Odd, looking at all the post reshuffle polls, to see an apparent trend of Labour down, Tories up a bit, Lib Dems up and Ref fairly flat. Wasn’t expecting that.
It was inevitable the moment always wrong Leon called it the worst reshuffle in history.
My legendary modesty prevents me from pointing out that I said the return of Dave would lead to a Tory boost.
Matthew Syed comes out for fundamental asylum treaty reform in the ST today.
Difficult because it needs a multinational initiative. But necessary because the issue won't be resolved by countries all doing their own thing.
It's difficult because it is in the interests of countries with contempt for human rights for their victims to be able, as of right, to be given shelter by freer countries, which they also hold in contempt.
The source of the problem in large part is the governance of the countries from which people legitimately flee. The UN should have the task of making it the exiting country's problem, not the sheltering one.
Pressed on whether Israel was adhering to international law with its assault on Hamas, which includes a raid at Al-Shifa Hospital, Mr. Finer (Deputy NSA) said the United States was “confident that it is our position that it needs to.” He did not specify whether U.S. officials believed Israel was following international law.
Odd, looking at all the post reshuffle polls, to see an apparent trend of Labour down, Tories up a bit, Lib Dems up and Ref fairly flat. Wasn’t expecting that.
It was inevitable the moment always wrong Leon called it the worst reshuffle in history.
My legendary modesty prevents me from pointing out that I said the return of Dave would lead to a Tory boost.
It'll get another boost once they get in gear. (I guess 'proper shoes' in your terms), but the return of Dave won't give the Tories any momentum.
I wonder how much worse the bigger twat could be given the situation in Argentina, but I wondered that about Trump and it turned out the answer was 'a lot.'
Interesting that Biden is coming under pressure from his own party to call for an instant ceasefire in Gaza. The demonstrations are getting bigger and Biden is starting to wobble. It could lead to Starmer looking pretty ridiculous if he is left standing there on his own. One of the big problems is that Netanyahu is a difficult person to get behind for a Democrat President
If the US changed to 'ceasefire now' I bet both Sunak and Starmer would do the same.
I'm sure they would, although the very fact it would be weeks after the initial calls would make a change in position easily defendable for the US and the UK.
Odd, looking at all the post reshuffle polls, to see an apparent trend of Labour down, Tories up a bit, Lib Dems up and Ref fairly flat. Wasn’t expecting that.
It was inevitable the moment always wrong Leon called it the worst reshuffle in history.
My legendary modesty prevents me from pointing out that I said the return of Dave would lead to a Tory boost.
Odd, looking at all the post reshuffle polls, to see an apparent trend of Labour down, Tories up a bit, Lib Dems up and Ref fairly flat. Wasn’t expecting that.
It was inevitable the moment always wrong Leon called it the worst reshuffle in history.
My legendary modesty prevents me from pointing out that I said the return of Dave would lead to a Tory boost.
In the 7 polls taken since last week's reshuffle as far as I can see the Tories are up in 2 but down in 5. Labour are down in 3, up in 2 and unchanged in 2 . The LDs are up in 4, down in 2 and unchanged in 1.
The biggest winners are Reform though who are up in 5 and unchanged in 2
Matthew Syed comes out for fundamental asylum treaty reform in the ST today.
Difficult because it needs a multinational initiative. But necessary because the issue won't be resolved by countries all doing their own thing.
It's difficult because it is in the interests of countries with contempt for human rights for their victims to be able, as of right, to be given shelter by freer countries, which they also hold in contempt.
The source of the problem in large part is the governance of the countries from which people legitimately flee. The UN should have the task of making it the exiting country's problem, not the sheltering one.
I see the point but I can't be comfortable with that. The venerable western powers (esp us) spent centuries 'making themselves at home' all over the world without the niceties of an invite, and to a large extent got rich because of it, so it feels wrong wrong wrong for them now to be directing all of their energy on this thorny topic of migration from poor and conflict-torn countries to keeping people out.
The problem, we are told, with a “ceasefire”, is that it denies Israel’s right to defend itself.
But after several weeks of bombing, all Israel has managed to do is kill ~10,000 Palestinians, of which many will be children.
How many hostages have they recovered? How are Israel’s military aims distinguishable from simply expelling Palestinians from Gaza outright?
Israel has lost Gen Z opinion, to the extent that’s important, and is losing the support of the reasonable minded in the West.
Israel has a right to destroy Hamas in Gaza and free its hostages, it does not have a right to evict Palestinians from Gaza and the West Bank who are not in Hamas
If there were 1,000 terrorists in that number, would it change your view?
That would still leave 11,300...
Who may have been protecting the terrorists.
War is shit. The innocent die in huge numbers just by being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Sometimes, as in this war the innocent die for other reasons.
if it is to survive ODI cricket REALLY needs the Windies to come roaring back. I miss those Windies teams
Sadly won't happen as long as India control the money and their best players are more concerned with their IPL contracts than the hard (and less well paid) graft of turning the West Indies into a top team again.
My faint hope is that the Windies will revive themselves once kids realise how much money they can make in cricket. Apparently cricket has been losing out to basketball. But to make big cash in basketball you have to be a physical freak in size. It is that basic, so your chances of being a pro basketball player in the USA are tiny tiny tiny
Cricket is more accepting of different physiques. Come back to cricket!
I don't know if it is the case with baseball (which apparently has had some rule changes to speed things up a bit), but several american sports seem so intense and competitive, with such a small top tier, that even for professional sports its very hard to break in, you have to be the kind of 0.1% of the 1% to get in with a chance of making it.
Rugby might be similar that way in terms of needing a freakish physique now, but massive quantities of drugs could allegedly help there.
Those are figures provided by Hamas-controlled entities, correct?
"The US State Department Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs told a Congressional hearing on 9 November that the death toll was "very high, frankly, and it could be that they're even higher than are being cited."[66] "
If there were 1,000 terrorists in that number, would it change your view?
That would still leave 11,300...
Who may have been protecting the terrorists.
War is shit. The innocent die in huge numbers just by being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Sometimes, as in this war the innocent die for other reasons.
The innocent die but generally we want to avoid just murdering them anyway.
It’s not obvious that Israel is prosecuting something different from an ethnic cleansing operation.
The problem, we are told, with a “ceasefire”, is that it denies Israel’s right to defend itself.
But after several weeks of bombing, all Israel has managed to do is kill ~10,000 Palestinians, of which many will be children.
How many hostages have they recovered? How are Israel’s military aims distinguishable from simply expelling Palestinians from Gaza outright?
Israel has lost Gen Z opinion, to the extent that’s important, and is losing the support of the reasonable minded in the West.
Israel has a right to destroy Hamas in Gaza and free its hostages, it does not have a right to evict Palestinians from Gaza and the West Bank who are not in Hamas
If it goes on the way it’s started every young person in The Strip will join Hamas!
The problem, we are told, with a “ceasefire”, is that it denies Israel’s right to defend itself.
But after several weeks of bombing, all Israel has managed to do is kill ~10,000 Palestinians, of which many will be children.
How many hostages have they recovered? How are Israel’s military aims distinguishable from simply expelling Palestinians from Gaza outright?
Israel has lost Gen Z opinion, to the extent that’s important, and is losing the support of the reasonable minded in the West.
Those middling people, who want to support good people on all sides, the state of Israel's right to exist without the threat of massacre or holocaust and the Palestinian's right to an autonomous state struggle with these questions, and find few answers from polemics of any sort:
What is the best policy for supporting peace loving people on all sides
How should Israel have responded instead if you oppose what they are doing
What is the best policy for Palestinians who do want their autonomy and also recognise Israel's rights.
Interesting that Biden is coming under pressure from his own party to call for an instant ceasefire in Gaza. The demonstrations are getting bigger and Biden is starting to wobble. It could lead to Starmer looking pretty ridiculous if he is left standing there on his own. One of the big problems is that Netanyahu is a difficult person to get behind for a Democrat President
If the US changed to 'ceasefire now' I bet both Sunak and Starmer would do the same.
I'm sure they would, although the very fact it would be weeks after the initial calls would make a change in position easily defendable for the US and the UK.
Yes, totally. Both positions make sense.
Oct 7th and 8th: "Unspeakable atrocity. Israel has the right, the duty, to defend itself. We stand with you."
6 weeks, 12,000 Palestinian deaths, 1m displacements and a flattened Gaza later ... "Ok, c'mon, that's enough ffs. Ceasefire now."
Since 1970 UK and US taxation has become much flatter, while French has stayed almost the same.
Headline rates can be misleading. Doesn't France have generous allowances for dependent children?
Are they higher allowances for the wealthy kids? If not, they don't affect that curve.
Not the shape of it, but the position of the Y axis.
The point is that headline rates can be quite different between countries depending on deductions. The USA has generous deductions for charitable giving for example.
Interesting that Biden is coming under pressure from his own party to call for an instant ceasefire in Gaza. The demonstrations are getting bigger and Biden is starting to wobble. It could lead to Starmer looking pretty ridiculous if he is left standing there on his own. One of the big problems is that Netanyahu is a difficult person to get behind for a Democrat President
The problem for Biden is that Netanyahu has him, for all intents and purposes, by the balls. Netty will be well aware that Biden is falling behind in the polls and that, while Gen Z and blocks like the Arab-American vote has specific resonance in places like Michigan, the Jewish vote - and also donations - are critical for the Democrats, not just for the Presidency but also for the House, particularly in areas such as New York and New Jersey. He also probably doesn't want to p1ss off The Donald by throwing Biden a lifeline now there are growing doubts over the outcome of November 2024.
Biden's leverage points are remarkably weak. The Americans could, theoretically, choke off weapon supplies to the Israelis but that is likely to lead to a backlash within moderate Democrat House members and his Senate members. The Republicans would jump on it with glee and contrast it with what the US has given to Ukraine.
Odd, looking at all the post reshuffle polls, to see an apparent trend of Labour down, Tories up a bit, Lib Dems up and Ref fairly flat. Wasn’t expecting that.
It was inevitable the moment always wrong Leon called it the worst reshuffle in history.
My legendary modesty prevents me from pointing out that I said the return of Dave would lead to a Tory boost.
There may ultimately be a Tory boost, but not really so far. Since the reshuffle Tory poll movement (versus pollsters' previous poll) have been:
-4 Find Out Now -3 YouGov -3 Techne +1 We Think +1 Opinium +1 More in Common
So that's an average of -1.2% but really it's all MOE surely?
Odd, looking at all the post reshuffle polls, to see an apparent trend of Labour down, Tories up a bit, Lib Dems up and Ref fairly flat. Wasn’t expecting that.
It was inevitable the moment always wrong Leon called it the worst reshuffle in history.
My legendary modesty prevents me from pointing out that I said the return of Dave would lead to a Tory boost.
There may ultimately be a Tory boost, but not really so far. Since the reshuffle Tory poll movement (versus pollsters' previous poll) have been:
-4 Find Out Now -3 YouGov -3 Techne +1 We Think +1 Opinium +1 More in Common
So that's an average of -1.2% but really it's all MOE surely?
Now do the same for the change in the Labour lead.
Interesting that Biden is coming under pressure from his own party to call for an instant ceasefire in Gaza. The demonstrations are getting bigger and Biden is starting to wobble. It could lead to Starmer looking pretty ridiculous if he is left standing there on his own. One of the big problems is that Netanyahu is a difficult person to get behind for a Democrat President
The problem for Biden is that Netanyahu has him, for all intents and purposes, by the balls. Netty will be well aware that Biden is falling behind in the polls and that, while Gen Z and blocks like the Arab-American vote has specific resonance in places like Michigan, the Jewish vote - and also donations - are critical for the Democrats, not just for the Presidency but also for the House, particularly in areas such as New York and New Jersey. He also probably doesn't want to p1ss off The Donald by throwing Biden a lifeline now there are growing doubts over the outcome of November 2024.
Biden's leverage points are remarkably weak. The Americans could, theoretically, choke off weapon supplies to the Israelis but that is likely to lead to a backlash within moderate Democrat House members and his Senate members. The Republicans would jump on it with glee and contrast it with what the US has given to Ukraine.
The problem, we are told, with a “ceasefire”, is that it denies Israel’s right to defend itself.
But after several weeks of bombing, all Israel has managed to do is kill ~10,000 Palestinians, of which many will be children.
How many hostages have they recovered? How are Israel’s military aims distinguishable from simply expelling Palestinians from Gaza outright?
Israel has lost Gen Z opinion, to the extent that’s important, and is losing the support of the reasonable minded in the West.
