because they were sitting on a lot of oil.
Dubai has little oil, it is nearly all next door in Abu Dhabi.
Yes. What they’ve done is taken all of the oil income and invested it in building a service-based and trade-based economy, were the first place in the region to do so, with relatively liberal social values and able to attract the world’s companies to both set up here, and for multinationals to have regional headquarters.
There’s still no income tax, VAT is 5%, and corporation tax will be 7% when it’s introduced next year (thanks OECD for that last one!). Costs £40 to fill up the car’s 75l tank as well. On the downside, beer is £12 a pint if you miss happy hour, and it gets bloody hot in the summer.
Where's the verification of 6,000. Please don't tell me it is simply coming from the Hamas controlled authorities. Are there aid agencies or other authorities doing independent analysis?
But again - this is just a continuation of Israeli lives mattering and Palestinian lives don't.
No, not if its just quoting Hamas. From the article:
"Latest media reports citing the Gaza Ministry of Health indicate that the number of people killed in Gaza since 7 October has risen to 5,087"
This is NOT Israeli lives mattering and Palestinians not. Its about not trusting a terrorist organisation putting out numbers with no way of verifying. Its like Goebbels saying 200,000 were killed in Hamburg in 1943.
The answer seems to be because they are more reliable:
Many experts consider figures provided by the ministry reliable, given its access, sources and accuracy in past statements. “Everyone uses the figures from the Gaza Health Ministry because those are generally proven to be reliable,” said Omar Shakir, Israel and Palestine director at Human Rights Watch
Where's the verification of 6,000. Please don't tell me it is simply coming from the Hamas controlled authorities. Are there aid agencies or other authorities doing independent analysis?
But again - this is just a continuation of Israeli lives mattering and Palestinian lives don't.
No, not if its just quoting Hamas. From the article:
"Latest media reports citing the Gaza Ministry of Health indicate that the number of people killed in Gaza since 7 October has risen to 5,087"
This is NOT Israeli lives mattering and Palestinians not. Its about not trusting a terrorist organisation putting out numbers with no way of verifying. Its like Goebbels saying 200,000 were killed in Hamburg in 1943.
The answer seems to be because they are more reliable:
Many experts consider figures provided by the ministry reliable, given its access, sources and accuracy in past statements. “Everyone uses the figures from the Gaza Health Ministry because those are generally proven to be reliable,” said Omar Shakir, Israel and Palestine director at Human Rights Watch
Hunt is a tax and spend Brownite who should never have been made Chancellor. He shows no sign of grasping the huge reforms our economy needs if we're to get it growing again - much lower taxes, lower spending and lighter regulation, especially but not only of housing. If he's the best the Conservatives can do, there's little point in anyone voting for them - may as well vote for true socialism as its fake alternative.
I love the idea that keep on doing what we've been doing but harder and faster will do our economy well. Like, what other country that isn't also a global superpower and the defacto global currency, has had success with cutting taxes and lighter regulation? And how much evidence is there that the opposite, Keynesianism, like the New Deal and redistributive taxation actually just does it much better...
Is this a joke? Why do you think Dubai is so successful? There is literally no country on earth that has taxed and regulated itself to success, not one. Even the much vaunted Scandi economies got rich with low tax and regulation and are now stagnating with it.
Dubai is so successful because of oil money and leveraging independent wealth into allowing rich people to do what the hell they want, along with foreign workers to do the work of building and keeping that up where their passports get stolen, their pay gets withheld and they work 12 hour (or longer) shifts. Should we copy that, too?
The UK and US taxed and regulated themselves into growth in the - the hay day for workers and goods was under the highest taxes on the richest people, and - the UK specifically - went from being hollowed out by the WW2 to rebuilding itself better with the NHS, council homes, state run schools and a social safety net. Every action from the right wing since has been to chip away at the successes of that era.
Utter rubbish. The post-war consensus and following stagnation was disastrous for the British economy. It took us 35 years to learn that socialism was a one way ticket to penury, and now apparently we have to learn it all again.
We've had a Tory Government for 13 years (and in many ways a Tory Government for the past 40 years because Blair and Brown were not running left wing economic policies ). Yet growth is still crap....
It's like the other argument that corporation tax should be lower - we had low corporation tax rates for 12 years but that didn't result in companies investing money - they just continued to run short term profit maximising low investment operations..
That's an extraordinarily superficial reading of the situation. Just because we've elected people wearing blue rosettes does not mean we've had low tax, low regulation Government - the state has continued to grow, and Sunak's public spending is more than Jeremy Corbyn recommended in his manifesto!
When Blair and Brown stuck to Tory spending plans in the early years of their rule, the economy continued to perform strongly (though the storm clouds were gathering as they were already ramping up spending via PPPs). When they threw off this discipline, things went progressively to shit.
Far less superficial than your idea that cut taxes and suddenly the economy will boom. And Remember Osbourne was Chancellor from 2010 to 2016 and look what all his spending cuts resulted in...
I note that you don't have an answer to my second point.
We did not have particularly 'low' CT, we have particularly high CT now, and of 38 countries assessed for their attractiveness to inward investors, we are now number 30. The higher CT has already damaged us with Astra Zeneca of all companies choosing to go to Ireland. I am not sure how much convincing I should have to do to persuade you that making something 6% more costly is going to dissuade companies from doing it.
Hunt is a tax and spend Brownite who should never have been made Chancellor. He shows no sign of grasping the huge reforms our economy needs if we're to get it growing again - much lower taxes, lower spending and lighter regulation, especially but not only of housing. If he's the best the Conservatives can do, there's little point in anyone voting for them - may as well vote for true socialism as its fake alternative.
I love the idea that keep on doing what we've been doing but harder and faster will do our economy well. Like, what other country that isn't also a global superpower and the defacto global currency, has had success with cutting taxes and lighter regulation? And how much evidence is there that the opposite, Keynesianism, like the New Deal and redistributive taxation actually just does it much better...
Why do you think Dubai is so successful?
Is is successful? It's a environmental catastrophe and dystopian hell full of cashed up, alcohol dependent chavs in Gucci drip.
It’s very different now, to when you were last in port and scraping around the old town in the middle of the night looking for some ‘entertainment’.
Go to place for crime families now.
There’s so much crime here, that I leave my iPad, keys, and wallet on the bar when I go for a pee.
If the future of the human race is megacities in environmental wastelands with nothing much to do other than spending ill gotten gains on bling then the sooner we have an AI apocalypse the better.
Thankfully, I know how to run the computers!
I'm exaggerating, obviously. But I wouldn't be tempted there for any salary, I have to say.
A lot of people stick it for a few years and save like crazy, go back to the UK and buy a house.
Many more people party like it’s 1999 and don’t save anything!
Some of my relatives did this in Riyadh in the 1970s. I think they did well out of it but it wasn't something they talked about much.
They were definitely of the former persuasion rather than the latter.
It is all too easy to get sucked into a lifestyle though. You could argue that applies to the UK as a whole, too...
Riyadh is still the place to go for that. You can earn a lot more than almost anywhere else in the world, and there’s very few distractions to help you spend it.
No all-inclusive brunches or nightclubs in Saudi, which is why they all go to Bahrain and Dubai for the weekend!
Translation: they are all Boeing 707s painted gray and white with different bumps here and there
All RC-135 variants are based on the C-135 which was whelped from the 386-80 NOT THE 707. Totally different aircraft. 132" dia, fuselage vs 148" for a start.
The E-3 is based on the 707 as are the Israeli, Spanish and assorted other tanker conversions; those are definitely not KC-135 tankers.
Where's the verification of 6,000. Please don't tell me it is simply coming from the Hamas controlled authorities. Are there aid agencies or other authorities doing independent analysis?
But again - this is just a continuation of Israeli lives mattering and Palestinian lives don't.
No, not if its just quoting Hamas. From the article:
"Latest media reports citing the Gaza Ministry of Health indicate that the number of people killed in Gaza since 7 October has risen to 5,087"
This is NOT Israeli lives mattering and Palestinians not. Its about not trusting a terrorist organisation putting out numbers with no way of verifying. Its like Goebbels saying 200,000 were killed in Hamburg in 1943.
The answer seems to be because they are more reliable:
Many experts consider figures provided by the ministry reliable, given its access, sources and accuracy in past statements. “Everyone uses the figures from the Gaza Health Ministry because those are generally proven to be reliable,” said Omar Shakir, Israel and Palestine director at Human Rights Watch
At least 500 people have been killed in an explosion at Al Ahli Arab Hospital in the middle of Gaza City, according to the Gaza Health Ministry
I don't think we know yet - the US have said it could be as low as "100-300" but also say that that estimate could change. Again - the reason their numbers are used by journalists, the UN and other organisations is that, in the past, they have been the most accurate. That, to me, seems like a reasonable position. If they stop being accurate then I assume people will stop using them? But until we know they're inaccurate now, and know they have been more accurate in the past - why shouldn't we use them?
Translation: they are all Boeing 707s painted gray and white with different bumps here and there
All RC-135 variants are based on the C-135 which was whelped from the 386-80 NOT THE 707. Totally different aircraft. 132" dia, fuselage vs 148" for a start.
The E-3 is based on the 707 as are the Israeli, Spanish and assorted other tanker conversions; those are definitely not KC-135 tankers.
367-80 Shirley?
and wasn't the 707 a design evolution from the 367-80?
Britain’s core issue in my view is essentially underspend in infrastructure and misallocation of resource via bad planning etc rather than “high taxation”, although the latter doesn’t help.
For me, Britain’s issue is a 'worst of both worlds' situation. We could be a low tax, low regulation economy and let our companies grow and have others move here. Or we could be like France, a highly socialised country, but one that intervenes rigorously to defend French business interests, companies and culture.
Instead we've developed a French taste for tax and spend, but with a neoliberal laissez faire approach to selling off the family silver. So all our big companies have just been picked off by the US and others.
Redwood could never be COE (though he's more than capable), as the media would crucify the appointment, but I would dearly love to see him on the Treasury team, keeping a close eye on the COE and giving his input.
"Speaking about the UN Secretary General, Erdan said it was "not by chance" that Antonio Guterres had not come to Israel since the war began.
Erdan also said agencies of the UN have created "a false picture" of the situation on the ground, accepting claims about Gaza even though "everyone knows" it is controlled by Hamas."
"UK PM Rishi Sunak rejects the comments made by UN chief Antonio Guterres, in which, as we've been reporting, he said the events of 7 October did not occur in a "vacuum".
"Obviously we don't agree with that characterisation put forward," a spokesperson for Sunak said.
"We are clear that there is and can be no justification for Hamas's barbaric terrorist attack which was driven by hatred and ideology."
Meanwhile, a spokesperson for the German government says it does have confidence in Guterres in light of his comments."
Britain’s core issue in my view is essentially underspend in infrastructure and misallocation of resource via bad planning etc rather than “high taxation”, although the latter doesn’t help.
For me, Britain’s issue is a 'worst of both worlds' situation. We could be a low tax, low regulation economy and let our companies grow and have others move here. Or we could be like France, a highly socialised country, but one that intervenes rigorously to defend French business interests, companies and culture.
Instead we've developed a French taste for tax and spend, but with a neoliberal laissez faire approach to selling off the family silver. So all our big companies have just been picked off by the US and others.
I don’t quite agree with you on tax and spend. But I do agree that Britain’s model - which may have been right for other periods of economic development - doesn’t work.
It’s neoliberal “laissez faire” in a way that encourages rentierism, but also highly centralised in a way that crushes local agency and entrepreneuralism.
And then on top it’s now “moderately higher tax”, and the burden falls mostly on the productive economy and demographics.
Where's the verification of 6,000. Please don't tell me it is simply coming from the Hamas controlled authorities. Are there aid agencies or other authorities doing independent analysis?
But again - this is just a continuation of Israeli lives mattering and Palestinian lives don't.
No, not if its just quoting Hamas. From the article:
"Latest media reports citing the Gaza Ministry of Health indicate that the number of people killed in Gaza since 7 October has risen to 5,087"
This is NOT Israeli lives mattering and Palestinians not. Its about not trusting a terrorist organisation putting out numbers with no way of verifying. Its like Goebbels saying 200,000 were killed in Hamburg in 1943.
The answer seems to be because they are more reliable:
Many experts consider figures provided by the ministry reliable, given its access, sources and accuracy in past statements. “Everyone uses the figures from the Gaza Health Ministry because those are generally proven to be reliable,” said Omar Shakir, Israel and Palestine director at Human Rights Watch
Where's the verification of 6,000. Please don't tell me it is simply coming from the Hamas controlled authorities. Are there aid agencies or other authorities doing independent analysis?
But again - this is just a continuation of Israeli lives mattering and Palestinian lives don't.
No, not if its just quoting Hamas. From the article:
"Latest media reports citing the Gaza Ministry of Health indicate that the number of people killed in Gaza since 7 October has risen to 5,087"
This is NOT Israeli lives mattering and Palestinians not. Its about not trusting a terrorist organisation putting out numbers with no way of verifying. Its like Goebbels saying 200,000 were killed in Hamburg in 1943.
The answer seems to be because they are more reliable:
Many experts consider figures provided by the ministry reliable, given its access, sources and accuracy in past statements. “Everyone uses the figures from the Gaza Health Ministry because those are generally proven to be reliable,” said Omar Shakir, Israel and Palestine director at Human Rights Watch
The Gazan Health Ministry claimed that the IDF had bombed the hospital. 500 dead. Then 300 dead. Then who cares the Israelis did it dead. The ceiling of the operating theatre collapsing as the building imploded.
And then the following morning we all see that it was all bullshit.
Where's the verification of 6,000. Please don't tell me it is simply coming from the Hamas controlled authorities. Are there aid agencies or other authorities doing independent analysis?
But again - this is just a continuation of Israeli lives mattering and Palestinian lives don't.
No, not if its just quoting Hamas. From the article:
"Latest media reports citing the Gaza Ministry of Health indicate that the number of people killed in Gaza since 7 October has risen to 5,087"
This is NOT Israeli lives mattering and Palestinians not. Its about not trusting a terrorist organisation putting out numbers with no way of verifying. Its like Goebbels saying 200,000 were killed in Hamburg in 1943.
The answer seems to be because they are more reliable:
Many experts consider figures provided by the ministry reliable, given its access, sources and accuracy in past statements. “Everyone uses the figures from the Gaza Health Ministry because those are generally proven to be reliable,” said Omar Shakir, Israel and Palestine director at Human Rights Watch
Proven by who, and how?
Also remember that there is documentary evidence which shows that when releasing these figures, a "civilian" is basically anybody, it doesn't matter if they were a gun waving Hamas terrorist, the policy is to state they were simply a civilian.
EXC: Pressure piles on Keir Starmer - More than 150 Muslim Labour Councillors have written directly to the Labour leader demanding he call for a ceasefire in Gaza as backlash over his policy from within his party grows
I’m not sure that Starmer is feeling quite as much pressure, as these councillors and activists wish him to be feeling.
Which is generally true of his internal opponents. They are mad at not having more influence and so exagerrate the significance of their petulance.
This example is probably more substantive than that, but I don't get the impression as an outsider that Starmer needs to worry yet
As someone who is much less of an outsider, I have to disagree with you. The criticism from within the Labour Party falls into two quite distinct camps:
1. The usual critics on the far left, who can scarcely contain their glee at being presented with an excuse to weigh in against Keir Starmer as strongly as possible. They see it as an opportunity. The Momentum-supporting Oxford councillor on the radio this morning was an example.
2. A broad swathe of opinion within the wider Labour Party, people who are mostly supportive of the leadership and certainly not those habitually seeking to undermine it from within. That includes amongst others Muslim councillors, most of whom are quite willing to condemn Hamas's actions on 7th October unreservedly but nonetheless are appalled by the humanitarian situation unfolding in Gaza and the relentless killing through bombing and are getting it in the neck from their local communities who are similarly appalled.
In political terms, Keir Starmer should be concerned. The usual critics are not of much relevance, they have already been marginalised within the party and there is no way back now. However, the criticism from within the Muslim community will lose Labour electoral support if not properly addressed, some of it in marginal seats. If Israel continues on its present course, the situation in Gaza is going to get even worse and I think that public opinion will increasingly become critical of the actions of the Israeli government going forward.
Sir K knows that for millions of centrists, of all religions and none, the rational next course (which should already have happened) is to call for all hostages to be released and then a ceasefire. Any call for that release, immediately to be followed by ceasefire at least has a thread of argument behind it.