Those middling people, who want to support good people on all sides, the state of Israel's right to exist without the threat of massacre or holocaust and the Palestinian's right to an autonomous state struggle with these questions, and find few answers from polemics of any sort:
What is the best policy for supporting peace loving people on all sides
How should Israel have responded instead if you oppose what they are doing
What is the best policy for Palestinians who do want their autonomy and also recognise Israel's rights.
My personal policy is that Israel must simultaneously make diplomatic overtures in support of a two-state solution, while focusing its military ambitions on recovery of its hostages, a blockade of Gaza, and surgical destruction of Hamas capability.
Palestinian supporters must call for the immediate release of hostages, condemn Hamas, and call for the resumption of democracy in Gaza.
Of course, I am a centrist dad, so these things are not going to happen. I agree it’s a bugger’s muddle, which is why by the way I kind of refuse to condemn those calling at present for a ceasefire.
Interesting that Biden is coming under pressure from his own party to call for an instant ceasefire in Gaza. The demonstrations are getting bigger and Biden is starting to wobble. It could lead to Starmer looking pretty ridiculous if he is left standing there on his own. One of the big problems is that Netanyahu is a difficult person to get behind for a Democrat President
The problem for Biden is that Netanyahu has him, for all intents and purposes, by the balls. Netty will be well aware that Biden is falling behind in the polls and that, while Gen Z and blocks like the Arab-American vote has specific resonance in places like Michigan, the Jewish vote - and also donations - are critical for the Democrats, not just for the Presidency but also for the House, particularly in areas such as New York and New Jersey. He also probably doesn't want to p1ss off The Donald by throwing Biden a lifeline now there are growing doubts over the outcome of November 2024.
Biden's leverage points are remarkably weak. The Americans could, theoretically, choke off weapon supplies to the Israelis but that is likely to lead to a backlash within moderate Democrat House members and his Senate members. The Republicans would jump on it with glee and contrast it with what the US has given to Ukraine.
Israel wants a Trump or other Republican victory next year, Ukraine wants Biden and the Democrats to win (especially if the GOP candidate is Trump, DeSantis or Ramaswamy)
Interesting that Biden is coming under pressure from his own party to call for an instant ceasefire in Gaza. The demonstrations are getting bigger and Biden is starting to wobble. It could lead to Starmer looking pretty ridiculous if he is left standing there on his own. One of the big problems is that Netanyahu is a difficult person to get behind for a Democrat President
The problem for Biden is that Netanyahu has him, for all intents and purposes, by the balls. Netty will be well aware that Biden is falling behind in the polls and that, while Gen Z and blocks like the Arab-American vote has specific resonance in places like Michigan, the Jewish vote - and also donations - are critical for the Democrats, not just for the Presidency but also for the House, particularly in areas such as New York and New Jersey. He also probably doesn't want to p1ss off The Donald by throwing Biden a lifeline now there are growing doubts over the outcome of November 2024.
Biden's leverage points are remarkably weak. The Americans could, theoretically, choke off weapon supplies to the Israelis but that is likely to lead to a backlash within moderate Democrat House members and his Senate members. The Republicans would jump on it with glee and contrast it with what the US has given to Ukraine.
The problem, we are told, with a “ceasefire”, is that it denies Israel’s right to defend itself.
But after several weeks of bombing, all Israel has managed to do is kill ~10,000 Palestinians, of which many will be children.
How many hostages have they recovered? How are Israel’s military aims distinguishable from simply expelling Palestinians from Gaza outright?
Israel has lost Gen Z opinion, to the extent that’s important, and is losing the support of the reasonable minded in the West.
Those middling people, who want to support good people on all sides, the state of Israel's right to exist without the threat of massacre or holocaust and the Palestinian's right to an autonomous state struggle with these questions, and find few answers from polemics of any sort:
What is the best policy for supporting peace loving people on all sides
How should Israel have responded instead if you oppose what they are doing
What is the best policy for Palestinians who do want their autonomy and also recognise Israel's rights.
"Ceasefire" also means different things to different people.
To some, it means both sides stand down, and the hostages are released.
If there were 1,000 terrorists in that number, would it change your view?
That would still leave 11,300...
Who may have been protecting the terrorists.
War is shit. The innocent die in huge numbers just by being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Sometimes, as in this war the innocent die for other reasons.
The problem, we are told, with a “ceasefire”, is that it denies Israel’s right to defend itself.
But after several weeks of bombing, all Israel has managed to do is kill ~10,000 Palestinians, of which many will be children.
How many hostages have they recovered? How are Israel’s military aims distinguishable from simply expelling Palestinians from Gaza outright?
Israel has lost Gen Z opinion, to the extent that’s important, and is losing the support of the reasonable minded in the West.
Those middling people, who want to support good people on all sides, the state of Israel's right to exist without the threat of massacre or holocaust and the Palestinian's right to an autonomous state struggle with these questions, and find few answers from polemics of any sort:
What is the best policy for supporting peace loving people on all sides
How should Israel have responded instead if you oppose what they are doing
What is the best policy for Palestinians who do want their autonomy and also recognise Israel's rights.
"Ceasefire" also means different things to different people.
To some, it means both sides stand down, and the hostages are released.
To others, it means that Israel stands down.
12,300 deaths not enough for you? 1.6 million displaced not enough for you?
Interesting that Biden is coming under pressure from his own party to call for an instant ceasefire in Gaza. The demonstrations are getting bigger and Biden is starting to wobble. It could lead to Starmer looking pretty ridiculous if he is left standing there on his own. One of the big problems is that Netanyahu is a difficult person to get behind for a Democrat President
The problem for Biden is that Netanyahu has him, for all intents and purposes, by the balls. Netty will be well aware that Biden is falling behind in the polls and that, while Gen Z and blocks like the Arab-American vote has specific resonance in places like Michigan, the Jewish vote - and also donations - are critical for the Democrats, not just for the Presidency but also for the House, particularly in areas such as New York and New Jersey. He also probably doesn't want to p1ss off The Donald by throwing Biden a lifeline now there are growing doubts over the outcome of November 2024.
Biden's leverage points are remarkably weak. The Americans could, theoretically, choke off weapon supplies to the Israelis but that is likely to lead to a backlash within moderate Democrat House members and his Senate members. The Republicans would jump on it with glee and contrast it with what the US has given to Ukraine.
"Netty" - wtf is that?
My term for Netanyahu. Are you the Term Police?
Not at all. Just never ever heard him called "Netty". When a diminutive is used it's always "Bibi".
However none of it affects me since I call him Netanyahu.
If there were 1,000 terrorists in that number, would it change your view?
That would still leave 11,300...
Who may have been protecting the terrorists.
War is shit. The innocent die in huge numbers just by being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Sometimes, as in this war the innocent die for other reasons.
Victim-blaming alert!
Well, when you're toasted on a Hamas stick, don't expect me clamouring to save you. These people are vile.
Odd, looking at all the post reshuffle polls, to see an apparent trend of Labour down, Tories up a bit, Lib Dems up and Ref fairly flat. Wasn’t expecting that.
It was inevitable the moment always wrong Leon called it the worst reshuffle in history.
My legendary modesty prevents me from pointing out that I said the return of Dave would lead to a Tory boost.
There may ultimately be a Tory boost, but not really so far. Since the reshuffle Tory poll movement (versus pollsters' previous poll) have been:
-4 Find Out Now -3 YouGov -3 Techne +1 We Think +1 Opinium +1 More in Common
So that's an average of -1.2% but really it's all MOE surely?
Now do the same for the change in the Labour lead.
Labour lead:
+5 Find Out Now -1 YouGov +3 Techne -4 We Think -4 Opinium -4 More in Common
So that's an average Labour lead reduction of -0.7%. Hardly earth shattering.
The problem, we are told, with a “ceasefire”, is that it denies Israel’s right to defend itself.
But after several weeks of bombing, all Israel has managed to do is kill ~10,000 Palestinians, of which many will be children.
How many hostages have they recovered? How are Israel’s military aims distinguishable from simply expelling Palestinians from Gaza outright?
Israel has lost Gen Z opinion, to the extent that’s important, and is losing the support of the reasonable minded in the West.
Those middling people, who want to support good people on all sides, the state of Israel's right to exist without the threat of massacre or holocaust and the Palestinian's right to an autonomous state struggle with these questions, and find few answers from polemics of any sort:
What is the best policy for supporting peace loving people on all sides
How should Israel have responded instead if you oppose what they are doing
What is the best policy for Palestinians who do want their autonomy and also recognise Israel's rights.
"Ceasefire" also means different things to different people.
To some, it means both sides stand down, and the hostages are released.
To others, it means that Israel stands down.
12,300 deaths not enough for you? 1.6 million displaced not enough for you?
They're fair questions. Let me ask you one in reply: how many would be okay? How many deaths and displaced people do you think it is acceptable for Israel to cause to remove the threat from Hamas? It's less than 12,300 and 1.6 million, but what's *your* figure?
On Indy I think the change is not the support for YES, but the sense of it as an urgent necessity rather than a vague but pleasing aspiration
For a long time the Nats - brilliantly - kept dangling the YES Indy carrot like the donkey electorate was gonna eat it any moment. Now the donkey realises the carrot was a hologram, and any nice food is a long way down the road
Sure, the donkey would still LIKE a juicy carrot, but the donkey has accepted that there are now more pressing needs, like eating some grass, getting down the road, maybe humping a sexy jackass in the next village
So 45% support for YES no longer translates into anything like 45 points for the SNP, coz the SNP don’t have any fake carrots left, and the new SNP are also really quite shit, and resented for the whole carrot thing, and because donkey is bored of carrying them
I reckon the Nats are more likely to go under 30 seats than stay over, so the LDs are probably, rightly, modest favorites in this market
The 2014 referendum was not a hologram and nor was the demand for another one after the Brexit-fuelled Holyrood victory of the SNP on that specific platform.
Suspect your analogy comes mainly from a desire to present Sindy supporting Scottish people as donkies.
What? Of course 2014 was not a hologram. My point is that AFTER that vote the idea of an imminent new vote became increasingly fantastical, in reality, yet the SNP managed to persuade everyone, and keep persuading them, that Sindyref2 was just a few inches away. One more heave
That illusion is shattered. Stop being stupid. You’re already quite boring. Stupid AS WELL would make you unreadable
But you didn't say that. You just said they've been dangling their carrots "for a long time". If by this you specifically meant since 2014 well ok (ish) but how would we be expected to guess that?
After all you used to bang on about 2014 being very recent. So recent that it would be absurd to even think about another referendum despite it being voted for!
See? Hoist again, I'm afraid. Bamboozled by Kuntibula the Logic Monster.
Also given that we are being held hostage , it would not matter if SNP got ZERO votes , we would still have to do something else.
Like what though? It's hard to see a Sindy route which doesn't go via another referendum - and that's in the gift of Westminster.
lots of stuff going on re treaties etc , every other treaty signed by 2 parties can be cancelled at any time so time will tell. My guess is they will have another civic convention and force the issue as they did with devolution. In any voluntary union , the larget party cannot hold the other party captive against their will. Only a matter of time.
If there were 1,000 terrorists in that number, would it change your view?
That would still leave 11,300...
Who may have been protecting the terrorists.
War is shit. The innocent die in huge numbers just by being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Sometimes, as in this war the innocent die for other reasons.
Victim-blaming alert!
Well, when you're toasted on a Hamas stick, don't expect me clamouring to save you. These people are vile.
The problem, we are told, with a “ceasefire”, is that it denies Israel’s right to defend itself.
But after several weeks of bombing, all Israel has managed to do is kill ~10,000 Palestinians, of which many will be children.
How many hostages have they recovered? How are Israel’s military aims distinguishable from simply expelling Palestinians from Gaza outright?
Israel has lost Gen Z opinion, to the extent that’s important, and is losing the support of the reasonable minded in the West.
Those middling people, who want to support good people on all sides, the state of Israel's right to exist without the threat of massacre or holocaust and the Palestinian's right to an autonomous state struggle with these questions, and find few answers from polemics of any sort:
What is the best policy for supporting peace loving people on all sides
How should Israel have responded instead if you oppose what they are doing
What is the best policy for Palestinians who do want their autonomy and also recognise Israel's rights.
"Ceasefire" also means different things to different people.
To some, it means both sides stand down, and the hostages are released.
To others, it means that Israel stands down.
12,300 deaths not enough for you? 1.6 million displaced not enough for you?
Odd, looking at all the post reshuffle polls, to see an apparent trend of Labour down, Tories up a bit, Lib Dems up and Ref fairly flat. Wasn’t expecting that.
It was inevitable the moment always wrong Leon called it the worst reshuffle in history.
My legendary modesty prevents me from pointing out that I said the return of Dave would lead to a Tory boost.
There may ultimately be a Tory boost, but not really so far. Since the reshuffle Tory poll movement (versus pollsters' previous poll) have been:
-4 Find Out Now -3 YouGov -3 Techne +1 We Think +1 Opinium +1 More in Common
So that's an average of -1.2% but really it's all MOE surely?
Now do the same for the change in the Labour lead.
Labour lead:
+5 Find Out Now -1 YouGov +3 Techne -4 We Think -4 Opinium -4 More in Common
So that's an average Labour lead reduction of -0.7%. Hardly earth shattering.
It's the start of the Dave bounce, give it a few more weeks.
On Indy I think the change is not the support for YES, but the sense of it as an urgent necessity rather than a vague but pleasing aspiration
For a long time the Nats - brilliantly - kept dangling the YES Indy carrot like the donkey electorate was gonna eat it any moment. Now the donkey realises the carrot was a hologram, and any nice food is a long way down the road
Sure, the donkey would still LIKE a juicy carrot, but the donkey has accepted that there are now more pressing needs, like eating some grass, getting down the road, maybe humping a sexy jackass in the next village
So 45% support for YES no longer translates into anything like 45 points for the SNP, coz the SNP don’t have any fake carrots left, and the new SNP are also really quite shit, and resented for the whole carrot thing, and because donkey is bored of carrying them
I reckon the Nats are more likely to go under 30 seats than stay over, so the LDs are probably, rightly, modest favorites in this market
The 2014 referendum was not a hologram and nor was the demand for another one after the Brexit-fuelled Holyrood victory of the SNP on that specific platform.
Suspect your analogy comes mainly from a desire to present Sindy supporting Scottish people as donkies.
The clown does not even understand that the almost 50% Independence support is not all SNP, the SNP were up until now the only way to get it. Them going down the toilet will not change the minds of Independence supporters but expectations of Independence will continue to grow and w ecannot be held prisoners ad infinitum. You can only kick people for so long till even the fearties get it.
Scottish supporters of the union, who are a larger group, may well feel there is only so much huffing and puffing a minority cause can make before the unionists can get on with their lives without the constant campaigning of a minority for a cause that cannot prevail but can make a lot of noise.
At best it is 50-50 with no campaign at all. Good to see the Scotch experts are keeping up with things. POlish those jackboots up.
Odd, looking at all the post reshuffle polls, to see an apparent trend of Labour down, Tories up a bit, Lib Dems up and Ref fairly flat. Wasn’t expecting that.
It was inevitable the moment always wrong Leon called it the worst reshuffle in history.
My legendary modesty prevents me from pointing out that I said the return of Dave would lead to a Tory boost.
There may ultimately be a Tory boost, but not really so far. Since the reshuffle Tory poll movement (versus pollsters' previous poll) have been:
-4 Find Out Now -3 YouGov -3 Techne +1 We Think +1 Opinium +1 More in Common
So that's an average of -1.2% but really it's all MOE surely?
Now do the same for the change in the Labour lead.
So what's the theory?
That the reshuffle has won back some votes in the centre, lost some on the right, and that's more useful because winning back centrist votes counts double in a sense (+1 to Con, -1 to Lab)?
Sounds plausible- but it depends on the centrewards shuffle being a real thing. In which case, Sunak really needs to turn down the rhetoric on Rwanda and not muck about with the Autumn Statement, or anything else, for the next year or so.
Can't see it happening, unfortunately. Partly because he is weeny and weaky, but also because he is pretty right wing himself.
If there were 1,000 terrorists in that number, would it change your view?
That would still leave 11,300...
Who may have been protecting the terrorists.
War is shit. The innocent die in huge numbers just by being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Sometimes, as in this war the innocent die for other reasons.
Victim-blaming alert!
Well, when you're toasted on a Hamas stick, don't expect me clamouring to save you. These people are vile.
The people who murdered 12,300 are also vile.
2.4 million people say they've never heard of Hamas, they've certainly never supported them, and they committed no crime. Unfortunately the 2.4 million people are wrong.
If there were 1,000 terrorists in that number, would it change your view?
That would still leave 11,300...
Who may have been protecting the terrorists.
War is shit. The innocent die in huge numbers just by being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Sometimes, as in this war the innocent die for other reasons.
Victim-blaming alert!
Well, when you're toasted on a Hamas stick, don't expect me clamouring to save you. These people are vile.
I quite agree regarding Hamas.
I do not believe that the estimated 10-12k Palestinians killed were 'protecting the terrorists' though.
Odd, looking at all the post reshuffle polls, to see an apparent trend of Labour down, Tories up a bit, Lib Dems up and Ref fairly flat. Wasn’t expecting that.
It was inevitable the moment always wrong Leon called it the worst reshuffle in history.
My legendary modesty prevents me from pointing out that I said the return of Dave would lead to a Tory boost.
There may ultimately be a Tory boost, but not really so far. Since the reshuffle Tory poll movement (versus pollsters' previous poll) have been:
-4 Find Out Now -3 YouGov -3 Techne +1 We Think +1 Opinium +1 More in Common
So that's an average of -1.2% but really it's all MOE surely?
Now do the same for the change in the Labour lead.
So what's the theory?
That the reshuffle has won back some votes in the centre, lost some on the right, and that's more useful because winning back centrist votes counts double in a sense (+1 to Con, -1 to Lab)?
Sounds plausible- but it depends on the centrewards shuffle being a real thing. In which case, Sunak really needs to turn down the rhetoric on Rwanda and not muck about with the Autumn Statement, or anything else, for the next year or so.
Can't see it happening, unfortunately. Partly because he is weeny and weaky, but also because he is pretty right wing himself.
I'm just winding up Leon.
I don't think Dave's return will shift the polls much either way. I can see some votes being won back by the Tories from the One Nationers but Starmer's winning the next election, the only question is how many seats he wins.
On Indy I think the change is not the support for YES, but the sense of it as an urgent necessity rather than a vague but pleasing aspiration
For a long time the Nats - brilliantly - kept dangling the YES Indy carrot like the donkey electorate was gonna eat it any moment. Now the donkey realises the carrot was a hologram, and any nice food is a long way down the road
Sure, the donkey would still LIKE a juicy carrot, but the donkey has accepted that there are now more pressing needs, like eating some grass, getting down the road, maybe humping a sexy jackass in the next village
So 45% support for YES no longer translates into anything like 45 points for the SNP, coz the SNP don’t have any fake carrots left, and the new SNP are also really quite shit, and resented for the whole carrot thing, and because donkey is bored of carrying them
I reckon the Nats are more likely to go under 30 seats than stay over, so the LDs are probably, rightly, modest favorites in this market
The 2014 referendum was not a hologram and nor was the demand for another one after the Brexit-fuelled Holyrood victory of the SNP on that specific platform.
Suspect your analogy comes mainly from a desire to present Sindy supporting Scottish people as donkies.
What? Of course 2014 was not a hologram. My point is that AFTER that vote the idea of an imminent new vote became increasingly fantastical, in reality, yet the SNP managed to persuade everyone, and keep persuading them, that Sindyref2 was just a few inches away. One more heave
That illusion is shattered. Stop being stupid. You’re already quite boring. Stupid AS WELL would make you unreadable
But you didn't say that. You just said they've been dangling their carrots "for a long time". If by this you specifically meant since 2014 well ok (ish) but how would we be expected to guess that?
After all you used to bang on about 2014 being very recent. So recent that it would be absurd to even think about another referendum despite it being voted for!
See? Hoist again, I'm afraid. Bamboozled by Kuntibula the Logic Monster.
Also given that we are being held hostage , it would not matter if SNP got ZERO votes , we would still have to do something else.
Like what though? It's hard to see a Sindy route which doesn't go via another referendum - and that's in the gift of Westminster.
Not if you look at it on the union treaty rather than some English later confection in English Law.
Odd, looking at all the post reshuffle polls, to see an apparent trend of Labour down, Tories up a bit, Lib Dems up and Ref fairly flat. Wasn’t expecting that.
It was inevitable the moment always wrong Leon called it the worst reshuffle in history.
My legendary modesty prevents me from pointing out that I said the return of Dave would lead to a Tory boost.
There may ultimately be a Tory boost, but not really so far. Since the reshuffle Tory poll movement (versus pollsters' previous poll) have been:
-4 Find Out Now -3 YouGov -3 Techne +1 We Think +1 Opinium +1 More in Common
So that's an average of -1.2% but really it's all MOE surely?
Now do the same for the change in the Labour lead.
Labour lead:
+5 Find Out Now -1 YouGov +3 Techne -4 We Think -4 Opinium -4 More in Common
So that's an average Labour lead reduction of -0.7%. Hardly earth shattering.
It's the start of the Dave bounce, give it a few more weeks.
Interesting that Biden is coming under pressure from his own party to call for an instant ceasefire in Gaza. The demonstrations are getting bigger and Biden is starting to wobble. It could lead to Starmer looking pretty ridiculous if he is left standing there on his own. One of the big problems is that Netanyahu is a difficult person to get behind for a Democrat President
The problem, we are told, with a “ceasefire”, is that it denies Israel’s right to defend itself.
But after several weeks of bombing, all Israel has managed to do is kill ~10,000 Palestinians, of which many will be children.
How many hostages have they recovered? How are Israel’s military aims distinguishable from simply expelling Palestinians from Gaza outright?
Israel has lost Gen Z opinion, to the extent that’s important, and is losing the support of the reasonable minded in the West.
Those middling people, who want to support good people on all sides, the state of Israel's right to exist without the threat of massacre or holocaust and the Palestinian's right to an autonomous state struggle with these questions, and find few answers from polemics of any sort:
What is the best policy for supporting peace loving people on all sides
How should Israel have responded instead if you oppose what they are doing
What is the best policy for Palestinians who do want their autonomy and also recognise Israel's rights.
"Ceasefire" also means different things to different people.
To some, it means both sides stand down, and the hostages are released.
To others, it means that Israel stands down.
To me, it means neither of those things. It means simply that both sides stop firing at each other. That doesn't necessarily entail release of hostages (though of course that is massively important). The meanings of these things should remain quite tightly defined.
If there were 1,000 terrorists in that number, would it change your view?
That would still leave 11,300...
Who may have been protecting the terrorists.
War is shit. The innocent die in huge numbers just by being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Sometimes, as in this war the innocent die for other reasons.
Victim-blaming alert!
Well, when you're toasted on a Hamas stick, don't expect me clamouring to save you. These people are vile.
I quite agree regarding Hamas.
I do not believe that the estimated 10-12k Palestinians killed were 'protecting the terrorists' though.
Odd, looking at all the post reshuffle polls, to see an apparent trend of Labour down, Tories up a bit, Lib Dems up and Ref fairly flat. Wasn’t expecting that.
It was inevitable the moment always wrong Leon called it the worst reshuffle in history.
My legendary modesty prevents me from pointing out that I said the return of Dave would lead to a Tory boost.
There may ultimately be a Tory boost, but not really so far. Since the reshuffle Tory poll movement (versus pollsters' previous poll) have been:
-4 Find Out Now -3 YouGov -3 Techne +1 We Think +1 Opinium +1 More in Common
So that's an average of -1.2% but really it's all MOE surely?
Now do the same for the change in the Labour lead.
So what's the theory?
That the reshuffle has won back some votes in the centre, lost some on the right, and that's more useful because winning back centrist votes counts double in a sense (+1 to Con, -1 to Lab)?
Sounds plausible- but it depends on the centrewards shuffle being a real thing. In which case, Sunak really needs to turn down the rhetoric on Rwanda and not muck about with the Autumn Statement, or anything else, for the next year or so.
Can't see it happening, unfortunately. Partly because he is weeny and weaky, but also because he is pretty right wing himself.
I'm just winding up Leon.
I don't think Dave's return will shift the polls much either way. I can see some votes being won back by the Tories from the One Nationers but Starmer's winning the next election, the only question is how many seats he wins.
I think that firing Suella Braverman proved popular on balance, and was the correct move.
No PM can have a minister who goes rogue, and among my pretty right wing circle, there was considerable disgust at her saying homelessness was a lifestyle choice.
Odd, looking at all the post reshuffle polls, to see an apparent trend of Labour down, Tories up a bit, Lib Dems up and Ref fairly flat. Wasn’t expecting that.
It was inevitable the moment always wrong Leon called it the worst reshuffle in history.
My legendary modesty prevents me from pointing out that I said the return of Dave would lead to a Tory boost.