To argue for ceasefire while an undeniable war crime continues by holding the hostages has little appeal for most centrists. Those are the votes Sir K has acquired and needs to retain.
Most centerists would actually say that Israel at least has the right to act against Hamas. No organisation can kill 1400 + citizens and not expect a massive response.
By calling for a ceasefire, what people are saying is that Israel should never act back against terrorism.
The true respond should be that Isreal has a right to act against Hamas, but every action should be lawful, measured and no open ended.
Which is basically Starmers position, He is right, and should hold right against those which are anti-israel.
What's the reasonable response for 5,000 civilians killed?
To reflect on the folly of taking and refusing to release hostages when to do so would slightly ameliorate the effect of the 1400 murders committed in cold blood and would lay the ground for your sympathisers to ask for a ceasefire.
If anyone had even suggested that Israel's reaction to 1,400 dead should be to reflect on the folly of managing an apartheid state and illegal occupation they would have been called an anti-Semite.
I would much rather the people here who do not care about the number of dead Palestinians just say so, or take TOPPINGs position, which is at least honest. I can have an honest disagreement with them when their idea of war morality is essentially just "might decides right". But to all the people who say how horrified they are of 1,400 killed - including babies! - and then hand wave away years of Palestinian children being killed or the civilians death now - your morality is hollow. You don't care about life. You care about your side, your team, your allies - but not human life.
Personally, I care about the number of dead Palestinians. I would prefer for there to be *no* dead Palestinians or Israelis.
The question is, how do we get from here to that sunlit upland?
I'd argue your final words apply to yourself more than to others on here. You have a 'vision' for peace that is utterly unworkable (a single state solution), and one that will lead to the Jews in Israel being destroyed. You have a rather odd reading of history in the Middle East. And you evidently do not care for Israeli lives.
I think the only option to peace is an end to apartheid, I think the only way to end apartheid is for a single state solution that does truth and reconciliation, involving criminal actors on both sides being judged and a peaceful settlement for Israeli Jews and Palestinian Arabs. If that leads to the outcome of Israeli Jews being persecuted, I would view that as a failed truth and reconciliation effort and will then be defending Israeli Jews from persecution. But that is not the situation that has to be, or we are in now.
My "odd" reading of Middle Eastern history is that, in general, Jewish people were treated better under Ottoman rule than under European rule. That seems to be the historical consensus, as I understand it. As for the specifics of Zionism and post-Balfor, my general position is that, yes, Middle Eastern cultures likely had low level anti-Semitism and acts of violence (but lesser than in Europe) and that the modern anti-Semitic and and Jewish violence and rhetoric come more as a reaction to Zionism and Israel (again, as explanation, not endorsement).
Every time I restart or reenter these conversations I talk about how awful October 7th was, how it was unacceptable, and indeed try and mention the perspectives of those families who have lost loved ones to kidnap or were killed. I even opened up about my limited connection to my own Jewish ancestors (although I do not claim a Jewish experience nor a Jewish identity) and how in trying to understand that better I talked to Jewish people and made lots of Jewish friends, many of who are anti-Zionist. How that is me not showing care for Israeli lives, I don't know.
I don't have a magic wand that can take us to the sunlit uplands. I do have a history book that will tell you how we won't get there. And that is why I am against the apartheid regime, the carpet bombing of Gaza, the mass forced migration of Palestinians and the mass killing of Palestinian civilians as well as the acts of Hamas at the beginning of this month.
Where's the verification of 6,000. Please don't tell me it is simply coming from the Hamas controlled authorities. Are there aid agencies or other authorities doing independent analysis?
But again - this is just a continuation of Israeli lives mattering and Palestinian lives don't.
No, not if its just quoting Hamas. From the article:
"Latest media reports citing the Gaza Ministry of Health indicate that the number of people killed in Gaza since 7 October has risen to 5,087"
This is NOT Israeli lives mattering and Palestinians not. Its about not trusting a terrorist organisation putting out numbers with no way of verifying. Its like Goebbels saying 200,000 were killed in Hamburg in 1943.
The answer seems to be because they are more reliable:
Many experts consider figures provided by the ministry reliable, given its access, sources and accuracy in past statements. “Everyone uses the figures from the Gaza Health Ministry because those are generally proven to be reliable,” said Omar Shakir, Israel and Palestine director at Human Rights Watch
At least 500 people have been killed in an explosion at Al Ahli Arab Hospital in the middle of Gaza City, according to the Gaza Health Ministry
I don't think we know yet - the US have said it could be as low as "100-300" but also say that that estimate could change. Again - the reason their numbers are used by journalists, the UN and other organisations is that, in the past, they have been the most accurate. That, to me, seems like a reasonable position. If they stop being accurate then I assume people will stop using them? But until we know they're inaccurate now, and know they have been more accurate in the past - why shouldn't we use them?
Because that same authority, you know, Hamas, murdered 1400 civilians for the crime of being Jewish, and still has around 200 hostages. I wouldn't believe them if they told me the sky was blue on a blue sky day.
I do not doubt many Palestinians have died. And do you know why? Because Hamas attacked civilians in Israel.
Hunt is a tax and spend Brownite who should never have been made Chancellor. He shows no sign of grasping the huge reforms our economy needs if we're to get it growing again - much lower taxes, lower spending and lighter regulation, especially but not only of housing. If he's the best the Conservatives can do, there's little point in anyone voting for them - may as well vote for true socialism as its fake alternative.
I love the idea that keep on doing what we've been doing but harder and faster will do our economy well. Like, what other country that isn't also a global superpower and the defacto global currency, has had success with cutting taxes and lighter regulation? And how much evidence is there that the opposite, Keynesianism, like the New Deal and redistributive taxation actually just does it much better...
Is this a joke? Why do you think Dubai is so successful? There is literally no country on earth that has taxed and regulated itself to success, not one. Even the much vaunted Scandi economies got rich with low tax and regulation and are now stagnating with it.
I think Dubai has been successful because they were sitting on a lot of oil.
Hunt is a tax and spend Brownite who should never have been made Chancellor. He shows no sign of grasping the huge reforms our economy needs if we're to get it growing again - much lower taxes, lower spending and lighter regulation, especially but not only of housing. If he's the best the Conservatives can do, there's little point in anyone voting for them - may as well vote for true socialism as its fake alternative.
I love the idea that keep on doing what we've been doing but harder and faster will do our economy well. Like, what other country that isn't also a global superpower and the defacto global currency, has had success with cutting taxes and lighter regulation? And how much evidence is there that the opposite, Keynesianism, like the New Deal and redistributive taxation actually just does it much better...
Is this a joke? Why do you think Dubai is so successful? There is literally no country on earth that has taxed and regulated itself to success, not one. Even the much vaunted Scandi economies got rich with low tax and regulation and are now stagnating with it.
Dubai - like Singapore - is an entrepot. It’s funded by immense oil wealth and has carved out a small niche as a centre for Middle Eastern and to some extent Indian trade.
It’s also run on very cheap Indian labour.
It’s hardly a scalable model.
As an aside, it’s one of the ironies of global economics that Britain and France, while jealously preserving their very different economic models, have pretty much tracked alongside each other in terms of GDP per capita for about fifty years.
Oil industry only accounts for 1% of Dubai’s economy and it only holds about 4% of the reserves of the UAE so it’s not entirely correct to put it in the Middle Eastern oil wealth category unlike Abu Dhabi which has 90% of the UAE resources.
And how much of the capital investment came from Abu Dhabis oil, or was only available to Dubai because other investors knew it had the backing of Abu Dhabis oil?
Very little. The seven Emirates are very autonomous, rather like US States.
Dubai is a success. But it used oil wealth (which used to provide 50% of its economy) to seed the infrastructure roll-out required to become an entrepot.
That’s fantastic, but the point is this is not scalable to a country the size of the UK. In any case, we already have a world leading entrepot in London.
There are always these other factors - Dubai has oil, Monaco is sunny, Ireland is... Irish, but the simple fact remains that economical activity takes place more where states take less of the proceeds and allow that activity to take place more freely, concentrating instead on being really good at the things we DO need Government for - like safety and security. Why is anyone bothering to make an argument against this?
We raise the taxes on smoking when we want less people to smoke. We raise the taxes on alcohol when we want less people to drink. That is a clearly established disincentive - so what do we think happens when we raise CT?
I’m not arguing to raise CT and I think Britain over-taxes productive economic activity.
I am just here to say that the idea low-tax, low-regulation economies necessarily become rich isn’t borne out by the evidence, and citing Monaco alongside Dubai is kind of WTF.
As for Ireland, nobody believes their economic statistics, but their path has essentially been tax arbitrage too. I am not criticising it per se, but it’s essentially predatory on other countries.
To be followed by Prime Minister Grant Shapps after Rishi is ousted?
Proof positive that "things can only get better" is not factual.
I think that if the next British Prime Minister was a Jew it would send a non-trivial proportion of the planet into meltdown.
Or perhaps the vast majority of us would have no idea Shapps was even Jewish. I had no idea and have no interest in his religion. I know Sunak is a Hindu but no idea how seriously he takes it, and that Blair had some religious influences, not a clue on Cameron, May, Brown, Major, Thatcher. Boris I suspect would have been whatever got him laid and/or promoted at the time.
Most of us don't care, and most PMs are wise enough not to make a big deal of it.
Translation: they are all Boeing 707s painted gray and white with different bumps here and there
All RC-135 variants are based on the C-135 which was whelped from the 386-80 NOT THE 707. Totally different aircraft. 132" dia, fuselage vs 148" for a start.
The E-3 is based on the 707 as are the Israeli, Spanish and assorted other tanker conversions; those are definitely not KC-135 tankers.
367-80 Shirley?
and wasn't the 707 a design evolution from the 367-80?
IF THAT IS A DURA ERROR on technical specs...
it and the repercussions deserve a thread on its own.
Where's the verification of 6,000. Please don't tell me it is simply coming from the Hamas controlled authorities. Are there aid agencies or other authorities doing independent analysis?
But again - this is just a continuation of Israeli lives mattering and Palestinian lives don't.
No, not if its just quoting Hamas. From the article:
"Latest media reports citing the Gaza Ministry of Health indicate that the number of people killed in Gaza since 7 October has risen to 5,087"
This is NOT Israeli lives mattering and Palestinians not. Its about not trusting a terrorist organisation putting out numbers with no way of verifying. Its like Goebbels saying 200,000 were killed in Hamburg in 1943.
The answer seems to be because they are more reliable:
Many experts consider figures provided by the ministry reliable, given its access, sources and accuracy in past statements. “Everyone uses the figures from the Gaza Health Ministry because those are generally proven to be reliable,” said Omar Shakir, Israel and Palestine director at Human Rights Watch
Proven by who, and how?
Look, I'm not an intelligence asset, I dunno how this stuff works. I am deferring to authority - I admit that. But if the UN are saying "historically, this is the best source we got" - I'm fine with using that source. Even if that source is wrong sometimes, it might still be the best source. If someone can provide me a better source that other specialists agree are better, I'll use that source. But I would argue that the onus is on you to do that, not me. I put the US figures for the hospital bombing - they say between "100-300" but with some pretty big caveats about how that might change in the future. But either way, Palestinian civilians are dying, and people here accept that - right? People accept that more Palestinian civilians have died in this conflict - both this month and also historically - than Israeli civilians, right?
To be followed by Prime Minister Grant Shapps after Rishi is ousted?
Proof positive that "things can only get better" is not factual.
I think that if the next British Prime Minister was a Jew it would send a non-trivial proportion of the planet into meltdown.
Or perhaps the vast majority of us would have no idea Shapps was even Jewish. I had no idea and have no interest in his religion. I know Sunak is a Hindu but no idea how seriously he takes it, and that Blair had some religious influences, not a clue on Cameron, May, Brown, Major, Thatcher. Boris I suspect would have been whatever got him laid and/or promoted at the time.
Most of us don't care, and most PMs are wise enough not to make a big deal of it.
Indeed, although Royale is himself an atheist I believe. Would be good to have an unapologetically atheist PM, for a change. The nearest we got in modern times is that godless rotter Bozza, who occasionally pretended to be religious when convenient for him.
Where's the verification of 6,000. Please don't tell me it is simply coming from the Hamas controlled authorities. Are there aid agencies or other authorities doing independent analysis?
But again - this is just a continuation of Israeli lives mattering and Palestinian lives don't.
No, not if its just quoting Hamas. From the article:
"Latest media reports citing the Gaza Ministry of Health indicate that the number of people killed in Gaza since 7 October has risen to 5,087"
This is NOT Israeli lives mattering and Palestinians not. Its about not trusting a terrorist organisation putting out numbers with no way of verifying. Its like Goebbels saying 200,000 were killed in Hamburg in 1943.
The answer seems to be because they are more reliable:
Many experts consider figures provided by the ministry reliable, given its access, sources and accuracy in past statements. “Everyone uses the figures from the Gaza Health Ministry because those are generally proven to be reliable,” said Omar Shakir, Israel and Palestine director at Human Rights Watch
Proven by who, and how?
Look, I'm not an intelligence asset, I dunno how this stuff works. I am deferring to authority - I admit that. But if the UN are saying "historically, this is the best source we got" - I'm fine with using that source. Even if that source is wrong sometimes, it might still be the best source. If someone can provide me a better source that other specialists agree are better, I'll use that source. But I would argue that the onus is on you to do that, not me. I put the US figures for the hospital bombing - they say between "100-300" but with some pretty big caveats about how that might change in the future. But either way, Palestinian civilians are dying, and people here accept that - right? People accept that more Palestinian civilians have died in this conflict - both this month and also historically - than Israeli civilians, right?
EXC: Pressure piles on Keir Starmer - More than 150 Muslim Labour Councillors have written directly to the Labour leader demanding he call for a ceasefire in Gaza as backlash over his policy from within his party grows
I’m not sure that Starmer is feeling quite as much pressure, as these councillors and activists wish him to be feeling.
Which is generally true of his internal opponents. They are mad at not having more influence and so exagerrate the significance of their petulance.
This example is probably more substantive than that, but I don't get the impression as an outsider that Starmer needs to worry yet
As someone who is much less of an outsider, I have to disagree with you. The criticism from within the Labour Party falls into two quite distinct camps:
1. The usual critics on the far left, who can scarcely contain their glee at being presented with an excuse to weigh in against Keir Starmer as strongly as possible. They see it as an opportunity. The Momentum-supporting Oxford councillor on the radio this morning was an example.
2. A broad swathe of opinion within the wider Labour Party, people who are mostly supportive of the leadership and certainly not those habitually seeking to undermine it from within. That includes amongst others Muslim councillors, most of whom are quite willing to condemn Hamas's actions on 7th October unreservedly but nonetheless are appalled by the humanitarian situation unfolding in Gaza and the relentless killing through bombing and are getting it in the neck from their local communities who are similarly appalled.
In political terms, Keir Starmer should be concerned. The usual critics are not of much relevance, they have already been marginalised within the party and there is no way back now. However, the criticism from within the Muslim community will lose Labour electoral support if not properly addressed, some of it in marginal seats. If Israel continues on its present course, the situation in Gaza is going to get even worse and I think that public opinion will increasingly become critical of the actions of the Israeli government going forward.
Sir K knows that for millions of centrists, of all religions and none, the rational next course (which should already have happened) is to call for all hostages to be released and then a ceasefire. Any call for that release, immediately to be followed by ceasefire at least has a thread of argument behind it.
To argue for ceasefire while an undeniable war crime continues by holding the hostages has little appeal for most centrists. Those are the votes Sir K has acquired and needs to retain.
Most centerists would actually say that Israel at least has the right to act against Hamas. No organisation can kill 1400 + citizens and not expect a massive response.
By calling for a ceasefire, what people are saying is that Israel should never act back against terrorism.
The true respond should be that Isreal has a right to act against Hamas, but every action should be lawful, measured and no open ended.
Which is basically Starmers position, He is right, and should hold right against those which are anti-israel.
What's the reasonable response for 5,000 civilians killed?
To reflect on the folly of taking and refusing to release hostages when to do so would slightly ameliorate the effect of the 1400 murders committed in cold blood and would lay the ground for your sympathisers to ask for a ceasefire.
If anyone had even suggested that Israel's reaction to 1,400 dead should be to reflect on the folly of managing an apartheid state and illegal occupation they would have been called an anti-Semite.