There may ultimately be a Tory boost, but not really so far. Since the reshuffle Tory poll movement (versus pollsters' previous poll) have been:
-4 Find Out Now -3 YouGov -3 Techne +1 We Think +1 Opinium +1 More in Common
So that's an average of -1.2% but really it's all MOE surely?
Now do the same for the change in the Labour lead.
Labour lead:
+5 Find Out Now -1 YouGov +3 Techne -4 We Think -4 Opinium -4 More in Common
So that's an average Labour lead reduction of -0.7%. Hardly earth shattering.
It's the start of the Dave bounce, give it a few more weeks.
Yes the defection of the leader of the Remain campaign to Leave will help the Tory cause. I do worry about the Tories having such a rabid right winger as Cameron in the cabinet though. He was very keen on getting rid of the Human Rights Act as PM, and I haven’t even see Braverman ask for that.
If there were 1,000 terrorists in that number, would it change your view?
That would still leave 11,300...
Who may have been protecting the terrorists.
War is shit. The innocent die in huge numbers just by being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Sometimes, as in this war the innocent die for other reasons.
Victim-blaming alert!
Well, when you're toasted on a Hamas stick, don't expect me clamouring to save you. These people are vile.
I quite agree regarding Hamas.
I do not believe that the estimated 10-12k Palestinians killed were 'protecting the terrorists' though.
The problem, we are told, with a “ceasefire”, is that it denies Israel’s right to defend itself.
But after several weeks of bombing, all Israel has managed to do is kill ~10,000 Palestinians, of which many will be children.
How many hostages have they recovered? How are Israel’s military aims distinguishable from simply expelling Palestinians from Gaza outright?
Israel has lost Gen Z opinion, to the extent that’s important, and is losing the support of the reasonable minded in the West.
Israel has a right to destroy Hamas in Gaza and free its hostages, it does not have a right to evict Palestinians from Gaza and the West Bank who are not in Hamas
If it goes on the way it’s started every young person in The Strip will join Hamas!
Doubt there will be much left for them to live on and Israel will not be providing aid , jobs etc in future. Hard to see how many will be able to inhabit it and survive.
Odd, looking at all the post reshuffle polls, to see an apparent trend of Labour down, Tories up a bit, Lib Dems up and Ref fairly flat. Wasn’t expecting that.
It was inevitable the moment always wrong Leon called it the worst reshuffle in history.
My legendary modesty prevents me from pointing out that I said the return of Dave would lead to a Tory boost.
There may ultimately be a Tory boost, but not really so far. Since the reshuffle Tory poll movement (versus pollsters' previous poll) have been:
-4 Find Out Now -3 YouGov -3 Techne +1 We Think +1 Opinium +1 More in Common
So that's an average of -1.2% but really it's all MOE surely?
Now do the same for the change in the Labour lead.
So what's the theory?
That the reshuffle has won back some votes in the centre, lost some on the right, and that's more useful because winning back centrist votes counts double in a sense (+1 to Con, -1 to Lab)?
Sounds plausible- but it depends on the centrewards shuffle being a real thing. In which case, Sunak really needs to turn down the rhetoric on Rwanda and not muck about with the Autumn Statement, or anything else, for the next year or so.
Can't see it happening, unfortunately. Partly because he is weeny and weaky, but also because he is pretty right wing himself.
Thing is if the reshuffle saw the Tories win some votes back in the centre you’d expect the Lib Dems to be a fraction down. But they’re up, pretty consistently. Very odd.
It may be that the small boats kerfuffle is having more effect than Dave, and putting off a few centrist types, while Keir’s Gaza troubles are costing him a bit.
There’s no ruse in Green, so if Keir is losing votes over Gaza perhaps it’s actually swing voters being reminded about Labour’s corbynistas and antisemitism problems.
The problem, we are told, with a “ceasefire”, is that it denies Israel’s right to defend itself.
But after several weeks of bombing, all Israel has managed to do is kill ~10,000 Palestinians, of which many will be children.
How many hostages have they recovered? How are Israel’s military aims distinguishable from simply expelling Palestinians from Gaza outright?
Israel has lost Gen Z opinion, to the extent that’s important, and is losing the support of the reasonable minded in the West.
Those middling people, who want to support good people on all sides, the state of Israel's right to exist without the threat of massacre or holocaust and the Palestinian's right to an autonomous state struggle with these questions, and find few answers from polemics of any sort:
What is the best policy for supporting peace loving people on all sides
How should Israel have responded instead if you oppose what they are doing
What is the best policy for Palestinians who do want their autonomy and also recognise Israel's rights.
My personal policy is that Israel must simultaneously make diplomatic overtures in support of a two-state solution, while focusing its military ambitions on recovery of its hostages, a blockade of Gaza, and surgical destruction of Hamas capability.
Palestinian supporters must call for the immediate release of hostages, condemn Hamas, and call for the resumption of democracy in Gaza.
Of course, I am a centrist dad, so these things are not going to happen. I agree it’s a bugger’s muddle, which is why by the way I kind of refuse to condemn those calling at present for a ceasefire.
Two ways of solving problems.
One is to have a map from here to the destination. The other is to have a vague idea of where the destination is, but basically look in front of you and do what seems to be the best choice of the immediate options available, then pause and reorientate and repeat.
I've been musing on it in the context of sixth formers failing to do physics questions, but it's probably true more widely. It's usually best to have an advance plan all the way to the destination, but what do we do when that plan doesn't exist? We bumble, wander, try low-cost bets to see what happens. And usually, that gets us somewhere OK.
So, right now, the realistic choices for Israel are to continue their current actions, or in some sense to pause or turn down their intensity, or to go in harder.
Which of those is really going to give them the best odds of achieving what they want? Not sure that it's their current path. One of the criteria for a just war is that it has a reasonable chance of success.
The problem, we are told, with a “ceasefire”, is that it denies Israel’s right to defend itself.
But after several weeks of bombing, all Israel has managed to do is kill ~10,000 Palestinians, of which many will be children.
How many hostages have they recovered? How are Israel’s military aims distinguishable from simply expelling Palestinians from Gaza outright?
Israel has lost Gen Z opinion, to the extent that’s important, and is losing the support of the reasonable minded in the West.
Those middling people, who want to support good people on all sides, the state of Israel's right to exist without the threat of massacre or holocaust and the Palestinian's right to an autonomous state struggle with these questions, and find few answers from polemics of any sort:
What is the best policy for supporting peace loving people on all sides
How should Israel have responded instead if you oppose what they are doing
What is the best policy for Palestinians who do want their autonomy and also recognise Israel's rights.
My personal policy is that Israel must simultaneously make diplomatic overtures in support of a two-state solution, while focusing its military ambitions on recovery of its hostages, a blockade of Gaza, and surgical destruction of Hamas capability.
Palestinian supporters must call for the immediate release of hostages, condemn Hamas, and call for the resumption of democracy in Gaza.
Of course, I am a centrist dad, so these things are not going to happen. I agree it’s a bugger’s muddle, which is why by the way I kind of refuse to condemn those calling at present for a ceasefire.
Israel should get out of gaza and west bank and ban all entry to palestinians to Israel forever. Only chance they have of not getting repeat visits from the nutjobs. Anybody caught in Israel gets life in jail to deter. Let the arabs fund the palestinians.
On Indy I think the change is not the support for YES, but the sense of it as an urgent necessity rather than a vague but pleasing aspiration
For a long time the Nats - brilliantly - kept dangling the YES Indy carrot like the donkey electorate was gonna eat it any moment. Now the donkey realises the carrot was a hologram, and any nice food is a long way down the road
Sure, the donkey would still LIKE a juicy carrot, but the donkey has accepted that there are now more pressing needs, like eating some grass, getting down the road, maybe humping a sexy jackass in the next village
So 45% support for YES no longer translates into anything like 45 points for the SNP, coz the SNP don’t have any fake carrots left, and the new SNP are also really quite shit, and resented for the whole carrot thing, and because donkey is bored of carrying them
I reckon the Nats are more likely to go under 30 seats than stay over, so the LDs are probably, rightly, modest favorites in this market
The 2014 referendum was not a hologram and nor was the demand for another one after the Brexit-fuelled Holyrood victory of the SNP on that specific platform.
Suspect your analogy comes mainly from a desire to present Sindy supporting Scottish people as donkies.
What? Of course 2014 was not a hologram. My point is that AFTER that vote the idea of an imminent new vote became increasingly fantastical, in reality, yet the SNP managed to persuade everyone, and keep persuading them, that Sindyref2 was just a few inches away. One more heave
That illusion is shattered. Stop being stupid. You’re already quite boring. Stupid AS WELL would make you unreadable
But you didn't say that. You just said they've been dangling their carrots "for a long time". If by this you specifically meant since 2014 well ok (ish) but how would we be expected to guess that?
After all you used to bang on about 2014 being very recent. So recent that it would be absurd to even think about another referendum despite it being voted for!
See? Hoist again, I'm afraid. Bamboozled by Kuntibula the Logic Monster.
Also given that we are being held hostage , it would not matter if SNP got ZERO votes , we would still have to do something else.
Like what though? It's hard to see a Sindy route which doesn't go via another referendum - and that's in the gift of Westminster.
Not if you look at it on the union treaty rather than some English later confection in English Law.
That would require UDI, which Westminster, the successor to the 1707 English and Scottish Parliaments, wouldn't grant either
One of the Pont brothers who played for Essex some years ago tried, but I don’t think he did very well. Unless I’m much mistaken he’s back in UK and, I think, running a cricket school.
If there were 1,000 terrorists in that number, would it change your view?
That would still leave 11,300...
Who may have been protecting the terrorists.
War is shit. The innocent die in huge numbers just by being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Sometimes, as in this war the innocent die for other reasons.
Victim-blaming alert!
Well, when you're toasted on a Hamas stick, don't expect me clamouring to save you. These people are vile.
I quite agree regarding Hamas.
I do not believe that the estimated 10-12k Palestinians killed were 'protecting the terrorists' though.
Nobody does.
I refer you to Omnium.
I meant no one reasonable. I don’t include Omnium in that.
I think the LibDems should be very narrow favorites for this market, but certainly not strong favorites. I think they will end up in the 23-26 seat range, while the SNP will be in the 18-22 range.
On Indy I think the change is not the support for YES, but the sense of it as an urgent necessity rather than a vague but pleasing aspiration
For a long time the Nats - brilliantly - kept dangling the YES Indy carrot like the donkey electorate was gonna eat it any moment. Now the donkey realises the carrot was a hologram, and any nice food is a long way down the road
Sure, the donkey would still LIKE a juicy carrot, but the donkey has accepted that there are now more pressing needs, like eating some grass, getting down the road, maybe humping a sexy jackass in the next village
So 45% support for YES no longer translates into anything like 45 points for the SNP, coz the SNP don’t have any fake carrots left, and the new SNP are also really quite shit, and resented for the whole carrot thing, and because donkey is bored of carrying them
I reckon the Nats are more likely to go under 30 seats than stay over, so the LDs are probably, rightly, modest favorites in this market
The 2014 referendum was not a hologram and nor was the demand for another one after the Brexit-fuelled Holyrood victory of the SNP on that specific platform.
Suspect your analogy comes mainly from a desire to present Sindy supporting Scottish people as donkies.
The clown does not even understand that the almost 50% Independence support is not all SNP, the SNP were up until now the only way to get it. Them going down the toilet will not change the minds of Independence supporters but expectations of Independence will continue to grow and w ecannot be held prisoners ad infinitum. You can only kick people for so long till even the fearties get it.
Scottish supporters of the union, who are a larger group, may well feel there is only so much huffing and puffing a minority cause can make before the unionists can get on with their lives without the constant campaigning of a minority for a cause that cannot prevail but can make a lot of noise.
At best it is 50-50 with no campaign at all. Good to see the Scotch experts are keeping up with things. POlish those jackboots up.
Thanks. Those who are part of the UK, a sovereign state, and especially those who live within sight of Scotland (hello across the Solway) are part, however humble, of the 'State of the Union' debate. I support the union with Scotland. At the same time I support a single united Ireland. I won't get a vote on either, nor will anyone living in England. I agree it is a matter for their votes on the matter. (Fortunately in the case of Scotland we have a recent one and another will be along in my lifetime I should think. It will be a win for the union).
Interesting that Biden is coming under pressure from his own party to call for an instant ceasefire in Gaza. The demonstrations are getting bigger and Biden is starting to wobble. It could lead to Starmer looking pretty ridiculous if he is left standing there on his own. One of the big problems is that Netanyahu is a difficult person to get behind for a Democrat President
The problem for Biden is that Netanyahu has him, for all intents and purposes, by the balls. Netty will be well aware that Biden is falling behind in the polls and that, while Gen Z and blocks like the Arab-American vote has specific resonance in places like Michigan, the Jewish vote - and also donations - are critical for the Democrats, not just for the Presidency but also for the House, particularly in areas such as New York and New Jersey. He also probably doesn't want to p1ss off The Donald by throwing Biden a lifeline now there are growing doubts over the outcome of November 2024.