I would much rather the people here who do not care about the number of dead Palestinians just say so, or take TOPPINGs position, which is at least honest. I can have an honest disagreement with them when their idea of war morality is essentially just "might decides right". But to all the people who say how horrified they are of 1,400 killed - including babies! - and then hand wave away years of Palestinian children being killed or the civilians death now - your morality is hollow. You don't care about life. You care about your side, your team, your allies - but not human life.
Personally, I care about the number of dead Palestinians. I would prefer for there to be *no* dead Palestinians or Israelis.
The question is, how do we get from here to that sunlit upland?
I'd argue your final words apply to yourself more than to others on here. You have a 'vision' for peace that is utterly unworkable (a single state solution), and one that will lead to the Jews in Israel being destroyed. You have a rather odd reading of history in the Middle East. And you evidently do not care for Israeli lives.
My "odd" reading of Middle Eastern history is that, in general, Jewish people were treated better under Ottoman rule than under European rule.
Sure. Now they want to give it a go under Jewish rule.
Hunt is a tax and spend Brownite who should never have been made Chancellor. He shows no sign of grasping the huge reforms our economy needs if we're to get it growing again - much lower taxes, lower spending and lighter regulation, especially but not only of housing. If he's the best the Conservatives can do, there's little point in anyone voting for them - may as well vote for true socialism as its fake alternative.
I love the idea that keep on doing what we've been doing but harder and faster will do our economy well. Like, what other country that isn't also a global superpower and the defacto global currency, has had success with cutting taxes and lighter regulation? And how much evidence is there that the opposite, Keynesianism, like the New Deal and redistributive taxation actually just does it much better...
Is this a joke? Why do you think Dubai is so successful? There is literally no country on earth that has taxed and regulated itself to success, not one. Even the much vaunted Scandi economies got rich with low tax and regulation and are now stagnating with it.
Dubai - like Singapore - is an entrepot. It’s funded by immense oil wealth and has carved out a small niche as a centre for Middle Eastern and to some extent Indian trade.
It’s also run on very cheap Indian labour.
It’s hardly a scalable model.
As an aside, it’s one of the ironies of global economics that Britain and France, while jealously preserving their very different economic models, have pretty much tracked alongside each other in terms of GDP per capita for about fifty years.
Oil industry only accounts for 1% of Dubai’s economy and it only holds about 4% of the reserves of the UAE so it’s not entirely correct to put it in the Middle Eastern oil wealth category unlike Abu Dhabi which has 90% of the UAE resources.
And how much of the capital investment came from Abu Dhabis oil, or was only available to Dubai because other investors knew it had the backing of Abu Dhabis oil?
Very little. The seven Emirates are very autonomous, rather like US States.
Dubai is a success. But it used oil wealth (which used to provide 50% of its economy) to seed the infrastructure roll-out required to become an entrepot.
That’s fantastic, but the point is this is not scalable to a country the size of the UK. In any case, we already have a world leading entrepot in London.
There are always these other factors - Dubai has oil, Monaco is sunny, Ireland is... Irish, but the simple fact remains that economical activity takes place more where states take less of the proceeds and allow that activity to take place more freely, concentrating instead on being really good at the things we DO need Government for - like safety and security. Why is anyone bothering to make an argument against this?
We raise the taxes on smoking when we want less people to smoke. We raise the taxes on alcohol when we want less people to drink. That is a clearly established disincentive - so what do we think happens when we raise CT?
I’m not arguing to raise CT and I think Britain over-taxes productive economic activity.
I am just here to say that the idea low-tax, low-regulation economies necessarily become rich isn’t borne out by the evidence, and citing Monaco alongside Dubai is kind of WTF.
As for Ireland, nobody believes their economic statistics, but their path has essentially been tax arbitrage too. I am not criticising it per se, but it’s essentially predatory on other countries.
Where's the verification of 6,000. Please don't tell me it is simply coming from the Hamas controlled authorities. Are there aid agencies or other authorities doing independent analysis?
But again - this is just a continuation of Israeli lives mattering and Palestinian lives don't.
No, not if its just quoting Hamas. From the article:
"Latest media reports citing the Gaza Ministry of Health indicate that the number of people killed in Gaza since 7 October has risen to 5,087"
This is NOT Israeli lives mattering and Palestinians not. Its about not trusting a terrorist organisation putting out numbers with no way of verifying. Its like Goebbels saying 200,000 were killed in Hamburg in 1943.
The answer seems to be because they are more reliable:
Many experts consider figures provided by the ministry reliable, given its access, sources and accuracy in past statements. “Everyone uses the figures from the Gaza Health Ministry because those are generally proven to be reliable,” said Omar Shakir, Israel and Palestine director at Human Rights Watch
The Gazan Health Ministry claimed that the IDF had bombed the hospital. 500 dead. Then 300 dead. Then who cares the Israelis did it dead. The ceiling of the operating theatre collapsing as the building imploded.
And then the following morning we all see that it was all bullshit.
You want to give credibility to that?
I will take the source that most people say has been the most reliable most of the time in the past. If, as they produce more data, they stop being the most reliable source I will stop taking them credibly. Why is that outrageous?
Also, we still don't know how many died in the hospital! For all we know the Gazan Health Ministry could yet be proved right by civilian deaths! We also still have no real conclusion of who is responsible for the bombing or the extent of the damage. US intelligence seem to be saying between "100-300" with big caveats, which means could be less, could be more. If it's much more than 300, it wouldn't be too out of line with the original Gazan estimate.
Where's the verification of 6,000. Please don't tell me it is simply coming from the Hamas controlled authorities. Are there aid agencies or other authorities doing independent analysis?
But again - this is just a continuation of Israeli lives mattering and Palestinian lives don't.
No, not if its just quoting Hamas. From the article:
"Latest media reports citing the Gaza Ministry of Health indicate that the number of people killed in Gaza since 7 October has risen to 5,087"
This is NOT Israeli lives mattering and Palestinians not. Its about not trusting a terrorist organisation putting out numbers with no way of verifying. Its like Goebbels saying 200,000 were killed in Hamburg in 1943.
The answer seems to be because they are more reliable:
Many experts consider figures provided by the ministry reliable, given its access, sources and accuracy in past statements. “Everyone uses the figures from the Gaza Health Ministry because those are generally proven to be reliable,” said Omar Shakir, Israel and Palestine director at Human Rights Watch
Proven by who, and how?
Look, I'm not an intelligence asset, I dunno how this stuff works. I am deferring to authority - I admit that. But if the UN are saying "historically, this is the best source we got" - I'm fine with using that source. Even if that source is wrong sometimes, it might still be the best source. If someone can provide me a better source that other specialists agree are better, I'll use that source. But I would argue that the onus is on you to do that, not me. I put the US figures for the hospital bombing - they say between "100-300" but with some pretty big caveats about how that might change in the future. But either way, Palestinian civilians are dying, and people here accept that - right? People accept that more Palestinian civilians have died in this conflict - both this month and also historically - than Israeli civilians, right?
Where's the verification of 6,000. Please don't tell me it is simply coming from the Hamas controlled authorities. Are there aid agencies or other authorities doing independent analysis?
But again - this is just a continuation of Israeli lives mattering and Palestinian lives don't.
No, not if its just quoting Hamas. From the article:
"Latest media reports citing the Gaza Ministry of Health indicate that the number of people killed in Gaza since 7 October has risen to 5,087"
This is NOT Israeli lives mattering and Palestinians not. Its about not trusting a terrorist organisation putting out numbers with no way of verifying. Its like Goebbels saying 200,000 were killed in Hamburg in 1943.
The answer seems to be because they are more reliable:
Many experts consider figures provided by the ministry reliable, given its access, sources and accuracy in past statements. “Everyone uses the figures from the Gaza Health Ministry because those are generally proven to be reliable,” said Omar Shakir, Israel and Palestine director at Human Rights Watch
Proven by who, and how?
Look, I'm not an intelligence asset, I dunno how this stuff works. I am deferring to authority - I admit that. But if the UN are saying "historically, this is the best source we got" - I'm fine with using that source. Even if that source is wrong sometimes, it might still be the best source. If someone can provide me a better source that other specialists agree are better, I'll use that source. But I would argue that the onus is on you to do that, not me. I put the US figures for the hospital bombing - they say between "100-300" but with some pretty big caveats about how that might change in the future. But either way, Palestinian civilians are dying, and people here accept that - right? People accept that more Palestinian civilians have died in this conflict - both this month and also historically - than Israeli civilians, right?
Lior Haiat this morning said Israeli and US intelligence suggested the number of casualties was less than 100, putting the figure at only 'several dozen'. European intelligence agency told AFP: 'There wasn't 200 or even 500 deaths, more likely between 10 and 50.'
We have seen the pictured now, it was a few cars blown up.
Hunt is a tax and spend Brownite who should never have been made Chancellor. He shows no sign of grasping the huge reforms our economy needs if we're to get it growing again - much lower taxes, lower spending and lighter regulation, especially but not only of housing. If he's the best the Conservatives can do, there's little point in anyone voting for them - may as well vote for true socialism as its fake alternative.
I love the idea that keep on doing what we've been doing but harder and faster will do our economy well. Like, what other country that isn't also a global superpower and the defacto global currency, has had success with cutting taxes and lighter regulation? And how much evidence is there that the opposite, Keynesianism, like the New Deal and redistributive taxation actually just does it much better...
Is this a joke? Why do you think Dubai is so successful? There is literally no country on earth that has taxed and regulated itself to success, not one. Even the much vaunted Scandi economies got rich with low tax and regulation and are now stagnating with it.
Dubai - like Singapore - is an entrepot. It’s funded by immense oil wealth and has carved out a small niche as a centre for Middle Eastern and to some extent Indian trade.
It’s also run on very cheap Indian labour.
It’s hardly a scalable model.
As an aside, it’s one of the ironies of global economics that Britain and France, while jealously preserving their very different economic models, have pretty much tracked alongside each other in terms of GDP per capita for about fifty years.
Oil industry only accounts for 1% of Dubai’s economy and it only holds about 4% of the reserves of the UAE so it’s not entirely correct to put it in the Middle Eastern oil wealth category unlike Abu Dhabi which has 90% of the UAE resources.
And how much of the capital investment came from Abu Dhabis oil, or was only available to Dubai because other investors knew it had the backing of Abu Dhabis oil?
Very little. The seven Emirates are very autonomous, rather like US States.
Dubai is a success. But it used oil wealth (which used to provide 50% of its economy) to seed the infrastructure roll-out required to become an entrepot.
That’s fantastic, but the point is this is not scalable to a country the size of the UK. In any case, we already have a world leading entrepot in London.
There are always these other factors - Dubai has oil, Monaco is sunny, Ireland is... Irish, but the simple fact remains that economical activity takes place more where states take less of the proceeds and allow that activity to take place more freely, concentrating instead on being really good at the things we DO need Government for - like safety and security. Why is anyone bothering to make an argument against this?
We raise the taxes on smoking when we want less people to smoke. We raise the taxes on alcohol when we want less people to drink. That is a clearly established disincentive - so what do we think happens when we raise CT?
I’m not arguing to raise CT and I think Britain over-taxes productive economic activity.
I am just here to say that the idea low-tax, low-regulation economies necessarily become rich isn’t borne out by the evidence, and citing Monaco alongside Dubai is kind of WTF.
As for Ireland, nobody believes their economic statistics, but their path has essentially been tax arbitrage too. I am not criticising it per se, but it’s essentially predatory on other countries.
And one that's not open to us outside of the EU.
We can set our own CT last time I checked.
Um, we can't thanks to Osborne there is now a global minimum rate for Corporation tax....
EXC: Pressure piles on Keir Starmer - More than 150 Muslim Labour Councillors have written directly to the Labour leader demanding he call for a ceasefire in Gaza as backlash over his policy from within his party grows
I’m not sure that Starmer is feeling quite as much pressure, as these councillors and activists wish him to be feeling.
Which is generally true of his internal opponents. They are mad at not having more influence and so exagerrate the significance of their petulance.
This example is probably more substantive than that, but I don't get the impression as an outsider that Starmer needs to worry yet
As someone who is much less of an outsider, I have to disagree with you. The criticism from within the Labour Party falls into two quite distinct camps:
1. The usual critics on the far left, who can scarcely contain their glee at being presented with an excuse to weigh in against Keir Starmer as strongly as possible. They see it as an opportunity. The Momentum-supporting Oxford councillor on the radio this morning was an example.
2. A broad swathe of opinion within the wider Labour Party, people who are mostly supportive of the leadership and certainly not those habitually seeking to undermine it from within. That includes amongst others Muslim councillors, most of whom are quite willing to condemn Hamas's actions on 7th October unreservedly but nonetheless are appalled by the humanitarian situation unfolding in Gaza and the relentless killing through bombing and are getting it in the neck from their local communities who are similarly appalled.
In political terms, Keir Starmer should be concerned. The usual critics are not of much relevance, they have already been marginalised within the party and there is no way back now. However, the criticism from within the Muslim community will lose Labour electoral support if not properly addressed, some of it in marginal seats. If Israel continues on its present course, the situation in Gaza is going to get even worse and I think that public opinion will increasingly become critical of the actions of the Israeli government going forward.
Sir K knows that for millions of centrists, of all religions and none, the rational next course (which should already have happened) is to call for all hostages to be released and then a ceasefire. Any call for that release, immediately to be followed by ceasefire at least has a thread of argument behind it.
To argue for ceasefire while an undeniable war crime continues by holding the hostages has little appeal for most centrists. Those are the votes Sir K has acquired and needs to retain.
Most centerists would actually say that Israel at least has the right to act against Hamas. No organisation can kill 1400 + citizens and not expect a massive response.
By calling for a ceasefire, what people are saying is that Israel should never act back against terrorism.
The true respond should be that Isreal has a right to act against Hamas, but every action should be lawful, measured and no open ended.
Which is basically Starmers position, He is right, and should hold right against those which are anti-israel.
What's the reasonable response for 5,000 civilians killed?
To reflect on the folly of taking and refusing to release hostages when to do so would slightly ameliorate the effect of the 1400 murders committed in cold blood and would lay the ground for your sympathisers to ask for a ceasefire.
If anyone had even suggested that Israel's reaction to 1,400 dead should be to reflect on the folly of managing an apartheid state and illegal occupation they would have been called an anti-Semite.
I would much rather the people here who do not care about the number of dead Palestinians just say so, or take TOPPINGs position, which is at least honest. I can have an honest disagreement with them when their idea of war morality is essentially just "might decides right". But to all the people who say how horrified they are of 1,400 killed - including babies! - and then hand wave away years of Palestinian children being killed or the civilians death now - your morality is hollow. You don't care about life. You care about your side, your team, your allies - but not human life.
Personally, I care about the number of dead Palestinians. I would prefer for there to be *no* dead Palestinians or Israelis.
The question is, how do we get from here to that sunlit upland?
I'd argue your final words apply to yourself more than to others on here. You have a 'vision' for peace that is utterly unworkable (a single state solution), and one that will lead to the Jews in Israel being destroyed. You have a rather odd reading of history in the Middle East. And you evidently do not care for Israeli lives.
I think the only option to peace is an end to apartheid, I think the only way to end apartheid is for a single state solution that does truth and reconciliation, involving criminal actors on both sides being judged and a peaceful settlement for Israeli Jews and Palestinian Arabs. If that leads to the outcome of Israeli Jews being persecuted, I would view that as a failed truth and reconciliation effort and will then be defending Israeli Jews from persecution. But that is not the situation that has to be, or we are in now.
My "odd" reading of Middle Eastern history is that, in general, Jewish people were treated better under Ottoman rule than under European rule. That seems to be the historical consensus, as I understand it. As for the specifics of Zionism and post-Balfor, my general position is that, yes, Middle Eastern cultures likely had low level anti-Semitism and acts of violence (but lesser than in Europe) and that the modern anti-Semitic and and Jewish violence and rhetoric come more as a reaction to Zionism and Israel (again, as explanation, not endorsement).
Every time I restart or reenter these conversations I talk about how awful October 7th was, how it was unacceptable, and indeed try and mention the perspectives of those families who have lost loved ones to kidnap or were killed. I even opened up about my limited connection to my own Jewish ancestors (although I do not claim a Jewish experience nor a Jewish identity) and how in trying to understand that better I talked to Jewish people and made lots of Jewish friends, many of who are anti-Zionist. How that is me not showing care for Israeli lives, I don't know.
I don't have a magic wand that can take us to the sunlit uplands. I do have a history book that will tell you how we won't get there. And that is why I am against the apartheid regime, the carpet bombing of Gaza, the mass forced migration of Palestinians and the mass killing of Palestinian civilians as well as the acts of Hamas at the beginning of this month.
“If that leads to the outcome of Israeli Jews being persecuted, I would view that as a failed truth and reconciliation effort and will then be defending Israeli Jews from persecution.”
That’s wonderful. Can you tell us what the benchmark is that means that Jews are being persecuted? Is is more than 1400 murdered? Is it the banning of open practice of the Jewish faith? Will it be the hanging of gay Jews from cranes?
Who is going to be holding the truth and reconciliation meetings and judging the bad actors? The UN with The current DG in charge? Maybe Russia? Or Iran, but definitely not the US right.
And who is going to be keeping this peace? You?
What do you think the Hamas vision of this “one state” is because it isn’t living happily side by side with Jews in a liberal democracy.
I thought you were just naive and a bit dippy thinking we can all hold hands and sing songs and we will have one happy state but now it’s clear you are either very stupid or completely disingenuous.
To be followed by Prime Minister Grant Shapps after Rishi is ousted?
Proof positive that "things can only get better" is not factual.
I think that if the next British Prime Minister was a Jew it would send a non-trivial proportion of the planet into meltdown.
Or perhaps the vast majority of us would have no idea Shapps was even Jewish. I had no idea and have no interest in his religion. I know Sunak is a Hindu but no idea how seriously he takes it, and that Blair had some religious influences, not a clue on Cameron, May, Brown, Major, Thatcher. Boris I suspect would have been whatever got him laid and/or promoted at the time.
Most of us don't care, and most PMs are wise enough not to make a big deal of it.
Indeed, although Royale is himself an atheist I believe. Would be good to have an unapologetically atheist PM, for a change. The nearest we got in modern times is that godless rotter Bozza, who occasionally pretended to be religious when convenient for him.
Starmer is an atheist as were former Labour PMs Attlee and Callaghan.
Other party leaders who were atheists but never became PM include Corbyn, Clegg, Ed Miliband and Foot.
148grss asked: "What's the reasonable response for 5,000 civilians killed?"
Let's try a parallel question for some insight: What's was the reasonable response for Nazi Germany at the end of 1944? (Where, I remind you, tens of thousand civilians had been killed.)
The answer should be obvious: They should have surrendered, and saved many German lives. And then arrested, tried, and executed their war criminals, who had brought this calamity upon them.
(Some German cities surrendered, as the allies advanced, and suffered far less than the cities which fought on.)
EXC: Pressure piles on Keir Starmer - More than 150 Muslim Labour Councillors have written directly to the Labour leader demanding he call for a ceasefire in Gaza as backlash over his policy from within his party grows
I’m not sure that Starmer is feeling quite as much pressure, as these councillors and activists wish him to be feeling.
Which is generally true of his internal opponents. They are mad at not having more influence and so exagerrate the significance of their petulance.
This example is probably more substantive than that, but I don't get the impression as an outsider that Starmer needs to worry yet
As someone who is much less of an outsider, I have to disagree with you. The criticism from within the Labour Party falls into two quite distinct camps:
1. The usual critics on the far left, who can scarcely contain their glee at being presented with an excuse to weigh in against Keir Starmer as strongly as possible. They see it as an opportunity. The Momentum-supporting Oxford councillor on the radio this morning was an example.
2. A broad swathe of opinion within the wider Labour Party, people who are mostly supportive of the leadership and certainly not those habitually seeking to undermine it from within. That includes amongst others Muslim councillors, most of whom are quite willing to condemn Hamas's actions on 7th October unreservedly but nonetheless are appalled by the humanitarian situation unfolding in Gaza and the relentless killing through bombing and are getting it in the neck from their local communities who are similarly appalled.
In political terms, Keir Starmer should be concerned. The usual critics are not of much relevance, they have already been marginalised within the party and there is no way back now. However, the criticism from within the Muslim community will lose Labour electoral support if not properly addressed, some of it in marginal seats. If Israel continues on its present course, the situation in Gaza is going to get even worse and I think that public opinion will increasingly become critical of the actions of the Israeli government going forward.
Yes, but what happens - and I think this is, at least, equally likely - when
1. Israel invades and it starts going wrong, and surrounding Muslim nations/agents gang up on Israel? Hezbollah is almost certain. The West Bank will erupt. Iran will do stuff
or
2. Israel does NOT invade and it becomes clear that Hamas have "won" - they did a pogrom in Israel and Israel is essentially impotent, apart from bombing rubble into smaller pieces of rubble? And so Israel is existentially thratened, for the foreseeable future
In both those cases sympathy might - perhaps will - swing back to Israel
Where's the verification of 6,000. Please don't tell me it is simply coming from the Hamas controlled authorities. Are there aid agencies or other authorities doing independent analysis?
But again - this is just a continuation of Israeli lives mattering and Palestinian lives don't.
No, not if its just quoting Hamas. From the article:
"Latest media reports citing the Gaza Ministry of Health indicate that the number of people killed in Gaza since 7 October has risen to 5,087"
This is NOT Israeli lives mattering and Palestinians not. Its about not trusting a terrorist organisation putting out numbers with no way of verifying. Its like Goebbels saying 200,000 were killed in Hamburg in 1943.
The answer seems to be because they are more reliable:
Many experts consider figures provided by the ministry reliable, given its access, sources and accuracy in past statements. “Everyone uses the figures from the Gaza Health Ministry because those are generally proven to be reliable,” said Omar Shakir, Israel and Palestine director at Human Rights Watch
The Gazan Health Ministry claimed that the IDF had bombed the hospital. 500 dead. Then 300 dead. Then who cares the Israelis did it dead. The ceiling of the operating theatre collapsing as the building imploded.
And then the following morning we all see that it was all bullshit.
You want to give credibility to that?
I will take the source that most people say has been the most reliable most of the time in the past. If, as they produce more data, they stop being the most reliable source I will stop taking them credibly. Why is that outrageous?
Also, we still don't know how many died in the hospital! For all we know the Gazan Health Ministry could yet be proved right by civilian deaths! We also still have no real conclusion of who is responsible for the bombing or the extent of the damage. US intelligence seem to be saying between "100-300" with big caveats, which means could be less, could be more. If it's much more than 300, it wouldn't be too out of line with the original Gazan estimate.
We know that the IDF didn't bomb it. We know that the building did not collapse. Which makes the quotes from medics claiming that it did to be a fabrication.
I am not saying that everything the Gazan Ministry of Hamas says is a lie. But we know that they do lie. So we can't just verbatim accept everything they say.
EXC: Pressure piles on Keir Starmer - More than 150 Muslim Labour Councillors have written directly to the Labour leader demanding he call for a ceasefire in Gaza as backlash over his policy from within his party grows
I’m not sure that Starmer is feeling quite as much pressure, as these councillors and activists wish him to be feeling.
Which is generally true of his internal opponents. They are mad at not having more influence and so exagerrate the significance of their petulance.
This example is probably more substantive than that, but I don't get the impression as an outsider that Starmer needs to worry yet
As someone who is much less of an outsider, I have to disagree with you. The criticism from within the Labour Party falls into two quite distinct camps:
1. The usual critics on the far left, who can scarcely contain their glee at being presented with an excuse to weigh in against Keir Starmer as strongly as possible. They see it as an opportunity. The Momentum-supporting Oxford councillor on the radio this morning was an example.
2. A broad swathe of opinion within the wider Labour Party, people who are mostly supportive of the leadership and certainly not those habitually seeking to undermine it from within. That includes amongst others Muslim councillors, most of whom are quite willing to condemn Hamas's actions on 7th October unreservedly but nonetheless are appalled by the humanitarian situation unfolding in Gaza and the relentless killing through bombing and are getting it in the neck from their local communities who are similarly appalled.
In political terms, Keir Starmer should be concerned. The usual critics are not of much relevance, they have already been marginalised within the party and there is no way back now. However, the criticism from within the Muslim community will lose Labour electoral support if not properly addressed, some of it in marginal seats. If Israel continues on its present course, the situation in Gaza is going to get even worse and I think that public opinion will increasingly become critical of the actions of the Israeli government going forward.
Sir K knows that for millions of centrists, of all religions and none, the rational next course (which should already have happened) is to call for all hostages to be released and then a ceasefire. Any call for that release, immediately to be followed by ceasefire at least has a thread of argument behind it.
To argue for ceasefire while an undeniable war crime continues by holding the hostages has little appeal for most centrists. Those are the votes Sir K has acquired and needs to retain.
Most centerists would actually say that Israel at least has the right to act against Hamas. No organisation can kill 1400 + citizens and not expect a massive response.
By calling for a ceasefire, what people are saying is that Israel should never act back against terrorism.
The true respond should be that Isreal has a right to act against Hamas, but every action should be lawful, measured and no open ended.
Which is basically Starmers position, He is right, and should hold right against those which are anti-israel.
What's the reasonable response for 5,000 civilians killed?
To reflect on the folly of taking and refusing to release hostages when to do so would slightly ameliorate the effect of the 1400 murders committed in cold blood and would lay the ground for your sympathisers to ask for a ceasefire.
If anyone had even suggested that Israel's reaction to 1,400 dead should be to reflect on the folly of managing an apartheid state and illegal occupation they would have been called an anti-Semite.
I would much rather the people here who do not care about the number of dead Palestinians just say so, or take TOPPINGs position, which is at least honest. I can have an honest disagreement with them when their idea of war morality is essentially just "might decides right". But to all the people who say how horrified they are of 1,400 killed - including babies! - and then hand wave away years of Palestinian children being killed or the civilians death now - your morality is hollow. You don't care about life. You care about your side, your team, your allies - but not human life.
Personally, I care about the number of dead Palestinians. I would prefer for there to be *no* dead Palestinians or Israelis.
The question is, how do we get from here to that sunlit upland?
I'd argue your final words apply to yourself more than to others on here. You have a 'vision' for peace that is utterly unworkable (a single state solution), and one that will lead to the Jews in Israel being destroyed. You have a rather odd reading of history in the Middle East. And you evidently do not care for Israeli lives.
I think the only option to peace is an end to apartheid, I think the only way to end apartheid is for a single state solution that does truth and reconciliation, involving criminal actors on both sides being judged and a peaceful settlement for Israeli Jews and Palestinian Arabs. If that leads to the outcome of Israeli Jews being persecuted, I would view that as a failed truth and reconciliation effort and will then be defending Israeli Jews from persecution. But that is not the situation that has to be, or we are in now.
My "odd" reading of Middle Eastern history is that, in general, Jewish people were treated better under Ottoman rule than under European rule. That seems to be the historical consensus, as I understand it. As for the specifics of Zionism and post-Balfor, my general position is that, yes, Middle Eastern cultures likely had low level anti-Semitism and acts of violence (but lesser than in Europe) and that the modern anti-Semitic and and Jewish violence and rhetoric come more as a reaction to Zionism and Israel (again, as explanation, not endorsement).
Every time I restart or reenter these conversations I talk about how awful October 7th was, how it was unacceptable, and indeed try and mention the perspectives of those families who have lost loved ones to kidnap or were killed. I even opened up about my limited connection to my own Jewish ancestors (although I do not claim a Jewish experience nor a Jewish identity) and how in trying to understand that better I talked to Jewish people and made lots of Jewish friends, many of who are anti-Zionist. How that is me not showing care for Israeli lives, I don't know.
I don't have a magic wand that can take us to the sunlit uplands. I do have a history book that will tell you how we won't get there. And that is why I am against the apartheid regime, the carpet bombing of Gaza, the mass forced migration of Palestinians and the mass killing of Palestinian civilians as well as the acts of Hamas at the beginning of this month.
Can you explain to me how Arabs or Palestinians living in Israel are in an apartheid regime? They have the same rights as Jews.
Compare and contrast with Jews who are brave enough to live in majority Muslim countries.
EXC: Pressure piles on Keir Starmer - More than 150 Muslim Labour Councillors have written directly to the Labour leader demanding he call for a ceasefire in Gaza as backlash over his policy from within his party grows
I’m not sure that Starmer is feeling quite as much pressure, as these councillors and activists wish him to be feeling.
Which is generally true of his internal opponents. They are mad at not having more influence and so exagerrate the significance of their petulance.
This example is probably more substantive than that, but I don't get the impression as an outsider that Starmer needs to worry yet
As someone who is much less of an outsider, I have to disagree with you. The criticism from within the Labour Party falls into two quite distinct camps:
1. The usual critics on the far left, who can scarcely contain their glee at being presented with an excuse to weigh in against Keir Starmer as strongly as possible. They see it as an opportunity. The Momentum-supporting Oxford councillor on the radio this morning was an example.
2. A broad swathe of opinion within the wider Labour Party, people who are mostly supportive of the leadership and certainly not those habitually seeking to undermine it from within. That includes amongst others Muslim councillors, most of whom are quite willing to condemn Hamas's actions on 7th October unreservedly but nonetheless are appalled by the humanitarian situation unfolding in Gaza and the relentless killing through bombing and are getting it in the neck from their local communities who are similarly appalled.
In political terms, Keir Starmer should be concerned. The usual critics are not of much relevance, they have already been marginalised within the party and there is no way back now. However, the criticism from within the Muslim community will lose Labour electoral support if not properly addressed, some of it in marginal seats. If Israel continues on its present course, the situation in Gaza is going to get even worse and I think that public opinion will increasingly become critical of the actions of the Israeli government going forward.
Sir K knows that for millions of centrists, of all religions and none, the rational next course (which should already have happened) is to call for all hostages to be released and then a ceasefire. Any call for that release, immediately to be followed by ceasefire at least has a thread of argument behind it.
To argue for ceasefire while an undeniable war crime continues by holding the hostages has little appeal for most centrists. Those are the votes Sir K has acquired and needs to retain.
Most centerists would actually say that Israel at least has the right to act against Hamas. No organisation can kill 1400 + citizens and not expect a massive response.
By calling for a ceasefire, what people are saying is that Israel should never act back against terrorism.
The true respond should be that Isreal has a right to act against Hamas, but every action should be lawful, measured and no open ended.
Which is basically Starmers position, He is right, and should hold right against those which are anti-israel.
What's the reasonable response for 5,000 civilians killed?
To reflect on the folly of taking and refusing to release hostages when to do so would slightly ameliorate the effect of the 1400 murders committed in cold blood and would lay the ground for your sympathisers to ask for a ceasefire.
If anyone had even suggested that Israel's reaction to 1,400 dead should be to reflect on the folly of managing an apartheid state and illegal occupation they would have been called an anti-Semite.
I would much rather the people here who do not care about the number of dead Palestinians just say so, or take TOPPINGs position, which is at least honest. I can have an honest disagreement with them when their idea of war morality is essentially just "might decides right". But to all the people who say how horrified they are of 1,400 killed - including babies! - and then hand wave away years of Palestinian children being killed or the civilians death now - your morality is hollow. You don't care about life. You care about your side, your team, your allies - but not human life.
Personally, I care about the number of dead Palestinians. I would prefer for there to be *no* dead Palestinians or Israelis.
The question is, how do we get from here to that sunlit upland?
I'd argue your final words apply to yourself more than to others on here. You have a 'vision' for peace that is utterly unworkable (a single state solution), and one that will lead to the Jews in Israel being destroyed. You have a rather odd reading of history in the Middle East. And you evidently do not care for Israeli lives.
I think the only option to peace is an end to apartheid, I think the only way to end apartheid is for a single state solution that does truth and reconciliation, involving criminal actors on both sides being judged and a peaceful settlement for Israeli Jews and Palestinian Arabs. If that leads to the outcome of Israeli Jews being persecuted, I would view that as a failed truth and reconciliation effort and will then be defending Israeli Jews from persecution. But that is not the situation that has to be, or we are in now.
My "odd" reading of Middle Eastern history is that, in general, Jewish people were treated better under Ottoman rule than under European rule. That seems to be the historical consensus, as I understand it. As for the specifics of Zionism and post-Balfor, my general position is that, yes, Middle Eastern cultures likely had low level anti-Semitism and acts of violence (but lesser than in Europe) and that the modern anti-Semitic and and Jewish violence and rhetoric come more as a reaction to Zionism and Israel (again, as explanation, not endorsement).