Biden's leverage points are remarkably weak. The Americans could, theoretically, choke off weapon supplies to the Israelis but that is likely to lead to a backlash within moderate Democrat House members and his Senate members. The Republicans would jump on it with glee and contrast it with what the US has given to Ukraine.
"Netty" - wtf is that?
My term for Netanyahu. Are you the Term Police?
Not at all. Just never ever heard him called "Netty". When a diminutive is used it's always "Bibi".
However none of it affects me since I call him Netanyahu.
I call him Netanyahu most of the time. Other times I call him a Fascist Twat.
But Nety's just obscene. I have a very good friend called Netty and she should not be tainted by association in this way.
The problem, we are told, with a “ceasefire”, is that it denies Israel’s right to defend itself.
But after several weeks of bombing, all Israel has managed to do is kill ~10,000 Palestinians, of which many will be children.
How many hostages have they recovered? How are Israel’s military aims distinguishable from simply expelling Palestinians from Gaza outright?
Israel has lost Gen Z opinion, to the extent that’s important, and is losing the support of the reasonable minded in the West.
Those middling people, who want to support good people on all sides, the state of Israel's right to exist without the threat of massacre or holocaust and the Palestinian's right to an autonomous state struggle with these questions, and find few answers from polemics of any sort:
What is the best policy for supporting peace loving people on all sides
How should Israel have responded instead if you oppose what they are doing
What is the best policy for Palestinians who do want their autonomy and also recognise Israel's rights.
My personal policy is that Israel must simultaneously make diplomatic overtures in support of a two-state solution, while focusing its military ambitions on recovery of its hostages, a blockade of Gaza, and surgical destruction of Hamas capability.
Palestinian supporters must call for the immediate release of hostages, condemn Hamas, and call for the resumption of democracy in Gaza.
Of course, I am a centrist dad, so these things are not going to happen. I agree it’s a bugger’s muddle, which is why by the way I kind of refuse to condemn those calling at present for a ceasefire.
Two ways of solving problems.
One is to have a map from here to the destination. The other is to have a vague idea of where the destination is, but basically look in front of you and do what seems to be the best choice of the immediate options available, then pause and reorientate and repeat.
I've been musing on it in the context of sixth formers failing to do physics questions, but it's probably true more widely. It's usually best to have an advance plan all the way to the destination, but what do we do when that plan doesn't exist? We bumble, wander, try low-cost bets to see what happens. And usually, that gets us somewhere OK.
So, right now, the realistic choices for Israel are to continue their current actions, or in some sense to pause or turn down their intensity, or to go in harder.
Which of those is really going to give them the best odds of achieving what they want? Not sure that it's their current path. One of the criteria for a just war is that it has a reasonable chance of success.
We know what Hamas's ideal destination is: no Israel.
But what is Israel's (*) ideal destination? Given their past actions, it is *not* to wipe out all Palestinians (hence why Palestinians are allowed into Israel to work, and the fact that Palestinians exist (given Israel's capacity to wipe them out...)
Are we seeing:
*) A genuine attempt to disrupt, or even wipe out, Hamas's capability to wage war, by direct combat or missile attack, made more difficult by the very nature of Hamas? *) and/or a punishment beating for Hamas and the Palestinians generally? *) and/or an attempt to make Gaza an unsustainable state? *) and/or incoherent rage after a hideous terrorist attack, with no defined destination?
I've no idea which of these, or how much of any of them, are driving Israel's actions. Some are 'better' than others.
The problem, we are told, with a “ceasefire”, is that it denies Israel’s right to defend itself.
But after several weeks of bombing, all Israel has managed to do is kill ~10,000 Palestinians, of which many will be children.
How many hostages have they recovered? How are Israel’s military aims distinguishable from simply expelling Palestinians from Gaza outright?
Israel has lost Gen Z opinion, to the extent that’s important, and is losing the support of the reasonable minded in the West.
Israel has a right to destroy Hamas in Gaza and free its hostages, it does not have a right to evict Palestinians from Gaza and the West Bank who are not in Hamas
If it goes on the way it’s started every young person in The Strip will join Hamas!
Doubt there will be much left for them to live on and Israel will not be providing aid , jobs etc in future. Hard to see how many will be able to inhabit it and survive.
If they’re forced to leave they and their children will likely be more ‘radical’.
Odd, looking at all the post reshuffle polls, to see an apparent trend of Labour down, Tories up a bit, Lib Dems up and Ref fairly flat. Wasn’t expecting that.
It was inevitable the moment always wrong Leon called it the worst reshuffle in history.
My legendary modesty prevents me from pointing out that I said the return of Dave would lead to a Tory boost.
There may ultimately be a Tory boost, but not really so far. Since the reshuffle Tory poll movement (versus pollsters' previous poll) have been:
-4 Find Out Now -3 YouGov -3 Techne +1 We Think +1 Opinium +1 More in Common
So that's an average of -1.2% but really it's all MOE surely?
Now do the same for the change in the Labour lead.
So what's the theory?
That the reshuffle has won back some votes in the centre, lost some on the right, and that's more useful because winning back centrist votes counts double in a sense (+1 to Con, -1 to Lab)?
Sounds plausible- but it depends on the centrewards shuffle being a real thing. In which case, Sunak really needs to turn down the rhetoric on Rwanda and not muck about with the Autumn Statement, or anything else, for the next year or so.
Can't see it happening, unfortunately. Partly because he is weeny and weaky, but also because he is pretty right wing himself.
I'm just winding up Leon.
I don't think Dave's return will shift the polls much either way. I can see some votes being won back by the Tories from the One Nationers but Starmer's winning the next election, the only question is how many seats he wins.
I think that firing Suella Braverman proved popular on balance, and was the correct move.
No PM can have a minister who goes rogue, and among my pretty right wing circle, there was considerable disgust at her saying homelessness was a lifestyle choice.
She had decided she wanted to be fired. At that point, Sunak had no choice.
If there were 1,000 terrorists in that number, would it change your view?
That would still leave 11,300...
Who may have been protecting the terrorists.
War is shit. The innocent die in huge numbers just by being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Sometimes, as in this war the innocent die for other reasons.
Victim-blaming alert!
Well, when you're toasted on a Hamas stick, don't expect me clamouring to save you. These people are vile.
I quite agree regarding Hamas.
I do not believe that the estimated 10-12k Palestinians killed were 'protecting the terrorists' though.
Nobody does.
I refer you to Omnium.
I meant no one reasonable. I don’t include Omnium in that.
Try me! (But these issues are not to be squabbled over. And anyway most PBers are reasonable.)
Odd, looking at all the post reshuffle polls, to see an apparent trend of Labour down, Tories up a bit, Lib Dems up and Ref fairly flat. Wasn’t expecting that.
It was inevitable the moment always wrong Leon called it the worst reshuffle in history.
My legendary modesty prevents me from pointing out that I said the return of Dave would lead to a Tory boost.
There may ultimately be a Tory boost, but not really so far. Since the reshuffle Tory poll movement (versus pollsters' previous poll) have been:
-4 Find Out Now -3 YouGov -3 Techne +1 We Think +1 Opinium +1 More in Common
So that's an average of -1.2% but really it's all MOE surely?
Now do the same for the change in the Labour lead.
So what's the theory?
That the reshuffle has won back some votes in the centre, lost some on the right, and that's more useful because winning back centrist votes counts double in a sense (+1 to Con, -1 to Lab)?
Sounds plausible- but it depends on the centrewards shuffle being a real thing. In which case, Sunak really needs to turn down the rhetoric on Rwanda and not muck about with the Autumn Statement, or anything else, for the next year or so.
Can't see it happening, unfortunately. Partly because he is weeny and weaky, but also because he is pretty right wing himself.
I'm just winding up Leon.
I don't think Dave's return will shift the polls much either way. I can see some votes being won back by the Tories from the One Nationers but Starmer's winning the next election, the only question is how many seats he wins.
I think that firing Suella Braverman proved popular on balance, and was the correct move.
No PM can have a minister who goes rogue, and among my pretty right wing circle, there was considerable disgust at her saying homelessness was a lifestyle choice.
She had decided she wanted to be fired. At that point, Sunak had no choice.
I'm wondering if he made a tactical error in not withdrawing the whip at the same time.
Controversial though it might have been, would anyone really have supported her?
The problem, we are told, with a “ceasefire”, is that it denies Israel’s right to defend itself.
But after several weeks of bombing, all Israel has managed to do is kill ~10,000 Palestinians, of which many will be children.
How many hostages have they recovered? How are Israel’s military aims distinguishable from simply expelling Palestinians from Gaza outright?
Israel has lost Gen Z opinion, to the extent that’s important, and is losing the support of the reasonable minded in the West.
Those middling people, who want to support good people on all sides, the state of Israel's right to exist without the threat of massacre or holocaust and the Palestinian's right to an autonomous state struggle with these questions, and find few answers from polemics of any sort:
What is the best policy for supporting peace loving people on all sides
How should Israel have responded instead if you oppose what they are doing
What is the best policy for Palestinians who do want their autonomy and also recognise Israel's rights.
My personal policy is that Israel must simultaneously make diplomatic overtures in support of a two-state solution, while focusing its military ambitions on recovery of its hostages, a blockade of Gaza, and surgical destruction of Hamas capability.
Palestinian supporters must call for the immediate release of hostages, condemn Hamas, and call for the resumption of democracy in Gaza.
Of course, I am a centrist dad, so these things are not going to happen. I agree it’s a bugger’s muddle, which is why by the way I kind of refuse to condemn those calling at present for a ceasefire.
Two ways of solving problems.
One is to have a map from here to the destination. The other is to have a vague idea of where the destination is, but basically look in front of you and do what seems to be the best choice of the immediate options available, then pause and reorientate and repeat.
I've been musing on it in the context of sixth formers failing to do physics questions, but it's probably true more widely. It's usually best to have an advance plan all the way to the destination, but what do we do when that plan doesn't exist? We bumble, wander, try low-cost bets to see what happens. And usually, that gets us somewhere OK.
So, right now, the realistic choices for Israel are to continue their current actions, or in some sense to pause or turn down their intensity, or to go in harder.
Which of those is really going to give them the best odds of achieving what they want? Not sure that it's their current path. One of the criteria for a just war is that it has a reasonable chance of success.
We know what Hamas's ideal destination is: no Israel.
And for many on the Israeli Right, the ideal destination is no Arabs anywhere in Israel proper OR the Territories.
The problem, we are told, with a “ceasefire”, is that it denies Israel’s right to defend itself.
But after several weeks of bombing, all Israel has managed to do is kill ~10,000 Palestinians, of which many will be children.
How many hostages have they recovered? How are Israel’s military aims distinguishable from simply expelling Palestinians from Gaza outright?
Israel has lost Gen Z opinion, to the extent that’s important, and is losing the support of the reasonable minded in the West.
Those middling people, who want to support good people on all sides, the state of Israel's right to exist without the threat of massacre or holocaust and the Palestinian's right to an autonomous state struggle with these questions, and find few answers from polemics of any sort:
What is the best policy for supporting peace loving people on all sides
How should Israel have responded instead if you oppose what they are doing
What is the best policy for Palestinians who do want their autonomy and also recognise Israel's rights.
My personal policy is that Israel must simultaneously make diplomatic overtures in support of a two-state solution, while focusing its military ambitions on recovery of its hostages, a blockade of Gaza, and surgical destruction of Hamas capability.
Palestinian supporters must call for the immediate release of hostages, condemn Hamas, and call for the resumption of democracy in Gaza.
Of course, I am a centrist dad, so these things are not going to happen. I agree it’s a bugger’s muddle, which is why by the way I kind of refuse to condemn those calling at present for a ceasefire.
Two ways of solving problems.
One is to have a map from here to the destination. The other is to have a vague idea of where the destination is, but basically look in front of you and do what seems to be the best choice of the immediate options available, then pause and reorientate and repeat.
I've been musing on it in the context of sixth formers failing to do physics questions, but it's probably true more widely. It's usually best to have an advance plan all the way to the destination, but what do we do when that plan doesn't exist? We bumble, wander, try low-cost bets to see what happens. And usually, that gets us somewhere OK.
So, right now, the realistic choices for Israel are to continue their current actions, or in some sense to pause or turn down their intensity, or to go in harder.