Every time I restart or reenter these conversations I talk about how awful October 7th was, how it was unacceptable, and indeed try and mention the perspectives of those families who have lost loved ones to kidnap or were killed. I even opened up about my limited connection to my own Jewish ancestors (although I do not claim a Jewish experience nor a Jewish identity) and how in trying to understand that better I talked to Jewish people and made lots of Jewish friends, many of who are anti-Zionist. How that is me not showing care for Israeli lives, I don't know.
I don't have a magic wand that can take us to the sunlit uplands. I do have a history book that will tell you how we won't get there. And that is why I am against the apartheid regime, the carpet bombing of Gaza, the mass forced migration of Palestinians and the mass killing of Palestinian civilians as well as the acts of Hamas at the beginning of this month.
“If that leads to the outcome of Israeli Jews being persecuted, I would view that as a failed truth and reconciliation effort and will then be defending Israeli Jews from persecution.”
That’s wonderful. Can you tell us what the benchmark is that means that Jews are being persecuted? Is is more than 1400 murdered? Is it the banning of open practice of the Jewish faith? Will it be the hanging of gay Jews from cranes?
Who is going to be holding the truth and reconciliation meetings and judging the bad actors? The UN with The current DG in charge? Maybe Russia? Or Iran, but definitely not the US right.
And who is going to be keeping this peace? You?
What do you think the Hamas vision of this “one state” is because it isn’t living happily side by side with Jews in a liberal democracy.
I thought you were just naive and a bit dippy thinking we can all hold hands and sing songs and we will have one happy state but now it’s clear you are either very stupid or completely disingenuous.
Maybe I am stupid or disingenuous - but what is the alternative? I'm against Israeli Jewish people being massacred, I'm against Arab Palestinians being massacred. A two state solution seems impossible, because partition does not seem to lead to long lasting peace - see all the other places the European powers partitioned! Yes, the international community would have to step up, yes it would require people acting better than they do now. But what is the alternative you propose, or Israel proposes, or Hamas proposes? All I see is more calls for blood, blood, blood - and currently we can see the flattening of areas where 10,000s of people live.
"Bianca Williams: Two Met officers guilty of athlete search gross misconduct"
I'm more convinced by the investigation than I was by the "The Racially Profiled Us" allegation. 2 out of 5 police officers have afaics been found guilty of making allegations about smelling cannabis, which they did not, and have not been able to, back up.
The other 3 have had allegations against them found not proven.
In the original incident the two athletes spent a longish time messing about capturing film on a mobile phone, rather than getting out of the car as required by police officers.
EXC: Pressure piles on Keir Starmer - More than 150 Muslim Labour Councillors have written directly to the Labour leader demanding he call for a ceasefire in Gaza as backlash over his policy from within his party grows
I’m not sure that Starmer is feeling quite as much pressure, as these councillors and activists wish him to be feeling.
Which is generally true of his internal opponents. They are mad at not having more influence and so exagerrate the significance of their petulance.
This example is probably more substantive than that, but I don't get the impression as an outsider that Starmer needs to worry yet
As someone who is much less of an outsider, I have to disagree with you. The criticism from within the Labour Party falls into two quite distinct camps:
1. The usual critics on the far left, who can scarcely contain their glee at being presented with an excuse to weigh in against Keir Starmer as strongly as possible. They see it as an opportunity. The Momentum-supporting Oxford councillor on the radio this morning was an example.
2. A broad swathe of opinion within the wider Labour Party, people who are mostly supportive of the leadership and certainly not those habitually seeking to undermine it from within. That includes amongst others Muslim councillors, most of whom are quite willing to condemn Hamas's actions on 7th October unreservedly but nonetheless are appalled by the humanitarian situation unfolding in Gaza and the relentless killing through bombing and are getting it in the neck from their local communities who are similarly appalled.
In political terms, Keir Starmer should be concerned. The usual critics are not of much relevance, they have already been marginalised within the party and there is no way back now. However, the criticism from within the Muslim community will lose Labour electoral support if not properly addressed, some of it in marginal seats. If Israel continues on its present course, the situation in Gaza is going to get even worse and I think that public opinion will increasingly become critical of the actions of the Israeli government going forward.
Sir K knows that for millions of centrists, of all religions and none, the rational next course (which should already have happened) is to call for all hostages to be released and then a ceasefire. Any call for that release, immediately to be followed by ceasefire at least has a thread of argument behind it.
To argue for ceasefire while an undeniable war crime continues by holding the hostages has little appeal for most centrists. Those are the votes Sir K has acquired and needs to retain.
Most centerists would actually say that Israel at least has the right to act against Hamas. No organisation can kill 1400 + citizens and not expect a massive response.
By calling for a ceasefire, what people are saying is that Israel should never act back against terrorism.
The true respond should be that Isreal has a right to act against Hamas, but every action should be lawful, measured and no open ended.
Which is basically Starmers position, He is right, and should hold right against those which are anti-israel.
What's the reasonable response for 5,000 civilians killed?
To reflect on the folly of taking and refusing to release hostages when to do so would slightly ameliorate the effect of the 1400 murders committed in cold blood and would lay the ground for your sympathisers to ask for a ceasefire.
If anyone had even suggested that Israel's reaction to 1,400 dead should be to reflect on the folly of managing an apartheid state and illegal occupation they would have been called an anti-Semite.
I would much rather the people here who do not care about the number of dead Palestinians just say so, or take TOPPINGs position, which is at least honest. I can have an honest disagreement with them when their idea of war morality is essentially just "might decides right". But to all the people who say how horrified they are of 1,400 killed - including babies! - and then hand wave away years of Palestinian children being killed or the civilians death now - your morality is hollow. You don't care about life. You care about your side, your team, your allies - but not human life.
Personally, I care about the number of dead Palestinians. I would prefer for there to be *no* dead Palestinians or Israelis.
The question is, how do we get from here to that sunlit upland?
I'd argue your final words apply to yourself more than to others on here. You have a 'vision' for peace that is utterly unworkable (a single state solution), and one that will lead to the Jews in Israel being destroyed. You have a rather odd reading of history in the Middle East. And you evidently do not care for Israeli lives.
I think the only option to peace is an end to apartheid, I think the only way to end apartheid is for a single state solution that does truth and reconciliation, involving criminal actors on both sides being judged and a peaceful settlement for Israeli Jews and Palestinian Arabs. If that leads to the outcome of Israeli Jews being persecuted, I would view that as a failed truth and reconciliation effort and will then be defending Israeli Jews from persecution. But that is not the situation that has to be, or we are in now.
My "odd" reading of Middle Eastern history is that, in general, Jewish people were treated better under Ottoman rule than under European rule. That seems to be the historical consensus, as I understand it. As for the specifics of Zionism and post-Balfor, my general position is that, yes, Middle Eastern cultures likely had low level anti-Semitism and acts of violence (but lesser than in Europe) and that the modern anti-Semitic and and Jewish violence and rhetoric come more as a reaction to Zionism and Israel (again, as explanation, not endorsement).
Every time I restart or reenter these conversations I talk about how awful October 7th was, how it was unacceptable, and indeed try and mention the perspectives of those families who have lost loved ones to kidnap or were killed. I even opened up about my limited connection to my own Jewish ancestors (although I do not claim a Jewish experience nor a Jewish identity) and how in trying to understand that better I talked to Jewish people and made lots of Jewish friends, many of who are anti-Zionist. How that is me not showing care for Israeli lives, I don't know.
I don't have a magic wand that can take us to the sunlit uplands. I do have a history book that will tell you how we won't get there. And that is why I am against the apartheid regime, the carpet bombing of Gaza, the mass forced migration of Palestinians and the mass killing of Palestinian civilians as well as the acts of Hamas at the beginning of this month.
“If that leads to the outcome of Israeli Jews being persecuted, I would view that as a failed truth and reconciliation effort and will then be defending Israeli Jews from persecution.”
That’s wonderful. Can you tell us what the benchmark is that means that Jews are being persecuted? Is is more than 1400 murdered? Is it the banning of open practice of the Jewish faith? Will it be the hanging of gay Jews from cranes?
Who is going to be holding the truth and reconciliation meetings and judging the bad actors? The UN with The current DG in charge? Maybe Russia? Or Iran, but definitely not the US right.
And who is going to be keeping this peace? You?
What do you think the Hamas vision of this “one state” is because it isn’t living happily side by side with Jews in a liberal democracy.
I thought you were just naive and a bit dippy thinking we can all hold hands and sing songs and we will have one happy state but now it’s clear you are either very stupid or completely disingenuous.
Maybe I am stupid or disingenuous - but what is the alternative? I'm against Israeli Jewish people being massacred, I'm against Arab Palestinians being massacred. A two state solution seems impossible, because partition does not seem to lead to long lasting peace - see all the other places the European powers partitioned! Yes, the international community would have to step up, yes it would require people acting better than they do now. But what is the alternative you propose, or Israel proposes, or Hamas proposes? All I see is more calls for blood, blood, blood - and currently we can see the flattening of areas where 10,000s of people live.
A 2 state solution could.be peaceful if Hamas didn't believe that Israel and Jews in general don't deserve to exist. How can you negotiate with that?
Hunt is a tax and spend Brownite who should never have been made Chancellor. He shows no sign of grasping the huge reforms our economy needs if we're to get it growing again - much lower taxes, lower spending and lighter regulation, especially but not only of housing. If he's the best the Conservatives can do, there's little point in anyone voting for them - may as well vote for true socialism as its fake alternative.
I love the idea that keep on doing what we've been doing but harder and faster will do our economy well. Like, what other country that isn't also a global superpower and the defacto global currency, has had success with cutting taxes and lighter regulation? And how much evidence is there that the opposite, Keynesianism, like the New Deal and redistributive taxation actually just does it much better...
Is this a joke? Why do you think Dubai is so successful? There is literally no country on earth that has taxed and regulated itself to success, not one. Even the much vaunted Scandi economies got rich with low tax and regulation and are now stagnating with it.
Dubai - like Singapore - is an entrepot. It’s funded by immense oil wealth and has carved out a small niche as a centre for Middle Eastern and to some extent Indian trade.
It’s also run on very cheap Indian labour.
It’s hardly a scalable model.
As an aside, it’s one of the ironies of global economics that Britain and France, while jealously preserving their very different economic models, have pretty much tracked alongside each other in terms of GDP per capita for about fifty years.
Oil industry only accounts for 1% of Dubai’s economy and it only holds about 4% of the reserves of the UAE so it’s not entirely correct to put it in the Middle Eastern oil wealth category unlike Abu Dhabi which has 90% of the UAE resources.
And how much of the capital investment came from Abu Dhabis oil, or was only available to Dubai because other investors knew it had the backing of Abu Dhabis oil?
Very little. The seven Emirates are very autonomous, rather like US States.
Dubai is a success. But it used oil wealth (which used to provide 50% of its economy) to seed the infrastructure roll-out required to become an entrepot.
That’s fantastic, but the point is this is not scalable to a country the size of the UK. In any case, we already have a world leading entrepot in London.
There are always these other factors - Dubai has oil, Monaco is sunny, Ireland is... Irish, but the simple fact remains that economical activity takes place more where states take less of the proceeds and allow that activity to take place more freely, concentrating instead on being really good at the things we DO need Government for - like safety and security. Why is anyone bothering to make an argument against this?
We raise the taxes on smoking when we want less people to smoke. We raise the taxes on alcohol when we want less people to drink. That is a clearly established disincentive - so what do we think happens when we raise CT?
I’m not arguing to raise CT and I think Britain over-taxes productive economic activity.
I am just here to say that the idea low-tax, low-regulation economies necessarily become rich isn’t borne out by the evidence, and citing Monaco alongside Dubai is kind of WTF.
As for Ireland, nobody believes their economic statistics, but their path has essentially been tax arbitrage too. I am not criticising it per se, but it’s essentially predatory on other countries.
And one that's not open to us outside of the EU.
We can set our own CT last time I checked.
Much of the attraction of Ireland's low tax rate to overseas investors is its being part of the EU. I would have thought that point fairly obvious.
This is the sort of thing that makes the Gaza Ministry of Health entirely unreliable.
Hamas Crisis Actor pretends to be a victim of an Israeli air strike- appearing in a hospital bed while pretending to be in a critical condition as two supporting actors hold his hand.
In reality, the man is a Hamas musician and actor who has been appearing in various videos for the terror group.
One video he is seen celebrating in the streets as Hamas fire rockets towards Israel.
In another video he can be seen ‘crying’ after claiming his apartment was hit by an airstrike.
To be followed by Prime Minister Grant Shapps after Rishi is ousted?
Proof positive that "things can only get better" is not factual.
I think that if the next British Prime Minister was a Jew it would send a non-trivial proportion of the planet into meltdown.
Or perhaps the vast majority of us would have no idea Shapps was even Jewish. I had no idea and have no interest in his religion. I know Sunak is a Hindu but no idea how seriously he takes it, and that Blair had some religious influences, not a clue on Cameron, May, Brown, Major, Thatcher. Boris I suspect would have been whatever got him laid and/or promoted at the time.
Most of us don't care, and most PMs are wise enough not to make a big deal of it.
Indeed, although Royale is himself an atheist I believe. Would be good to have an unapologetically atheist PM, for a change. The nearest we got in modern times is that godless rotter Bozza, who occasionally pretended to be religious when convenient for him.
Starmer is an atheist as were former Labour PMs Attlee and Callaghan.
Other party leaders who were atheists but never became PM include Corbyn, Clegg, Ed Miliband and Foot.
And your main man Bozzatron, at least on some Tuesdays, occasionally Wednesdays and on other days at his discretion.
EXC: Pressure piles on Keir Starmer - More than 150 Muslim Labour Councillors have written directly to the Labour leader demanding he call for a ceasefire in Gaza as backlash over his policy from within his party grows
I’m not sure that Starmer is feeling quite as much pressure, as these councillors and activists wish him to be feeling.
Which is generally true of his internal opponents. They are mad at not having more influence and so exagerrate the significance of their petulance.
This example is probably more substantive than that, but I don't get the impression as an outsider that Starmer needs to worry yet
As someone who is much less of an outsider, I have to disagree with you. The criticism from within the Labour Party falls into two quite distinct camps:
1. The usual critics on the far left, who can scarcely contain their glee at being presented with an excuse to weigh in against Keir Starmer as strongly as possible. They see it as an opportunity. The Momentum-supporting Oxford councillor on the radio this morning was an example.
2. A broad swathe of opinion within the wider Labour Party, people who are mostly supportive of the leadership and certainly not those habitually seeking to undermine it from within. That includes amongst others Muslim councillors, most of whom are quite willing to condemn Hamas's actions on 7th October unreservedly but nonetheless are appalled by the humanitarian situation unfolding in Gaza and the relentless killing through bombing and are getting it in the neck from their local communities who are similarly appalled.
In political terms, Keir Starmer should be concerned. The usual critics are not of much relevance, they have already been marginalised within the party and there is no way back now. However, the criticism from within the Muslim community will lose Labour electoral support if not properly addressed, some of it in marginal seats. If Israel continues on its present course, the situation in Gaza is going to get even worse and I think that public opinion will increasingly become critical of the actions of the Israeli government going forward.
Sir K knows that for millions of centrists, of all religions and none, the rational next course (which should already have happened) is to call for all hostages to be released and then a ceasefire. Any call for that release, immediately to be followed by ceasefire at least has a thread of argument behind it.
To argue for ceasefire while an undeniable war crime continues by holding the hostages has little appeal for most centrists. Those are the votes Sir K has acquired and needs to retain.
Most centerists would actually say that Israel at least has the right to act against Hamas. No organisation can kill 1400 + citizens and not expect a massive response.
By calling for a ceasefire, what people are saying is that Israel should never act back against terrorism.
The true respond should be that Isreal has a right to act against Hamas, but every action should be lawful, measured and no open ended.
Which is basically Starmers position, He is right, and should hold right against those which are anti-israel.
What's the reasonable response for 5,000 civilians killed?
To reflect on the folly of taking and refusing to release hostages when to do so would slightly ameliorate the effect of the 1400 murders committed in cold blood and would lay the ground for your sympathisers to ask for a ceasefire.
If anyone had even suggested that Israel's reaction to 1,400 dead should be to reflect on the folly of managing an apartheid state and illegal occupation they would have been called an anti-Semite.
I would much rather the people here who do not care about the number of dead Palestinians just say so, or take TOPPINGs position, which is at least honest. I can have an honest disagreement with them when their idea of war morality is essentially just "might decides right". But to all the people who say how horrified they are of 1,400 killed - including babies! - and then hand wave away years of Palestinian children being killed or the civilians death now - your morality is hollow. You don't care about life. You care about your side, your team, your allies - but not human life.
Personally, I care about the number of dead Palestinians. I would prefer for there to be *no* dead Palestinians or Israelis.
The question is, how do we get from here to that sunlit upland?
I'd argue your final words apply to yourself more than to others on here. You have a 'vision' for peace that is utterly unworkable (a single state solution), and one that will lead to the Jews in Israel being destroyed. You have a rather odd reading of history in the Middle East. And you evidently do not care for Israeli lives.
I think the only option to peace is an end to apartheid, I think the only way to end apartheid is for a single state solution that does truth and reconciliation, involving criminal actors on both sides being judged and a peaceful settlement for Israeli Jews and Palestinian Arabs. If that leads to the outcome of Israeli Jews being persecuted, I would view that as a failed truth and reconciliation effort and will then be defending Israeli Jews from persecution. But that is not the situation that has to be, or we are in now.
My "odd" reading of Middle Eastern history is that, in general, Jewish people were treated better under Ottoman rule than under European rule. That seems to be the historical consensus, as I understand it. As for the specifics of Zionism and post-Balfor, my general position is that, yes, Middle Eastern cultures likely had low level anti-Semitism and acts of violence (but lesser than in Europe) and that the modern anti-Semitic and and Jewish violence and rhetoric come more as a reaction to Zionism and Israel (again, as explanation, not endorsement).
Every time I restart or reenter these conversations I talk about how awful October 7th was, how it was unacceptable, and indeed try and mention the perspectives of those families who have lost loved ones to kidnap or were killed. I even opened up about my limited connection to my own Jewish ancestors (although I do not claim a Jewish experience nor a Jewish identity) and how in trying to understand that better I talked to Jewish people and made lots of Jewish friends, many of who are anti-Zionist. How that is me not showing care for Israeli lives, I don't know.
I don't have a magic wand that can take us to the sunlit uplands. I do have a history book that will tell you how we won't get there. And that is why I am against the apartheid regime, the carpet bombing of Gaza, the mass forced migration of Palestinians and the mass killing of Palestinian civilians as well as the acts of Hamas at the beginning of this month.
Can you explain to me how Arabs or Palestinians living in Israel are in an apartheid regime? They have the same rights as Jews.
Compare and contrast with Jews who are brave enough to live in majority Muslim countries.
Again, I am going to defer to people whose job it is to define these things:
"Bianca Williams: Two Met officers guilty of athlete search gross misconduct"
They'll resign before sentencing, be rehired by Kent police, beat up three non-white teenagers and then say it's all the fault of the judge for letting them off.
Yes, I'm being flippant. I would also like to think I'm wrong, but past form is not encouraging.
This is the sort of thing that makes the Gaza Ministry of Health entirely unreliable.
Hamas Crisis Actor pretends to be a victim of an Israeli air strike- appearing in a hospital bed while pretending to be in a critical condition as two supporting actors hold his hand.
In reality, the man is a Hamas musician and actor who has been appearing in various videos for the terror group.
One video he is seen celebrating in the streets as Hamas fire rockets towards Israel.
In another video he can be seen ‘crying’ after claiming his apartment was hit by an airstrike.
This is the sort of thing that makes the Gaza Ministry of Health entirely unreliable.
Hamas Crisis Actor pretends to be a victim of an Israeli air strike- appearing in a hospital bed while pretending to be in a critical condition as two supporting actors hold his hand.
In reality, the man is a Hamas musician and actor who has been appearing in various videos for the terror group.
One video he is seen celebrating in the streets as Hamas fire rockets towards Israel.
In another video he can be seen ‘crying’ after claiming his apartment was hit by an airstrike.
"Bianca Williams: Two Met officers guilty of athlete search gross misconduct"
Be an interesting test case. I'm not sure it will be a new cause though. They appear to have lied.
Edit: They as in two of the police officers
And another one:
"Lewis Edwards: Snapchat sex abuse images police officer jailed A police officer who blackmailed and threatened underage girls to send him explicit photos of themselves on Snapchat has been jailed for life."
To be followed by Prime Minister Grant Shapps after Rishi is ousted?
Proof positive that "things can only get better" is not factual.
I think that if the next British Prime Minister was a Jew it would send a non-trivial proportion of the planet into meltdown.
Or perhaps the vast majority of us would have no idea Shapps was even Jewish. I had no idea and have no interest in his religion. I know Sunak is a Hindu but no idea how seriously he takes it, and that Blair had some religious influences, not a clue on Cameron, May, Brown, Major, Thatcher. Boris I suspect would have been whatever got him laid and/or promoted at the time.
Most of us don't care, and most PMs are wise enough not to make a big deal of it.
Indeed, although Royale is himself an atheist I believe. Would be good to have an unapologetically atheist PM, for a change. The nearest we got in modern times is that godless rotter Bozza, who occasionally pretended to be religious when convenient for him.
Starmer is an atheist as were former Labour PMs Attlee and Callaghan.
Other party leaders who were atheists but never became PM include Corbyn, Clegg, Ed Miliband and Foot.
So was Neville Chamberlain, of course, although he maintained a front of Unitarianism.
"Bianca Williams: Two Met officers guilty of athlete search gross misconduct"
Be an interesting test case. I'm not sure it will be a new cause though. They appear to have lied.
Edit: They as in two of the police officers
Yeah but it's two hard working cops getting sacked by some sport scroungers playing identity politics. And they probably do smoke weed, they look the sort nudge nudge wink wink
EXC: Pressure piles on Keir Starmer - More than 150 Muslim Labour Councillors have written directly to the Labour leader demanding he call for a ceasefire in Gaza as backlash over his policy from within his party grows
I’m not sure that Starmer is feeling quite as much pressure, as these councillors and activists wish him to be feeling.
Which is generally true of his internal opponents. They are mad at not having more influence and so exagerrate the significance of their petulance.
This example is probably more substantive than that, but I don't get the impression as an outsider that Starmer needs to worry yet
As someone who is much less of an outsider, I have to disagree with you. The criticism from within the Labour Party falls into two quite distinct camps:
1. The usual critics on the far left, who can scarcely contain their glee at being presented with an excuse to weigh in against Keir Starmer as strongly as possible. They see it as an opportunity. The Momentum-supporting Oxford councillor on the radio this morning was an example.
2. A broad swathe of opinion within the wider Labour Party, people who are mostly supportive of the leadership and certainly not those habitually seeking to undermine it from within. That includes amongst others Muslim councillors, most of whom are quite willing to condemn Hamas's actions on 7th October unreservedly but nonetheless are appalled by the humanitarian situation unfolding in Gaza and the relentless killing through bombing and are getting it in the neck from their local communities who are similarly appalled.
In political terms, Keir Starmer should be concerned. The usual critics are not of much relevance, they have already been marginalised within the party and there is no way back now. However, the criticism from within the Muslim community will lose Labour electoral support if not properly addressed, some of it in marginal seats. If Israel continues on its present course, the situation in Gaza is going to get even worse and I think that public opinion will increasingly become critical of the actions of the Israeli government going forward.
Sir K knows that for millions of centrists, of all religions and none, the rational next course (which should already have happened) is to call for all hostages to be released and then a ceasefire. Any call for that release, immediately to be followed by ceasefire at least has a thread of argument behind it.
To argue for ceasefire while an undeniable war crime continues by holding the hostages has little appeal for most centrists. Those are the votes Sir K has acquired and needs to retain.
Most centerists would actually say that Israel at least has the right to act against Hamas. No organisation can kill 1400 + citizens and not expect a massive response.
By calling for a ceasefire, what people are saying is that Israel should never act back against terrorism.
The true respond should be that Isreal has a right to act against Hamas, but every action should be lawful, measured and no open ended.
Which is basically Starmers position, He is right, and should hold right against those which are anti-israel.
What's the reasonable response for 5,000 civilians killed?
To reflect on the folly of taking and refusing to release hostages when to do so would slightly ameliorate the effect of the 1400 murders committed in cold blood and would lay the ground for your sympathisers to ask for a ceasefire.
If anyone had even suggested that Israel's reaction to 1,400 dead should be to reflect on the folly of managing an apartheid state and illegal occupation they would have been called an anti-Semite.
I would much rather the people here who do not care about the number of dead Palestinians just say so, or take TOPPINGs position, which is at least honest. I can have an honest disagreement with them when their idea of war morality is essentially just "might decides right". But to all the people who say how horrified they are of 1,400 killed - including babies! - and then hand wave away years of Palestinian children being killed or the civilians death now - your morality is hollow. You don't care about life. You care about your side, your team, your allies - but not human life.
Personally, I care about the number of dead Palestinians. I would prefer for there to be *no* dead Palestinians or Israelis.
The question is, how do we get from here to that sunlit upland?
I'd argue your final words apply to yourself more than to others on here. You have a 'vision' for peace that is utterly unworkable (a single state solution), and one that will lead to the Jews in Israel being destroyed. You have a rather odd reading of history in the Middle East. And you evidently do not care for Israeli lives.
I think the only option to peace is an end to apartheid, I think the only way to end apartheid is for a single state solution that does truth and reconciliation, involving criminal actors on both sides being judged and a peaceful settlement for Israeli Jews and Palestinian Arabs. If that leads to the outcome of Israeli Jews being persecuted, I would view that as a failed truth and reconciliation effort and will then be defending Israeli Jews from persecution. But that is not the situation that has to be, or we are in now.
My "odd" reading of Middle Eastern history is that, in general, Jewish people were treated better under Ottoman rule than under European rule. That seems to be the historical consensus, as I understand it. As for the specifics of Zionism and post-Balfor, my general position is that, yes, Middle Eastern cultures likely had low level anti-Semitism and acts of violence (but lesser than in Europe) and that the modern anti-Semitic and and Jewish violence and rhetoric come more as a reaction to Zionism and Israel (again, as explanation, not endorsement).
Every time I restart or reenter these conversations I talk about how awful October 7th was, how it was unacceptable, and indeed try and mention the perspectives of those families who have lost loved ones to kidnap or were killed. I even opened up about my limited connection to my own Jewish ancestors (although I do not claim a Jewish experience nor a Jewish identity) and how in trying to understand that better I talked to Jewish people and made lots of Jewish friends, many of who are anti-Zionist. How that is me not showing care for Israeli lives, I don't know.
I don't have a magic wand that can take us to the sunlit uplands. I do have a history book that will tell you how we won't get there. And that is why I am against the apartheid regime, the carpet bombing of Gaza, the mass forced migration of Palestinians and the mass killing of Palestinian civilians as well as the acts of Hamas at the beginning of this month.
“If that leads to the outcome of Israeli Jews being persecuted, I would view that as a failed truth and reconciliation effort and will then be defending Israeli Jews from persecution.”
That’s wonderful. Can you tell us what the benchmark is that means that Jews are being persecuted? Is is more than 1400 murdered? Is it the banning of open practice of the Jewish faith? Will it be the hanging of gay Jews from cranes?
Who is going to be holding the truth and reconciliation meetings and judging the bad actors? The UN with The current DG in charge? Maybe Russia? Or Iran, but definitely not the US right.
And who is going to be keeping this peace? You?
What do you think the Hamas vision of this “one state” is because it isn’t living happily side by side with Jews in a liberal democracy.
I thought you were just naive and a bit dippy thinking we can all hold hands and sing songs and we will have one happy state but now it’s clear you are either very stupid or completely disingenuous.
Maybe I am stupid or disingenuous - but what is the alternative? I'm against Israeli Jewish people being massacred, I'm against Arab Palestinians being massacred. A two state solution seems impossible, because partition does not seem to lead to long lasting peace - see all the other places the European powers partitioned! Yes, the international community would have to step up, yes it would require people acting better than they do now. But what is the alternative you propose, or Israel proposes, or Hamas proposes? All I see is more calls for blood, blood, blood - and currently we can see the flattening of areas where 10,000s of people live.
The Israelis and the Arab states were working towards normalisation of relations and from that was the chance that a road map to a solution could be found where the Arab States recognise Israel’s right to exist and remove the weight of support for a violent solution in return for Israel enabling Gaza to exist in a semi human way without the influence of Hamas and their death cult devotion to destroying Jews and driving them out of Israel.
And then the murdering terrorists of Hamas did what they did.
So again until useful idiots like you stop the whataboutery and “but Israel” crap and everyone who wants Palestinians to not be living in such a nightmare actually stand up and say “we cannot support a free Palestine under Hamas and whilst there is no acceptance of Israel’s right to exist” then nothing will happen.
There isn’t some magical situation where the Israelis accept a one state solution with people who want to butcher them for being Jews. And nobody sane or humanitarian should demand they do.
The ultimate end point of the “free Palestine” people is to make Israel a Jew free Palestinian state. For Hamas and Iran nothing else will do. Again it is not going to be a liberal democracy where Jews and Arabs hold hands and dance away through the night in harmony.
Hunt is a tax and spend Brownite who should never have been made Chancellor. He shows no sign of grasping the huge reforms our economy needs if we're to get it growing again - much lower taxes, lower spending and lighter regulation, especially but not only of housing. If he's the best the Conservatives can do, there's little point in anyone voting for them - may as well vote for true socialism as its fake alternative.
I love the idea that keep on doing what we've been doing but harder and faster will do our economy well. Like, what other country that isn't also a global superpower and the defacto global currency, has had success with cutting taxes and lighter regulation? And how much evidence is there that the opposite, Keynesianism, like the New Deal and redistributive taxation actually just does it much better...
Is this a joke? Why do you think Dubai is so successful? There is literally no country on earth that has taxed and regulated itself to success, not one. Even the much vaunted Scandi economies got rich with low tax and regulation and are now stagnating with it.
Dubai - like Singapore - is an entrepot. It’s funded by immense oil wealth and has carved out a small niche as a centre for Middle Eastern and to some extent Indian trade.
It’s also run on very cheap Indian labour.
It’s hardly a scalable model.
As an aside, it’s one of the ironies of global economics that Britain and France, while jealously preserving their very different economic models, have pretty much tracked alongside each other in terms of GDP per capita for about fifty years.
Oil industry only accounts for 1% of Dubai’s economy and it only holds about 4% of the reserves of the UAE so it’s not entirely correct to put it in the Middle Eastern oil wealth category unlike Abu Dhabi which has 90% of the UAE resources.
And how much of the capital investment came from Abu Dhabis oil, or was only available to Dubai because other investors knew it had the backing of Abu Dhabis oil?
Very little. The seven Emirates are very autonomous, rather like US States.
Dubai is a success. But it used oil wealth (which used to provide 50% of its economy) to seed the infrastructure roll-out required to become an entrepot.
That’s fantastic, but the point is this is not scalable to a country the size of the UK. In any case, we already have a world leading entrepot in London.
There are always these other factors - Dubai has oil, Monaco is sunny, Ireland is... Irish, but the simple fact remains that economical activity takes place more where states take less of the proceeds and allow that activity to take place more freely, concentrating instead on being really good at the things we DO need Government for - like safety and security. Why is anyone bothering to make an argument against this?
We raise the taxes on smoking when we want less people to smoke. We raise the taxes on alcohol when we want less people to drink. That is a clearly established disincentive - so what do we think happens when we raise CT?
I’m not arguing to raise CT and I think Britain over-taxes productive economic activity.
I am just here to say that the idea low-tax, low-regulation economies necessarily become rich isn’t borne out by the evidence, and citing Monaco alongside Dubai is kind of WTF.
As for Ireland, nobody believes their economic statistics, but their path has essentially been tax arbitrage too. I am not criticising it per se, but it’s essentially predatory on other countries.
And one that's not open to us outside of the EU.
We can set our own CT last time I checked.
Much of the attraction of Ireland's low tax rate to overseas investors is its being part of the EU. I would have thought that point fairly obvious.
On tax evasion, Stiglitz & co have a new report out:
EXC: Pressure piles on Keir Starmer - More than 150 Muslim Labour Councillors have written directly to the Labour leader demanding he call for a ceasefire in Gaza as backlash over his policy from within his party grows
I’m not sure that Starmer is feeling quite as much pressure, as these councillors and activists wish him to be feeling.