Which of those is really going to give them the best odds of achieving what they want? Not sure that it's their current path. One of the criteria for a just war is that it has a reasonable chance of success.
We know what Hamas's ideal destination is: no Israel.
And for many on the Israeli Right, the ideal destination is no Arabs anywhere in Israel proper OR the Territories.
The problem, we are told, with a “ceasefire”, is that it denies Israel’s right to defend itself.
But after several weeks of bombing, all Israel has managed to do is kill ~10,000 Palestinians, of which many will be children.
How many hostages have they recovered? How are Israel’s military aims distinguishable from simply expelling Palestinians from Gaza outright?
Israel has lost Gen Z opinion, to the extent that’s important, and is losing the support of the reasonable minded in the West.
Those middling people, who want to support good people on all sides, the state of Israel's right to exist without the threat of massacre or holocaust and the Palestinian's right to an autonomous state struggle with these questions, and find few answers from polemics of any sort:
What is the best policy for supporting peace loving people on all sides
How should Israel have responded instead if you oppose what they are doing
What is the best policy for Palestinians who do want their autonomy and also recognise Israel's rights.
My personal policy is that Israel must simultaneously make diplomatic overtures in support of a two-state solution, while focusing its military ambitions on recovery of its hostages, a blockade of Gaza, and surgical destruction of Hamas capability.
Palestinian supporters must call for the immediate release of hostages, condemn Hamas, and call for the resumption of democracy in Gaza.
Of course, I am a centrist dad, so these things are not going to happen. I agree it’s a bugger’s muddle, which is why by the way I kind of refuse to condemn those calling at present for a ceasefire.
Two ways of solving problems.
One is to have a map from here to the destination. The other is to have a vague idea of where the destination is, but basically look in front of you and do what seems to be the best choice of the immediate options available, then pause and reorientate and repeat.
I've been musing on it in the context of sixth formers failing to do physics questions, but it's probably true more widely. It's usually best to have an advance plan all the way to the destination, but what do we do when that plan doesn't exist? We bumble, wander, try low-cost bets to see what happens. And usually, that gets us somewhere OK.
So, right now, the realistic choices for Israel are to continue their current actions, or in some sense to pause or turn down their intensity, or to go in harder.
Which of those is really going to give them the best odds of achieving what they want? Not sure that it's their current path. One of the criteria for a just war is that it has a reasonable chance of success.
We know what Hamas's ideal destination is: no Israel.
And for many on the Israeli Right, the ideal destination is no Arabs anywhere in Israel proper OR the Territories.
'many' = 'a tiny few'
If he'd said 'many on the Israeli right want to incorporate the West Bank into Israel and make Gaza uninhabitable,' however, he wouldn't have been far wrong.
We may be watching it happen over the next few months.
The problem, we are told, with a “ceasefire”, is that it denies Israel’s right to defend itself.
But after several weeks of bombing, all Israel has managed to do is kill ~10,000 Palestinians, of which many will be children.
How many hostages have they recovered? How are Israel’s military aims distinguishable from simply expelling Palestinians from Gaza outright?
Israel has lost Gen Z opinion, to the extent that’s important, and is losing the support of the reasonable minded in the West.
Those middling people, who want to support good people on all sides, the state of Israel's right to exist without the threat of massacre or holocaust and the Palestinian's right to an autonomous state struggle with these questions, and find few answers from polemics of any sort:
What is the best policy for supporting peace loving people on all sides
How should Israel have responded instead if you oppose what they are doing
What is the best policy for Palestinians who do want their autonomy and also recognise Israel's rights.
My personal policy is that Israel must simultaneously make diplomatic overtures in support of a two-state solution, while focusing its military ambitions on recovery of its hostages, a blockade of Gaza, and surgical destruction of Hamas capability.
Palestinian supporters must call for the immediate release of hostages, condemn Hamas, and call for the resumption of democracy in Gaza.
Of course, I am a centrist dad, so these things are not going to happen. I agree it’s a bugger’s muddle, which is why by the way I kind of refuse to condemn those calling at present for a ceasefire.
Two ways of solving problems.
One is to have a map from here to the destination. The other is to have a vague idea of where the destination is, but basically look in front of you and do what seems to be the best choice of the immediate options available, then pause and reorientate and repeat.
I've been musing on it in the context of sixth formers failing to do physics questions, but it's probably true more widely. It's usually best to have an advance plan all the way to the destination, but what do we do when that plan doesn't exist? We bumble, wander, try low-cost bets to see what happens. And usually, that gets us somewhere OK.
So, right now, the realistic choices for Israel are to continue their current actions, or in some sense to pause or turn down their intensity, or to go in harder.
Which of those is really going to give them the best odds of achieving what they want? Not sure that it's their current path. One of the criteria for a just war is that it has a reasonable chance of success.
We know what Hamas's ideal destination is: no Israel.
And for many on the Israeli Right, the ideal destination is no Arabs anywhere in Israel proper OR the Territories.
The proportion of Israelis who actually want that is probably smaller than the proportion of Brits who'd want to deport you.
The problem, we are told, with a “ceasefire”, is that it denies Israel’s right to defend itself.
But after several weeks of bombing, all Israel has managed to do is kill ~10,000 Palestinians, of which many will be children.
How many hostages have they recovered? How are Israel’s military aims distinguishable from simply expelling Palestinians from Gaza outright?
Israel has lost Gen Z opinion, to the extent that’s important, and is losing the support of the reasonable minded in the West.
Those middling people, who want to support good people on all sides, the state of Israel's right to exist without the threat of massacre or holocaust and the Palestinian's right to an autonomous state struggle with these questions, and find few answers from polemics of any sort:
What is the best policy for supporting peace loving people on all sides
How should Israel have responded instead if you oppose what they are doing
What is the best policy for Palestinians who do want their autonomy and also recognise Israel's rights.
My personal policy is that Israel must simultaneously make diplomatic overtures in support of a two-state solution, while focusing its military ambitions on recovery of its hostages, a blockade of Gaza, and surgical destruction of Hamas capability.
Palestinian supporters must call for the immediate release of hostages, condemn Hamas, and call for the resumption of democracy in Gaza.
Of course, I am a centrist dad, so these things are not going to happen. I agree it’s a bugger’s muddle, which is why by the way I kind of refuse to condemn those calling at present for a ceasefire.
Two ways of solving problems.
One is to have a map from here to the destination. The other is to have a vague idea of where the destination is, but basically look in front of you and do what seems to be the best choice of the immediate options available, then pause and reorientate and repeat.
I've been musing on it in the context of sixth formers failing to do physics questions, but it's probably true more widely. It's usually best to have an advance plan all the way to the destination, but what do we do when that plan doesn't exist? We bumble, wander, try low-cost bets to see what happens. And usually, that gets us somewhere OK.
So, right now, the realistic choices for Israel are to continue their current actions, or in some sense to pause or turn down their intensity, or to go in harder.
Which of those is really going to give them the best odds of achieving what they want? Not sure that it's their current path. One of the criteria for a just war is that it has a reasonable chance of success.
Very helpful, thanks. A 'just war' difficulty lies here: It is unthinkable that Israel would not act in some military way following 7th October. In the west we generally agree that mere retaliation in itself is not just (though the tradition in Jewish perspective may be different). But what possible action has 'a reasonable chance of success', given that there is no clarity as to what success would look like in terms of outcome, and all outcomes appear to involve unacceptable innocent losses.
The problem, we are told, with a “ceasefire”, is that it denies Israel’s right to defend itself.
But after several weeks of bombing, all Israel has managed to do is kill ~10,000 Palestinians, of which many will be children.
How many hostages have they recovered? How are Israel’s military aims distinguishable from simply expelling Palestinians from Gaza outright?
Israel has lost Gen Z opinion, to the extent that’s important, and is losing the support of the reasonable minded in the West.
Those middling people, who want to support good people on all sides, the state of Israel's right to exist without the threat of massacre or holocaust and the Palestinian's right to an autonomous state struggle with these questions, and find few answers from polemics of any sort:
What is the best policy for supporting peace loving people on all sides
How should Israel have responded instead if you oppose what they are doing
What is the best policy for Palestinians who do want their autonomy and also recognise Israel's rights.
My personal policy is that Israel must simultaneously make diplomatic overtures in support of a two-state solution, while focusing its military ambitions on recovery of its hostages, a blockade of Gaza, and surgical destruction of Hamas capability.
Palestinian supporters must call for the immediate release of hostages, condemn Hamas, and call for the resumption of democracy in Gaza.
Of course, I am a centrist dad, so these things are not going to happen. I agree it’s a bugger’s muddle, which is why by the way I kind of refuse to condemn those calling at present for a ceasefire.
Two ways of solving problems.
One is to have a map from here to the destination. The other is to have a vague idea of where the destination is, but basically look in front of you and do what seems to be the best choice of the immediate options available, then pause and reorientate and repeat.
I've been musing on it in the context of sixth formers failing to do physics questions, but it's probably true more widely. It's usually best to have an advance plan all the way to the destination, but what do we do when that plan doesn't exist? We bumble, wander, try low-cost bets to see what happens. And usually, that gets us somewhere OK.
So, right now, the realistic choices for Israel are to continue their current actions, or in some sense to pause or turn down their intensity, or to go in harder.
Which of those is really going to give them the best odds of achieving what they want? Not sure that it's their current path. One of the criteria for a just war is that it has a reasonable chance of success.
We know what Hamas's ideal destination is: no Israel.
And for many on the Israeli Right, the ideal destination is no Arabs anywhere in Israel proper OR the Territories.
Well, yes. And Hamas's actions have given those nutters a stronger hand.
If a member of your family had been killed in that attack, or carried away as a hostage, or you had to scurry to a bomb shelter every time Hamas launched a rocket (a frequent occurrence), wouldn't you be ever so slightly anti-Palestinian?
(And yes, I know Israeli actions have the opposite effect on Palestinians.)
BTW, do you have an answer to the question I asked below?
The problem, we are told, with a “ceasefire”, is that it denies Israel’s right to defend itself.
But after several weeks of bombing, all Israel has managed to do is kill ~10,000 Palestinians, of which many will be children.
How many hostages have they recovered? How are Israel’s military aims distinguishable from simply expelling Palestinians from Gaza outright?
Israel has lost Gen Z opinion, to the extent that’s important, and is losing the support of the reasonable minded in the West.
Those middling people, who want to support good people on all sides, the state of Israel's right to exist without the threat of massacre or holocaust and the Palestinian's right to an autonomous state struggle with these questions, and find few answers from polemics of any sort:
What is the best policy for supporting peace loving people on all sides
How should Israel have responded instead if you oppose what they are doing
What is the best policy for Palestinians who do want their autonomy and also recognise Israel's rights.
My personal policy is that Israel must simultaneously make diplomatic overtures in support of a two-state solution, while focusing its military ambitions on recovery of its hostages, a blockade of Gaza, and surgical destruction of Hamas capability.
Palestinian supporters must call for the immediate release of hostages, condemn Hamas, and call for the resumption of democracy in Gaza.
Of course, I am a centrist dad, so these things are not going to happen. I agree it’s a bugger’s muddle, which is why by the way I kind of refuse to condemn those calling at present for a ceasefire.
Two ways of solving problems.
One is to have a map from here to the destination. The other is to have a vague idea of where the destination is, but basically look in front of you and do what seems to be the best choice of the immediate options available, then pause and reorientate and repeat.
I've been musing on it in the context of sixth formers failing to do physics questions, but it's probably true more widely. It's usually best to have an advance plan all the way to the destination, but what do we do when that plan doesn't exist? We bumble, wander, try low-cost bets to see what happens. And usually, that gets us somewhere OK.
So, right now, the realistic choices for Israel are to continue their current actions, or in some sense to pause or turn down their intensity, or to go in harder.
Which of those is really going to give them the best odds of achieving what they want? Not sure that it's their current path. One of the criteria for a just war is that it has a reasonable chance of success.
We know what Hamas's ideal destination is: no Israel.
And for many on the Israeli Right, the ideal destination is no Arabs anywhere in Israel proper OR the Territories.
'many' = 'a tiny few'
If he'd said 'many on the Israeli right want to incorporate the West Bank into Israel and make Gaza uninhabitable,' however, he wouldn't have been far wrong.
We may be watching it happen over the next few months.
At some stage, I wonder if we need to stop giving Likud the cover of being called “on the right” as if they are a mainstream western party. “Hardline nationalist” seems fair.
The problem, we are told, with a “ceasefire”, is that it denies Israel’s right to defend itself.
But after several weeks of bombing, all Israel has managed to do is kill ~10,000 Palestinians, of which many will be children.