Which is generally true of his internal opponents. They are mad at not having more influence and so exagerrate the significance of their petulance.
This example is probably more substantive than that, but I don't get the impression as an outsider that Starmer needs to worry yet
As someone who is much less of an outsider, I have to disagree with you. The criticism from within the Labour Party falls into two quite distinct camps:
1. The usual critics on the far left, who can scarcely contain their glee at being presented with an excuse to weigh in against Keir Starmer as strongly as possible. They see it as an opportunity. The Momentum-supporting Oxford councillor on the radio this morning was an example.
2. A broad swathe of opinion within the wider Labour Party, people who are mostly supportive of the leadership and certainly not those habitually seeking to undermine it from within. That includes amongst others Muslim councillors, most of whom are quite willing to condemn Hamas's actions on 7th October unreservedly but nonetheless are appalled by the humanitarian situation unfolding in Gaza and the relentless killing through bombing and are getting it in the neck from their local communities who are similarly appalled.
In political terms, Keir Starmer should be concerned. The usual critics are not of much relevance, they have already been marginalised within the party and there is no way back now. However, the criticism from within the Muslim community will lose Labour electoral support if not properly addressed, some of it in marginal seats. If Israel continues on its present course, the situation in Gaza is going to get even worse and I think that public opinion will increasingly become critical of the actions of the Israeli government going forward.
Sir K knows that for millions of centrists, of all religions and none, the rational next course (which should already have happened) is to call for all hostages to be released and then a ceasefire. Any call for that release, immediately to be followed by ceasefire at least has a thread of argument behind it.
To argue for ceasefire while an undeniable war crime continues by holding the hostages has little appeal for most centrists. Those are the votes Sir K has acquired and needs to retain.
Most centerists would actually say that Israel at least has the right to act against Hamas. No organisation can kill 1400 + citizens and not expect a massive response.
By calling for a ceasefire, what people are saying is that Israel should never act back against terrorism.
The true respond should be that Isreal has a right to act against Hamas, but every action should be lawful, measured and no open ended.
Which is basically Starmers position, He is right, and should hold right against those which are anti-israel.
What's the reasonable response for 5,000 civilians killed?
To reflect on the folly of taking and refusing to release hostages when to do so would slightly ameliorate the effect of the 1400 murders committed in cold blood and would lay the ground for your sympathisers to ask for a ceasefire.
If anyone had even suggested that Israel's reaction to 1,400 dead should be to reflect on the folly of managing an apartheid state and illegal occupation they would have been called an anti-Semite.
I would much rather the people here who do not care about the number of dead Palestinians just say so, or take TOPPINGs position, which is at least honest. I can have an honest disagreement with them when their idea of war morality is essentially just "might decides right". But to all the people who say how horrified they are of 1,400 killed - including babies! - and then hand wave away years of Palestinian children being killed or the civilians death now - your morality is hollow. You don't care about life. You care about your side, your team, your allies - but not human life.
Personally, I care about the number of dead Palestinians. I would prefer for there to be *no* dead Palestinians or Israelis.
The question is, how do we get from here to that sunlit upland?
I'd argue your final words apply to yourself more than to others on here. You have a 'vision' for peace that is utterly unworkable (a single state solution), and one that will lead to the Jews in Israel being destroyed. You have a rather odd reading of history in the Middle East. And you evidently do not care for Israeli lives.
I think the only option to peace is an end to apartheid, I think the only way to end apartheid is for a single state solution that does truth and reconciliation, involving criminal actors on both sides being judged and a peaceful settlement for Israeli Jews and Palestinian Arabs. If that leads to the outcome of Israeli Jews being persecuted, I would view that as a failed truth and reconciliation effort and will then be defending Israeli Jews from persecution. But that is not the situation that has to be, or we are in now.
My "odd" reading of Middle Eastern history is that, in general, Jewish people were treated better under Ottoman rule than under European rule. That seems to be the historical consensus, as I understand it. As for the specifics of Zionism and post-Balfor, my general position is that, yes, Middle Eastern cultures likely had low level anti-Semitism and acts of violence (but lesser than in Europe) and that the modern anti-Semitic and and Jewish violence and rhetoric come more as a reaction to Zionism and Israel (again, as explanation, not endorsement).
Every time I restart or reenter these conversations I talk about how awful October 7th was, how it was unacceptable, and indeed try and mention the perspectives of those families who have lost loved ones to kidnap or were killed. I even opened up about my limited connection to my own Jewish ancestors (although I do not claim a Jewish experience nor a Jewish identity) and how in trying to understand that better I talked to Jewish people and made lots of Jewish friends, many of who are anti-Zionist. How that is me not showing care for Israeli lives, I don't know.
I don't have a magic wand that can take us to the sunlit uplands. I do have a history book that will tell you how we won't get there. And that is why I am against the apartheid regime, the carpet bombing of Gaza, the mass forced migration of Palestinians and the mass killing of Palestinian civilians as well as the acts of Hamas at the beginning of this month.
“If that leads to the outcome of Israeli Jews being persecuted, I would view that as a failed truth and reconciliation effort and will then be defending Israeli Jews from persecution.”
That’s wonderful. Can you tell us what the benchmark is that means that Jews are being persecuted? Is is more than 1400 murdered? Is it the banning of open practice of the Jewish faith? Will it be the hanging of gay Jews from cranes?
Who is going to be holding the truth and reconciliation meetings and judging the bad actors? The UN with The current DG in charge? Maybe Russia? Or Iran, but definitely not the US right.
And who is going to be keeping this peace? You?
What do you think the Hamas vision of this “one state” is because it isn’t living happily side by side with Jews in a liberal democracy.
I thought you were just naive and a bit dippy thinking we can all hold hands and sing songs and we will have one happy state but now it’s clear you are either very stupid or completely disingenuous.
Maybe I am stupid or disingenuous - but what is the alternative? I'm against Israeli Jewish people being massacred, I'm against Arab Palestinians being massacred. A two state solution seems impossible, because partition does not seem to lead to long lasting peace - see all the other places the European powers partitioned! Yes, the international community would have to step up, yes it would require people acting better than they do now. But what is the alternative you propose, or Israel proposes, or Hamas proposes? All I see is more calls for blood, blood, blood - and currently we can see the flattening of areas where 10,000s of people live.
It's difficult to see how a peaceful settlement can be reached, but generally these processes involve a series of confidence-building measures from each side, so that trust can start to be built.
Hamas is never going to make confidence building confessions to Israel when it thinks it can make advances through a terror campaign. Given that they have just achieved their greatest terror success of all time, this means it is a necessary precondition for future peace talks that they suffer a major defeat now.
If that doesn't happen there's a real risk of Hamas winning due to Jews concluding that Israel cannot be safe for them, and several million Jews looking for a new place to live.
EXC: Pressure piles on Keir Starmer - More than 150 Muslim Labour Councillors have written directly to the Labour leader demanding he call for a ceasefire in Gaza as backlash over his policy from within his party grows
I’m not sure that Starmer is feeling quite as much pressure, as these councillors and activists wish him to be feeling.
Which is generally true of his internal opponents. They are mad at not having more influence and so exagerrate the significance of their petulance.
This example is probably more substantive than that, but I don't get the impression as an outsider that Starmer needs to worry yet
As someone who is much less of an outsider, I have to disagree with you. The criticism from within the Labour Party falls into two quite distinct camps:
1. The usual critics on the far left, who can scarcely contain their glee at being presented with an excuse to weigh in against Keir Starmer as strongly as possible. They see it as an opportunity. The Momentum-supporting Oxford councillor on the radio this morning was an example.
2. A broad swathe of opinion within the wider Labour Party, people who are mostly supportive of the leadership and certainly not those habitually seeking to undermine it from within. That includes amongst others Muslim councillors, most of whom are quite willing to condemn Hamas's actions on 7th October unreservedly but nonetheless are appalled by the humanitarian situation unfolding in Gaza and the relentless killing through bombing and are getting it in the neck from their local communities who are similarly appalled.
In political terms, Keir Starmer should be concerned. The usual critics are not of much relevance, they have already been marginalised within the party and there is no way back now. However, the criticism from within the Muslim community will lose Labour electoral support if not properly addressed, some of it in marginal seats. If Israel continues on its present course, the situation in Gaza is going to get even worse and I think that public opinion will increasingly become critical of the actions of the Israeli government going forward.
Sir K knows that for millions of centrists, of all religions and none, the rational next course (which should already have happened) is to call for all hostages to be released and then a ceasefire. Any call for that release, immediately to be followed by ceasefire at least has a thread of argument behind it.
To argue for ceasefire while an undeniable war crime continues by holding the hostages has little appeal for most centrists. Those are the votes Sir K has acquired and needs to retain.
Most centerists would actually say that Israel at least has the right to act against Hamas. No organisation can kill 1400 + citizens and not expect a massive response.
By calling for a ceasefire, what people are saying is that Israel should never act back against terrorism.
The true respond should be that Isreal has a right to act against Hamas, but every action should be lawful, measured and no open ended.
Which is basically Starmers position, He is right, and should hold right against those which are anti-israel.
What's the reasonable response for 5,000 civilians killed?
To reflect on the folly of taking and refusing to release hostages when to do so would slightly ameliorate the effect of the 1400 murders committed in cold blood and would lay the ground for your sympathisers to ask for a ceasefire.
If anyone had even suggested that Israel's reaction to 1,400 dead should be to reflect on the folly of managing an apartheid state and illegal occupation they would have been called an anti-Semite.
I would much rather the people here who do not care about the number of dead Palestinians just say so, or take TOPPINGs position, which is at least honest. I can have an honest disagreement with them when their idea of war morality is essentially just "might decides right". But to all the people who say how horrified they are of 1,400 killed - including babies! - and then hand wave away years of Palestinian children being killed or the civilians death now - your morality is hollow. You don't care about life. You care about your side, your team, your allies - but not human life.
Personally, I care about the number of dead Palestinians. I would prefer for there to be *no* dead Palestinians or Israelis.
The question is, how do we get from here to that sunlit upland?
I'd argue your final words apply to yourself more than to others on here. You have a 'vision' for peace that is utterly unworkable (a single state solution), and one that will lead to the Jews in Israel being destroyed. You have a rather odd reading of history in the Middle East. And you evidently do not care for Israeli lives.
I think the only option to peace is an end to apartheid, I think the only way to end apartheid is for a single state solution that does truth and reconciliation, involving criminal actors on both sides being judged and a peaceful settlement for Israeli Jews and Palestinian Arabs. If that leads to the outcome of Israeli Jews being persecuted, I would view that as a failed truth and reconciliation effort and will then be defending Israeli Jews from persecution. But that is not the situation that has to be, or we are in now.
My "odd" reading of Middle Eastern history is that, in general, Jewish people were treated better under Ottoman rule than under European rule. That seems to be the historical consensus, as I understand it. As for the specifics of Zionism and post-Balfor, my general position is that, yes, Middle Eastern cultures likely had low level anti-Semitism and acts of violence (but lesser than in Europe) and that the modern anti-Semitic and and Jewish violence and rhetoric come more as a reaction to Zionism and Israel (again, as explanation, not endorsement).
Every time I restart or reenter these conversations I talk about how awful October 7th was, how it was unacceptable, and indeed try and mention the perspectives of those families who have lost loved ones to kidnap or were killed. I even opened up about my limited connection to my own Jewish ancestors (although I do not claim a Jewish experience nor a Jewish identity) and how in trying to understand that better I talked to Jewish people and made lots of Jewish friends, many of who are anti-Zionist. How that is me not showing care for Israeli lives, I don't know.
I don't have a magic wand that can take us to the sunlit uplands. I do have a history book that will tell you how we won't get there. And that is why I am against the apartheid regime, the carpet bombing of Gaza, the mass forced migration of Palestinians and the mass killing of Palestinian civilians as well as the acts of Hamas at the beginning of this month.
“If that leads to the outcome of Israeli Jews being persecuted, I would view that as a failed truth and reconciliation effort and will then be defending Israeli Jews from persecution.”
That’s wonderful. Can you tell us what the benchmark is that means that Jews are being persecuted? Is is more than 1400 murdered? Is it the banning of open practice of the Jewish faith? Will it be the hanging of gay Jews from cranes?
Who is going to be holding the truth and reconciliation meetings and judging the bad actors? The UN with The current DG in charge? Maybe Russia? Or Iran, but definitely not the US right.
And who is going to be keeping this peace? You?
What do you think the Hamas vision of this “one state” is because it isn’t living happily side by side with Jews in a liberal democracy.
I thought you were just naive and a bit dippy thinking we can all hold hands and sing songs and we will have one happy state but now it’s clear you are either very stupid or completely disingenuous.
Maybe I am stupid or disingenuous - but what is the alternative? I'm against Israeli Jewish people being massacred, I'm against Arab Palestinians being massacred. A two state solution seems impossible, because partition does not seem to lead to long lasting peace - see all the other places the European powers partitioned! Yes, the international community would have to step up, yes it would require people acting better than they do now. But what is the alternative you propose, or Israel proposes, or Hamas proposes? All I see is more calls for blood, blood, blood - and currently we can see the flattening of areas where 10,000s of people live.
A 2 state solution could.be peaceful if Hamas didn't believe that Israel and Jews in general don't deserve to exist. How can you negotiate with that?
How can you negotiate with Netanyahu and his government, people who also do not want a 2 state solution and call Palestinians "human animals" that need to be "dealt with". Hamas was elected in '06, with a plurality not a majority, and an election hasn't been held since. The PLO still exist, the Palestinian people are still there, the West Bank Palestinians exist. There are other people to negotiate with. If Israel talked to them and a peace deal was drawn up and it went to the Palestinian people to vote for or against it - you can do all that without Hamas. That's how we had to do it in NI - talk via an intermediary, then to the moderates (some of whom talk to the hardliners) and work on it, and then talk face to face. Maybe some people on both sides get pardons or punished.
But to do all that in a realistically sustainable manner doesn't look too different from a truth and reconciliation process anyway - just that the solution is a 2 state solution rather than my suggested 1 state solution. I still think a 2 state solution wouldn't work because, as always, a sticking point will be Palestinian right to return - which can only be solved with a single secular multiethnic state.
On topic, Sunak may care to reflect on the last time backbenchers came to a PM demanding the head of her Chancellor, and the precise amount of time that it took, on receipt of said severed head, before they came back for hers.
"Bianca Williams: Two Met officers guilty of athlete search gross misconduct"
Be an interesting test case. I'm not sure it will be a new cause though. They appear to have lied.
Edit: They as in two of the police officers
Yeah but it's two hard working cops getting sacked by some sport scroungers playing identity politics. And they probably do smoke weed, they look the sort nudge nudge wink wink
I'm afraid the GB News crowd are being given so much material by the cultural left at the moment that they are unlikely to find time for it.
This is the sort of thing that makes the Gaza Ministry of Health entirely unreliable.
Hamas Crisis Actor pretends to be a victim of an Israeli air strike- appearing in a hospital bed while pretending to be in a critical condition as two supporting actors hold his hand.
In reality, the man is a Hamas musician and actor who has been appearing in various videos for the terror group.
One video he is seen celebrating in the streets as Hamas fire rockets towards Israel.
In another video he can be seen ‘crying’ after claiming his apartment was hit by an airstrike.
EXC: Pressure piles on Keir Starmer - More than 150 Muslim Labour Councillors have written directly to the Labour leader demanding he call for a ceasefire in Gaza as backlash over his policy from within his party grows
I’m not sure that Starmer is feeling quite as much pressure, as these councillors and activists wish him to be feeling.
Which is generally true of his internal opponents. They are mad at not having more influence and so exagerrate the significance of their petulance.
This example is probably more substantive than that, but I don't get the impression as an outsider that Starmer needs to worry yet
As someone who is much less of an outsider, I have to disagree with you. The criticism from within the Labour Party falls into two quite distinct camps:
1. The usual critics on the far left, who can scarcely contain their glee at being presented with an excuse to weigh in against Keir Starmer as strongly as possible. They see it as an opportunity. The Momentum-supporting Oxford councillor on the radio this morning was an example.
2. A broad swathe of opinion within the wider Labour Party, people who are mostly supportive of the leadership and certainly not those habitually seeking to undermine it from within. That includes amongst others Muslim councillors, most of whom are quite willing to condemn Hamas's actions on 7th October unreservedly but nonetheless are appalled by the humanitarian situation unfolding in Gaza and the relentless killing through bombing and are getting it in the neck from their local communities who are similarly appalled.