How many hostages have they recovered? How are Israel’s military aims distinguishable from simply expelling Palestinians from Gaza outright?
Israel has lost Gen Z opinion, to the extent that’s important, and is losing the support of the reasonable minded in the West.
Those middling people, who want to support good people on all sides, the state of Israel's right to exist without the threat of massacre or holocaust and the Palestinian's right to an autonomous state struggle with these questions, and find few answers from polemics of any sort:
What is the best policy for supporting peace loving people on all sides
How should Israel have responded instead if you oppose what they are doing
What is the best policy for Palestinians who do want their autonomy and also recognise Israel's rights.
My personal policy is that Israel must simultaneously make diplomatic overtures in support of a two-state solution, while focusing its military ambitions on recovery of its hostages, a blockade of Gaza, and surgical destruction of Hamas capability.
Palestinian supporters must call for the immediate release of hostages, condemn Hamas, and call for the resumption of democracy in Gaza.
Of course, I am a centrist dad, so these things are not going to happen. I agree it’s a bugger’s muddle, which is why by the way I kind of refuse to condemn those calling at present for a ceasefire.
Two ways of solving problems.
One is to have a map from here to the destination. The other is to have a vague idea of where the destination is, but basically look in front of you and do what seems to be the best choice of the immediate options available, then pause and reorientate and repeat.
I've been musing on it in the context of sixth formers failing to do physics questions, but it's probably true more widely. It's usually best to have an advance plan all the way to the destination, but what do we do when that plan doesn't exist? We bumble, wander, try low-cost bets to see what happens. And usually, that gets us somewhere OK.
So, right now, the realistic choices for Israel are to continue their current actions, or in some sense to pause or turn down their intensity, or to go in harder.
Which of those is really going to give them the best odds of achieving what they want? Not sure that it's their current path. One of the criteria for a just war is that it has a reasonable chance of success.
We know what Hamas's ideal destination is: no Israel.
And for many on the Israeli Right, the ideal destination is no Arabs anywhere in Israel proper OR the Territories.
'many' = 'a tiny few'
If he'd said 'many on the Israeli right want to incorporate the West Bank into Israel and make Gaza uninhabitable,' however, he wouldn't have been far wrong.
We may be watching it happen over the next few months.
You're closer to the truth. (I have no great insight though)
Odd, looking at all the post reshuffle polls, to see an apparent trend of Labour down, Tories up a bit, Lib Dems up and Ref fairly flat. Wasn’t expecting that.
Two fortuitous events. Ridding himself of Braverman gets rid of a nasty niff that's been hanging around the Tories since her appointment and Starmer's behaviour on Gaza. If a quarter of the parliamentary Party are sufficiently mad with him to risk their careers by voting against him just think what it must be like for his voters.
Lets hope this isn't terminal. I wouldn't bet on it.
Odd, looking at all the post reshuffle polls, to see an apparent trend of Labour down, Tories up a bit, Lib Dems up and Ref fairly flat. Wasn’t expecting that.
Two fortuitous events. Ridding himself of Braverman gets rid of a nasty niff that's been hanging around the Tories since her appointment and Starmer's behaviour on Gaza. If a quarter of the parliamentary Party are sufficiently mad with him to risk their careers by voting against him just think what it must be like for his voters.
Lets hope this isn't terminal. I wouldn't bet on it.
Well, 'terminal' means 5 more years of Tory nastiness, ineptitude and scandal, so you need to suck it up pal and get back on board.
Odd, looking at all the post reshuffle polls, to see an apparent trend of Labour down, Tories up a bit, Lib Dems up and Ref fairly flat. Wasn’t expecting that.
Two fortuitous events. Ridding himself of Braverman gets rid of a nasty niff that's been hanging around the Tories since her appointment and Starmer's behaviour on Gaza. If a quarter of the parliamentary Party are sufficiently mad with him to risk their careers by voting against him just think what it must be like for his voters.
Lets hope this isn't terminal. I wouldn't bet on it.
For far too long the nutters have been allowed to wander freely in the fertile Tory uplands.
The problem, we are told, with a “ceasefire”, is that it denies Israel’s right to defend itself.
But after several weeks of bombing, all Israel has managed to do is kill ~10,000 Palestinians, of which many will be children.
How many hostages have they recovered? How are Israel’s military aims distinguishable from simply expelling Palestinians from Gaza outright?
Israel has lost Gen Z opinion, to the extent that’s important, and is losing the support of the reasonable minded in the West.
Those middling people, who want to support good people on all sides, the state of Israel's right to exist without the threat of massacre or holocaust and the Palestinian's right to an autonomous state struggle with these questions, and find few answers from polemics of any sort:
What is the best policy for supporting peace loving people on all sides
How should Israel have responded instead if you oppose what they are doing
What is the best policy for Palestinians who do want their autonomy and also recognise Israel's rights.
My personal policy is that Israel must simultaneously make diplomatic overtures in support of a two-state solution, while focusing its military ambitions on recovery of its hostages, a blockade of Gaza, and surgical destruction of Hamas capability.
Palestinian supporters must call for the immediate release of hostages, condemn Hamas, and call for the resumption of democracy in Gaza.
Of course, I am a centrist dad, so these things are not going to happen. I agree it’s a bugger’s muddle, which is why by the way I kind of refuse to condemn those calling at present for a ceasefire.
Two ways of solving problems.
One is to have a map from here to the destination. The other is to have a vague idea of where the destination is, but basically look in front of you and do what seems to be the best choice of the immediate options available, then pause and reorientate and repeat.
I've been musing on it in the context of sixth formers failing to do physics questions, but it's probably true more widely. It's usually best to have an advance plan all the way to the destination, but what do we do when that plan doesn't exist? We bumble, wander, try low-cost bets to see what happens. And usually, that gets us somewhere OK.
So, right now, the realistic choices for Israel are to continue their current actions, or in some sense to pause or turn down their intensity, or to go in harder.
Which of those is really going to give them the best odds of achieving what they want? Not sure that it's their current path. One of the criteria for a just war is that it has a reasonable chance of success.
We know what Hamas's ideal destination is: no Israel.
And for many on the Israeli Right, the ideal destination is no Arabs anywhere in Israel proper OR the Territories.
'many' = 'a tiny few'
If he'd said 'many on the Israeli right want to incorporate the West Bank into Israel and make Gaza uninhabitable,' however, he wouldn't have been far wrong.
We may be watching it happen over the next few months.
At some stage, I wonder if we need to stop giving Likud the cover of being called “on the right” as if they are a mainstream western party. “Hardline nationalist” seems fair.
Likud are the direct descendants of Irgun, the terrorist organisation behind the bombing of the King David Hotel. Ancient history of course, but in 2006 Netanyahu described it as a “legitimate act”.
Israel has basically been a Likud-run state for 20 years.
Odd, looking at all the post reshuffle polls, to see an apparent trend of Labour down, Tories up a bit, Lib Dems up and Ref fairly flat. Wasn’t expecting that.
Two fortuitous events. Ridding himself of Braverman gets rid of a nasty niff that's been hanging around the Tories since her appointment and Starmer's behaviour on Gaza. If a quarter of the parliamentary Party are sufficiently mad with him to risk their careers by voting against him just think what it must be like for his voters.
Lets hope this isn't terminal. I wouldn't bet on it.
For far too long the nutters have been allowed to wander freely in the fertile Tory uplands.
Sadly, both Sunak and Hunt appear to have their fingernails deeply embedded in the doorframe.
AUTUMN STATEMENT 1 There is zero chance of the inheritance tax rate being cut on Wednesday. The chancellor was clear today that all tax measures will be designed to stimulate growth - ie they will be supply side reforms - and an IHT cut does not fit that rubric. If it happens it will come in spring budget (it has been considered by Treasury)
AUTUMN STATEMENT 1 There is zero chance of the inheritance tax rate being cut on Wednesday. The chancellor was clear today that all tax measures will be designed to stimulate growth - ie they will be supply side reforms - and an IHT cut does not fit that rubric. If it happens it will come in spring budget (it has been considered by Treasury)
The problem, we are told, with a “ceasefire”, is that it denies Israel’s right to defend itself.
But after several weeks of bombing, all Israel has managed to do is kill ~10,000 Palestinians, of which many will be children.
How many hostages have they recovered? How are Israel’s military aims distinguishable from simply expelling Palestinians from Gaza outright?
Israel has lost Gen Z opinion, to the extent that’s important, and is losing the support of the reasonable minded in the West.
Those middling people, who want to support good people on all sides, the state of Israel's right to exist without the threat of massacre or holocaust and the Palestinian's right to an autonomous state struggle with these questions, and find few answers from polemics of any sort:
What is the best policy for supporting peace loving people on all sides
How should Israel have responded instead if you oppose what they are doing
What is the best policy for Palestinians who do want their autonomy and also recognise Israel's rights.
My personal policy is that Israel must simultaneously make diplomatic overtures in support of a two-state solution, while focusing its military ambitions on recovery of its hostages, a blockade of Gaza, and surgical destruction of Hamas capability.
Palestinian supporters must call for the immediate release of hostages, condemn Hamas, and call for the resumption of democracy in Gaza.
Of course, I am a centrist dad, so these things are not going to happen. I agree it’s a bugger’s muddle, which is why by the way I kind of refuse to condemn those calling at present for a ceasefire.
Two ways of solving problems.
One is to have a map from here to the destination. The other is to have a vague idea of where the destination is, but basically look in front of you and do what seems to be the best choice of the immediate options available, then pause and reorientate and repeat.
I've been musing on it in the context of sixth formers failing to do physics questions, but it's probably true more widely. It's usually best to have an advance plan all the way to the destination, but what do we do when that plan doesn't exist? We bumble, wander, try low-cost bets to see what happens. And usually, that gets us somewhere OK.
So, right now, the realistic choices for Israel are to continue their current actions, or in some sense to pause or turn down their intensity, or to go in harder.
Which of those is really going to give them the best odds of achieving what they want? Not sure that it's their current path. One of the criteria for a just war is that it has a reasonable chance of success.
We know what Hamas's ideal destination is: no Israel.
And for many on the Israeli Right, the ideal destination is no Arabs anywhere in Israel proper OR the Territories.
'many' = 'a tiny few'
If he'd said 'many on the Israeli right want to incorporate the West Bank into Israel and make Gaza uninhabitable,' however, he wouldn't have been far wrong.
We may be watching it happen over the next few months.
At some stage, I wonder if we need to stop giving Likud the cover of being called “on the right” as if they are a mainstream western party. “Hardline nationalist” seems fair.
Likud are the direct descendants of Irgun, the terrorist organisation behind the bombing of the King David Hotel. Ancient history of course, but in 2006 Netanyahu described it as a “legitimate act”.
Israel has basically been a Likud-run state for 20 years.
PR's wonderful, isn't it?
Your post is more or less correct, of course, but that 20 year period does include Likud co-founder Ariel Sharon's complete disengagement from Gaza in 2005 - a move that cost him and his party a huge amount, politically and personally.
Sharon staked his reputation on the Gaza disengagement being a huge step towards long term peace, on the basis that it would be that much harder for Hamas and the other terror groups in Gaza to recruit, if there was no obvious enemy to fight against, and if Israel was seen to be providing water, jobs and other economic resources to the Strip. That theory has now been tested to destruction and been found severely wanting.
AUTUMN STATEMENT 1 There is zero chance of the inheritance tax rate being cut on Wednesday. The chancellor was clear today that all tax measures will be designed to stimulate growth - ie they will be supply side reforms - and an IHT cut does not fit that rubric. If it happens it will come in spring budget (it has been considered by Treasury)
Odd, looking at all the post reshuffle polls, to see an apparent trend of Labour down, Tories up a bit, Lib Dems up and Ref fairly flat. Wasn’t expecting that.
It was inevitable the moment always wrong Leon called it the worst reshuffle in history.
My legendary modesty prevents me from pointing out that I said the return of Dave would lead to a Tory boost.
There may ultimately be a Tory boost, but not really so far. Since the reshuffle Tory poll movement (versus pollsters' previous poll) have been:
-4 Find Out Now -3 YouGov -3 Techne +1 We Think +1 Opinium +1 More in Common
So that's an average of -1.2% but really it's all MOE surely?
Now do the same for the change in the Labour lead.
Labour lead:
+5 Find Out Now -1 YouGov +3 Techne -4 We Think -4 Opinium -4 More in Common
So that's an average Labour lead reduction of -0.7%. Hardly earth shattering.
It's the start of the Dave bounce, give it a few more weeks.