In political terms, Keir Starmer should be concerned. The usual critics are not of much relevance, they have already been marginalised within the party and there is no way back now. However, the criticism from within the Muslim community will lose Labour electoral support if not properly addressed, some of it in marginal seats. If Israel continues on its present course, the situation in Gaza is going to get even worse and I think that public opinion will increasingly become critical of the actions of the Israeli government going forward.
Sir K knows that for millions of centrists, of all religions and none, the rational next course (which should already have happened) is to call for all hostages to be released and then a ceasefire. Any call for that release, immediately to be followed by ceasefire at least has a thread of argument behind it.
To argue for ceasefire while an undeniable war crime continues by holding the hostages has little appeal for most centrists. Those are the votes Sir K has acquired and needs to retain.
Most centerists would actually say that Israel at least has the right to act against Hamas. No organisation can kill 1400 + citizens and not expect a massive response.
By calling for a ceasefire, what people are saying is that Israel should never act back against terrorism.
The true respond should be that Isreal has a right to act against Hamas, but every action should be lawful, measured and no open ended.
Which is basically Starmers position, He is right, and should hold right against those which are anti-israel.
What's the reasonable response for 5,000 civilians killed?
To reflect on the folly of taking and refusing to release hostages when to do so would slightly ameliorate the effect of the 1400 murders committed in cold blood and would lay the ground for your sympathisers to ask for a ceasefire.
If anyone had even suggested that Israel's reaction to 1,400 dead should be to reflect on the folly of managing an apartheid state and illegal occupation they would have been called an anti-Semite.
I would much rather the people here who do not care about the number of dead Palestinians just say so, or take TOPPINGs position, which is at least honest. I can have an honest disagreement with them when their idea of war morality is essentially just "might decides right". But to all the people who say how horrified they are of 1,400 killed - including babies! - and then hand wave away years of Palestinian children being killed or the civilians death now - your morality is hollow. You don't care about life. You care about your side, your team, your allies - but not human life.
Personally, I care about the number of dead Palestinians. I would prefer for there to be *no* dead Palestinians or Israelis.
The question is, how do we get from here to that sunlit upland?
I'd argue your final words apply to yourself more than to others on here. You have a 'vision' for peace that is utterly unworkable (a single state solution), and one that will lead to the Jews in Israel being destroyed. You have a rather odd reading of history in the Middle East. And you evidently do not care for Israeli lives.
I think the only option to peace is an end to apartheid, I think the only way to end apartheid is for a single state solution that does truth and reconciliation, involving criminal actors on both sides being judged and a peaceful settlement for Israeli Jews and Palestinian Arabs. If that leads to the outcome of Israeli Jews being persecuted, I would view that as a failed truth and reconciliation effort and will then be defending Israeli Jews from persecution. But that is not the situation that has to be, or we are in now.
My "odd" reading of Middle Eastern history is that, in general, Jewish people were treated better under Ottoman rule than under European rule. That seems to be the historical consensus, as I understand it. As for the specifics of Zionism and post-Balfor, my general position is that, yes, Middle Eastern cultures likely had low level anti-Semitism and acts of violence (but lesser than in Europe) and that the modern anti-Semitic and and Jewish violence and rhetoric come more as a reaction to Zionism and Israel (again, as explanation, not endorsement).
Every time I restart or reenter these conversations I talk about how awful October 7th was, how it was unacceptable, and indeed try and mention the perspectives of those families who have lost loved ones to kidnap or were killed. I even opened up about my limited connection to my own Jewish ancestors (although I do not claim a Jewish experience nor a Jewish identity) and how in trying to understand that better I talked to Jewish people and made lots of Jewish friends, many of who are anti-Zionist. How that is me not showing care for Israeli lives, I don't know.
I don't have a magic wand that can take us to the sunlit uplands. I do have a history book that will tell you how we won't get there. And that is why I am against the apartheid regime, the carpet bombing of Gaza, the mass forced migration of Palestinians and the mass killing of Palestinian civilians as well as the acts of Hamas at the beginning of this month.
Can you explain to me how Arabs or Palestinians living in Israel are in an apartheid regime? They have the same rights as Jews.
Compare and contrast with Jews who are brave enough to live in majority Muslim countries.
Again, I am going to defer to people whose job it is to define these things:
Comments
My name's Sunil Prasannan, and I endorse this message.
"It’s hard to say whether the whiff of antisemitism in the image of Ed Miliband eating a bacon sandwich is intentional, but if he becomes PM we’ll need to keep a careful eye on this kind of thing"
(Either due to a lack of practice on his part from an early age or an unhealthy media obsession with Miliband's consumption of a bacon sandwich)
ETA: Ah, Topping and the Guardian beat me to it (the latter by several years
That’s fantastic, but the point is this is not scalable to a country the size of the UK. In any case, we already have a world leading entrepot in London.
Latest media reports citing the Gaza Ministry of Health indicate that the number of people killed in Gaza since 7 October has risen to 5,087.
Gaza Ministry of Health = Hamas
The same Hamas that said 500 people died in the fire at the hospital car park and blamed it on Israel.
Their numbers are entirely without evidence and given previous behaviours are entirely unreliable.
I comprehend and share your anger.
"Latest media reports citing the Gaza Ministry of Health indicate that the number of people killed in Gaza since 7 October has risen to 5,087"
This is NOT Israeli lives mattering and Palestinians not. Its about not trusting a terrorist organisation putting out numbers with no way of verifying. Its like Goebbels saying 200,000 were killed in Hamburg in 1943.
I'm exaggerating, obviously. But I wouldn't be tempted there for any salary, I have to say.
Many more people party like it’s 1999 and don’t save anything!
The question is, how do we get from here to that sunlit upland?
I'd argue your final words apply to yourself more than to others on here. You have a 'vision' for peace that is utterly unworkable (a single state solution), and one that will lead to the Jews in Israel being destroyed. You have a rather odd reading of history in the Middle East. And you evidently do not care for Israeli lives.
We raise the taxes on smoking when we want less people to smoke. We raise the taxes on alcohol when we want less people to drink. That is a clearly established disincentive - so what do we think happens when we raise CT?
Sunak was popular when he was handing out goodies in 2020/21.
Much more extra revenue could be got through faster economic growth, in particular by streamlining the planning system and scrapping net zero and useless or unproven regulations. The amount raised will of course be uncertain, but is likely to be very substantial.
I am just here to say that the idea low-tax, low-regulation economies necessarily become rich isn’t borne out by the evidence, and citing Monaco alongside Dubai is kind of WTF.
As for Ireland, nobody believes their economic statistics, but their path has essentially been tax arbitrage too. I am not criticising it per se, but it’s essentially predatory on other countries.
I note that you don't have an answer to my second point.
That's why the former rarely happen, but the latter do.
They were definitely of the former persuasion rather than the latter.
It is all too easy to get sucked into a lifestyle though. You could argue that applies to the UK as a whole, too...
There’s still no income tax, VAT is 5%, and corporation tax will be 7% when it’s introduced next year (thanks OECD for that last one!). Costs £40 to fill up the car’s 75l tank as well. On the downside, beer is £12 a pint if you miss happy hour, and it gets bloody hot in the summer.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/10/24/gaza-death-toll-palestinian-health-ministry/
Many experts consider figures provided by the ministry reliable, given its access, sources and accuracy in past statements. “Everyone uses the figures from the Gaza Health Ministry because those are generally proven to be reliable,” said Omar Shakir, Israel and Palestine director at Human Rights Watch
https://abcnews.go.com/International/hundreds-killed-strike-gaza-hospital-gaza-health-ministry/story?id=104049667
At least 500 people have been killed in an explosion at Al Ahli Arab Hospital in the middle of Gaza City, according to the Gaza Health Ministry
No all-inclusive brunches or nightclubs in Saudi, which is why they all go to Bahrain and Dubai for the weekend!
The E-3 is based on the 707 as are the Israeli, Spanish and assorted other tanker conversions; those are definitely not KC-135 tankers.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/oct/20/al-ahli-arab-hospital-gaza-blast-explosion-us-intelligence-report-death-toll-estimate
Truss
Redwood
Hands
Atkins
and wasn't the 707 a design evolution from the 367-80?
Instead we've developed a French taste for tax and spend, but with a neoliberal laissez faire approach to selling off the family silver. So all our big companies have just been picked off by the US and others.
"Speaking about the UN Secretary General, Erdan said it was "not by chance" that Antonio Guterres had not come to Israel since the war began.
Erdan also said agencies of the UN have created "a false picture" of the situation on the ground, accepting claims about Gaza even though "everyone knows" it is controlled by Hamas."
"UK PM Rishi Sunak rejects the comments made by UN chief Antonio Guterres, in which, as we've been reporting, he said the events of 7 October did not occur in a "vacuum".
"Obviously we don't agree with that characterisation put forward," a spokesperson for Sunak said.
"We are clear that there is and can be no justification for Hamas's barbaric terrorist attack which was driven by hatred and ideology."
Meanwhile, a spokesperson for the German government says it does have confidence in Guterres in light of his comments."
(BBC)
But I do agree that Britain’s model - which may have been right for other periods of economic development - doesn’t work.
It’s neoliberal “laissez faire” in a way that encourages rentierism, but also highly centralised in a way that crushes local agency and entrepreneuralism.
And then on top it’s now “moderately higher tax”, and the burden falls mostly on the productive economy and demographics.
And then the following morning we all see that it was all bullshit.
You want to give credibility to that?
My "odd" reading of Middle Eastern history is that, in general, Jewish people were treated better under Ottoman rule than under European rule. That seems to be the historical consensus, as I understand it. As for the specifics of Zionism and post-Balfor, my general position is that, yes, Middle Eastern cultures likely had low level anti-Semitism and acts of violence (but lesser than in Europe) and that the modern anti-Semitic and and Jewish violence and rhetoric come more as a reaction to Zionism and Israel (again, as explanation, not endorsement).
Every time I restart or reenter these conversations I talk about how awful October 7th was, how it was unacceptable, and indeed try and mention the perspectives of those families who have lost loved ones to kidnap or were killed. I even opened up about my limited connection to my own Jewish ancestors (although I do not claim a Jewish experience nor a Jewish identity) and how in trying to understand that better I talked to Jewish people and made lots of Jewish friends, many of who are anti-Zionist. How that is me not showing care for Israeli lives, I don't know.
I don't have a magic wand that can take us to the sunlit uplands. I do have a history book that will tell you how we won't get there. And that is why I am against the apartheid regime, the carpet bombing of Gaza, the mass forced migration of Palestinians and the mass killing of Palestinian civilians as well as the acts of Hamas at the beginning of this month.
I do not doubt many Palestinians have died. And do you know why? Because Hamas attacked civilians in Israel.
https://www.tatler.com/article/who-is-keir-starmers-wife-victoria
it and the repercussions deserve a thread on its own.
Also, we still don't know how many died in the hospital! For all we know the Gazan Health Ministry could yet be proved right by civilian deaths! We also still have no real conclusion of who is responsible for the bombing or the extent of the damage. US intelligence seem to be saying between "100-300" with big caveats, which means could be less, could be more. If it's much more than 300, it wouldn't be too out of line with the original Gazan estimate.
Says here 100-300.
We have seen the pictured now, it was a few cars blown up.
That’s wonderful. Can you tell us what the benchmark is that means that Jews are being persecuted? Is is more than 1400 murdered? Is it the banning of open practice of the Jewish faith? Will it be the hanging of gay Jews from cranes?
Who is going to be holding the truth and reconciliation meetings and judging the bad actors? The UN with The current DG in charge? Maybe Russia? Or Iran, but definitely not the US right.
And who is going to be keeping this peace? You?
What do you think the Hamas vision of this “one state” is because it isn’t living happily side by side with Jews in a liberal democracy.
I thought you were just naive and a bit dippy thinking we can all hold hands and sing songs and we will have one happy state but now it’s clear you are either very stupid or completely disingenuous.
Other party leaders who were atheists but never became PM include Corbyn, Clegg, Ed Miliband and Foot.
Let's try a parallel question for some insight: What's was the reasonable response for Nazi Germany at the end of 1944? (Where, I remind you, tens of thousand civilians had been killed.)
The answer should be obvious: They should have surrendered, and saved many German lives. And then arrested, tried, and executed their war criminals, who had brought this calamity upon them.
(Some German cities surrendered, as the allies advanced, and suffered far less than the cities which fought on.)
Drachinifel narrating the Battle of Trafalgar, illustrated using ship models set out on the large table in the Great Cabin of HMS Victory.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dvbHcV7ZKzs
(Drach is certainly slightly eccentric - he built all 60-65 models himself.)
1. Israel invades and it starts going wrong, and surrounding Muslim nations/agents gang up on Israel? Hezbollah is almost certain. The West Bank will erupt. Iran will do stuff
or
2. Israel does NOT invade and it becomes clear that Hamas have "won" - they did a pogrom in Israel and Israel is essentially impotent, apart from bombing rubble into smaller pieces of rubble? And so Israel is existentially thratened, for the foreseeable future
In both those cases sympathy might - perhaps will - swing back to Israel
I am not saying that everything the Gazan Ministry of Hamas says is a lie. But we know that they do lie. So we can't just verbatim accept everything they say.
Compare and contrast with Jews who are brave enough to live in majority Muslim countries.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-67214409
"Bianca Williams: Two Met officers guilty of athlete search gross misconduct"
Edit: They as in two of the police officers
The other 3 have had allegations against them found not proven.
In the original incident the two athletes spent a longish time messing about capturing film on a mobile phone, rather than getting out of the car as required by police officers.
So a bit of a messy outcome on all sides.
I would have thought that point fairly obvious.
However given the level of devastation in Gaza those figures don’t seem totally outlandish .
Hamas Crisis Actor pretends to be a victim of an Israeli air strike- appearing in a hospital bed while pretending to be in a critical condition as two supporting actors hold his hand.
In reality, the man is a Hamas musician and actor who has been appearing in various videos for the terror group.
One video he is seen celebrating in the streets as Hamas fire rockets towards Israel.
In another video he can be seen ‘crying’ after claiming his apartment was hit by an airstrike.
And in another video he is seen singing while brandishing a gun while praising Hamas.
https://twitter.com/OliLondonTV/status/1717148430424752268
https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/campaigns/2022/02/israels-system-of-apartheid/
Yes, I'm being flippant. I would also like to think I'm wrong, but past form is not encouraging.
"Lewis Edwards: Snapchat sex abuse images police officer jailed
A police officer who blackmailed and threatened underage girls to send him explicit photos of themselves on Snapchat has been jailed for life."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-67177330
Have a good afternoon all.
And then the murdering terrorists of Hamas did what they did.
So again until useful idiots like you stop the whataboutery and “but Israel” crap and everyone who wants Palestinians to not be living in such a nightmare actually stand up and say “we cannot support a free Palestine under Hamas and whilst there is no acceptance of Israel’s right to exist” then nothing will happen.
There isn’t some magical situation where the Israelis accept a one state solution with people who want to butcher them for being Jews. And nobody sane or humanitarian should demand they do.
The ultimate end point of the “free Palestine” people is to make Israel a Jew free Palestinian state. For Hamas and Iran nothing else will do. Again it is not going to be a liberal democracy where Jews and Arabs hold hands and dance away through the night in harmony.
https://www.taxobservatory.eu/publication/global-tax-evasion-report-2024/
Fun graphs:
1) the end of bank secrecy worked on persons:
2) but overall corporate evasion is still high
3) billionaires pay as little tax in some european countries as in the US:
Hamas is never going to make confidence building confessions to Israel when it thinks it can make advances through a terror campaign. Given that they have just achieved their greatest terror success of all time, this means it is a necessary precondition for future peace talks that they suffer a major defeat now.
If that doesn't happen there's a real risk of Hamas winning due to Jews concluding that Israel cannot be safe for them, and several million Jews looking for a new place to live.
But to do all that in a realistically sustainable manner doesn't look too different from a truth and reconciliation process anyway - just that the solution is a 2 state solution rather than my suggested 1 state solution. I still think a 2 state solution wouldn't work because, as always, a sticking point will be Palestinian right to return - which can only be solved with a single secular multiethnic state.
https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2022/08/ukraine-ukrainian-fighting-tactics-endanger-civilians/
Strange how they are so silent on Hamas.