AUTUMN STATEMENT 1 There is zero chance of the inheritance tax rate being cut on Wednesday. The chancellor was clear today that all tax measures will be designed to stimulate growth - ie they will be supply side reforms - and an IHT cut does not fit that rubric. If it happens it will come in spring budget (it has been considered by Treasury)
Not sure why anyone ever fell for the IHT cut . The Tories will save it for closer to the GE .
Best place for it is in a manifesto that never gets implemented. Gain some votes, reduce the defeat, but never actually do it. Because the much vaunted fiscal headroom (debt just about stops growing five years hence) depends on spending plans that Just Aren't Possible, under any government.
AUTUMN STATEMENT 1 There is zero chance of the inheritance tax rate being cut on Wednesday. The chancellor was clear today that all tax measures will be designed to stimulate growth - ie they will be supply side reforms - and an IHT cut does not fit that rubric. If it happens it will come in spring budget (it has been considered by Treasury)
The problem, we are told, with a “ceasefire”, is that it denies Israel’s right to defend itself.
But after several weeks of bombing, all Israel has managed to do is kill ~10,000 Palestinians, of which many will be children.
How many hostages have they recovered? How are Israel’s military aims distinguishable from simply expelling Palestinians from Gaza outright?
Israel has lost Gen Z opinion, to the extent that’s important, and is losing the support of the reasonable minded in the West.
Those middling people, who want to support good people on all sides, the state of Israel's right to exist without the threat of massacre or holocaust and the Palestinian's right to an autonomous state struggle with these questions, and find few answers from polemics of any sort:
What is the best policy for supporting peace loving people on all sides
How should Israel have responded instead if you oppose what they are doing
What is the best policy for Palestinians who do want their autonomy and also recognise Israel's rights.
My personal policy is that Israel must simultaneously make diplomatic overtures in support of a two-state solution, while focusing its military ambitions on recovery of its hostages, a blockade of Gaza, and surgical destruction of Hamas capability.
Palestinian supporters must call for the immediate release of hostages, condemn Hamas, and call for the resumption of democracy in Gaza.
Of course, I am a centrist dad, so these things are not going to happen. I agree it’s a bugger’s muddle, which is why by the way I kind of refuse to condemn those calling at present for a ceasefire.
Two ways of solving problems.
One is to have a map from here to the destination. The other is to have a vague idea of where the destination is, but basically look in front of you and do what seems to be the best choice of the immediate options available, then pause and reorientate and repeat.
I've been musing on it in the context of sixth formers failing to do physics questions, but it's probably true more widely. It's usually best to have an advance plan all the way to the destination, but what do we do when that plan doesn't exist? We bumble, wander, try low-cost bets to see what happens. And usually, that gets us somewhere OK.
So, right now, the realistic choices for Israel are to continue their current actions, or in some sense to pause or turn down their intensity, or to go in harder.
Which of those is really going to give them the best odds of achieving what they want? Not sure that it's their current path. One of the criteria for a just war is that it has a reasonable chance of success.
We know what Hamas's ideal destination is: no Israel.
And for many on the Israeli Right, the ideal destination is no Arabs anywhere in Israel proper OR the Territories.
'many' = 'a tiny few'
If he'd said 'many on the Israeli right want to incorporate the West Bank into Israel and make Gaza uninhabitable,' however, he wouldn't have been far wrong.
We may be watching it happen over the next few months.
At some stage, I wonder if we need to stop giving Likud the cover of being called “on the right” as if they are a mainstream western party. “Hardline nationalist” seems fair.
Likud are the direct descendants of Irgun, the terrorist organisation behind the bombing of the King David Hotel. Ancient history of course, but in 2006 Netanyahu described it as a “legitimate act”.
Israel has basically been a Likud-run state for 20 years.
Odd, looking at all the post reshuffle polls, to see an apparent trend of Labour down, Tories up a bit, Lib Dems up and Ref fairly flat. Wasn’t expecting that.
It was inevitable the moment always wrong Leon called it the worst reshuffle in history.
My legendary modesty prevents me from pointing out that I said the return of Dave would lead to a Tory boost.
There may ultimately be a Tory boost, but not really so far. Since the reshuffle Tory poll movement (versus pollsters' previous poll) have been:
-4 Find Out Now -3 YouGov -3 Techne +1 We Think +1 Opinium +1 More in Common
So that's an average of -1.2% but really it's all MOE surely?
Now do the same for the change in the Labour lead.
So what's the theory?
That the reshuffle has won back some votes in the centre, lost some on the right, and that's more useful because winning back centrist votes counts double in a sense (+1 to Con, -1 to Lab)?
Sounds plausible- but it depends on the centrewards shuffle being a real thing. In which case, Sunak really needs to turn down the rhetoric on Rwanda and not muck about with the Autumn Statement, or anything else, for the next year or so.
Can't see it happening, unfortunately. Partly because he is weeny and weaky, but also because he is pretty right wing himself.
I'm just winding up Leon.
I don't think Dave's return will shift the polls much either way. I can see some votes being won back by the Tories from the One Nationers but Starmer's winning the next election, the only question is how many seats he wins.
I think that firing Suella Braverman proved popular on balance, and was the correct move.
No PM can have a minister who goes rogue, and among my pretty right wing circle, there was considerable disgust at her saying homelessness was a lifestyle choice.
She had decided she wanted to be fired. At that point, Sunak had no choice.
I'm wondering if he made a tactical error in not withdrawing the whip at the same time.
Controversial though it might have been, would anyone really have supported her?
He could have had a twofer - and lost Andrea Jenkyns too....
Odd, looking at all the post reshuffle polls, to see an apparent trend of Labour down, Tories up a bit, Lib Dems up and Ref fairly flat. Wasn’t expecting that.
Two fortuitous events. Ridding himself of Braverman gets rid of a nasty niff that's been hanging around the Tories since her appointment and Starmer's behaviour on Gaza. If a quarter of the parliamentary Party are sufficiently mad with him to risk their careers by voting against him just think what it must be like for his voters.
Lets hope this isn't terminal. I wouldn't bet on it.
Well, 'terminal' means 5 more years of Tory nastiness, ineptitude and scandal, so you need to suck it up pal and get back on board.
I'll be voting Labour but I'm hoping this might be a wake up call. I don't want a Labour leader drifting in the slipstream of the Tories on the presumption that they'll lose because they're crap. I was a big fan of Blair because until Iraq I always felt his instincts were sound. I'm really having my doubts about Starmer.
AUTUMN STATEMENT 1 There is zero chance of the inheritance tax rate being cut on Wednesday. The chancellor was clear today that all tax measures will be designed to stimulate growth - ie they will be supply side reforms - and an IHT cut does not fit that rubric. If it happens it will come in spring budget (it has been considered by Treasury)
Not sure why anyone ever fell for the IHT cut . The Tories will save it for closer to the GE .
So what was the f-ing point briefing every journos in a twenty mile radius of Westminster that this was being very seriously considered?
It is a bloody shambles.
What about -
1) Journalists were writing stuff that they were making up. Remember the inside source who explained in detail that there was going to be no financial support in the COVID measures?
2) variant of 1) - trying to create political weather.
3) Various semi involved politicos were briefing their pet ideas.
Odd, looking at all the post reshuffle polls, to see an apparent trend of Labour down, Tories up a bit, Lib Dems up and Ref fairly flat. Wasn’t expecting that.
Two fortuitous events. Ridding himself of Braverman gets rid of a nasty niff that's been hanging around the Tories since her appointment and Starmer's behaviour on Gaza. If a quarter of the parliamentary Party are sufficiently mad with him to risk their careers by voting against him just think what it must be like for his voters.
Lets hope this isn't terminal. I wouldn't bet on it.
Well, 'terminal' means 5 more years of Tory nastiness, ineptitude and scandal, so you need to suck it up pal and get back on board.
AUTUMN STATEMENT 1 There is zero chance of the inheritance tax rate being cut on Wednesday. The chancellor was clear today that all tax measures will be designed to stimulate growth - ie they will be supply side reforms - and an IHT cut does not fit that rubric. If it happens it will come in spring budget (it has been considered by Treasury)
Comments
My legendary modesty prevents me from pointing out that I said the return of Dave would lead to a Tory boost.
The source of the problem in large part is the governance of the countries from which people legitimately flee. The UN should have the task of making it the exiting country's problem, not the sheltering one.
But after several weeks of bombing, all Israel has managed to do is kill ~10,000 Palestinians, of which many will be children.
How many hostages have they recovered?
How are Israel’s military aims distinguishable from simply expelling Palestinians from Gaza outright?
Israel has lost Gen Z opinion, to the extent that’s important, and is losing the support of the reasonable minded in the West.
Pressed on whether Israel was adhering to international law with its assault on Hamas, which includes a raid at Al-Shifa Hospital, Mr. Finer (Deputy NSA) said the United States was “confident that it is our position that it needs to.” He did not specify whether U.S. officials believed Israel was following international law.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Israel–Hamas_war
I wonder how much worse the bigger twat could be given the situation in Argentina, but I wondered that about Trump and it turned out the answer was 'a lot.'
The biggest winners are Reform though who are up in 5 and unchanged in 2
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election
War is shit. The innocent die in huge numbers just by being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Sometimes, as in this war the innocent die for other reasons.
Rugby might be similar that way in terms of needing a freakish physique now, but massive quantities of drugs could allegedly help there.
Nevertheless, it is not sustainable to suggest there have not thousands of Palestinian deaths.
"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hs3dGBR5t2w
Some interesting history in a short video made up entirely of archive clips.
It’s not obvious that Israel is prosecuting something different from an ethnic cleansing operation.
What is the best policy for supporting peace loving people on all sides
How should Israel have responded instead if you oppose what they are doing
What is the best policy for Palestinians who do want their autonomy and also recognise Israel's rights.
Oct 7th and 8th: "Unspeakable atrocity. Israel has the right, the duty, to defend itself. We stand with you."
6 weeks, 12,000 Palestinian deaths, 1m displacements and a flattened Gaza later ... "Ok, c'mon, that's enough ffs. Ceasefire now."
The point is that headline rates can be quite different between countries depending on deductions. The USA has generous deductions for charitable giving for example.
Biden's leverage points are remarkably weak. The Americans could, theoretically, choke off weapon supplies to the Israelis but that is likely to lead to a backlash within moderate Democrat House members and his Senate members. The Republicans would jump on it with glee and contrast it with what the US has given to Ukraine.
-4 Find Out Now
-3 YouGov
-3 Techne
+1 We Think
+1 Opinium
+1 More in Common
So that's an average of -1.2% but really it's all MOE surely?
Palestinian supporters must call for the immediate release of hostages, condemn Hamas, and call for the resumption of democracy in Gaza.
Of course, I am a centrist dad, so these things are not going to happen. I agree it’s a bugger’s muddle, which is why by the way I kind of refuse to condemn those calling at present for a ceasefire.
To some, it means both sides stand down, and the hostages are released.
To others, it means that Israel stands down.
However none of it affects me since I call him Netanyahu.
MLB pay can be decent: https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/mlb/2023/04/06/mlb-team-payrolls-2023-highest-lowest-mets/11612107002/
+5 Find Out Now
-1 YouGov
+3 Techne
-4 We Think
-4 Opinium
-4 More in Common
So that's an average Labour lead reduction of -0.7%. Hardly earth shattering.
That the reshuffle has won back some votes in the centre, lost some on the right, and that's more useful because winning back centrist votes counts double in a sense (+1 to Con, -1 to Lab)?
Sounds plausible- but it depends on the centrewards shuffle being a real thing. In which case, Sunak really needs to turn down the rhetoric on Rwanda and not muck about with the Autumn Statement, or anything else, for the next year or so.
Can't see it happening, unfortunately. Partly because he is weeny and weaky, but also because he is pretty right wing himself.
I do not believe that the estimated 10-12k Palestinians killed were 'protecting the terrorists' though.
I don't think Dave's return will shift the polls much either way. I can see some votes being won back by the Tories from the One Nationers but Starmer's winning the next election, the only question is how many seats he wins.
No PM can have a minister who goes rogue, and among my pretty right wing circle, there was considerable disgust at her saying homelessness was a lifestyle choice.
It may be that the small boats kerfuffle is having more effect than Dave, and putting off a few centrist types, while Keir’s Gaza troubles are costing him a bit.
There’s no ruse in Green, so if Keir is losing votes over Gaza perhaps it’s actually swing voters being reminded about Labour’s corbynistas and antisemitism problems.
One is to have a map from here to the destination. The other is to have a vague idea of where the destination is, but basically look in front of you and do what seems to be the best choice of the immediate options available, then pause and reorientate and repeat.
I've been musing on it in the context of sixth formers failing to do physics questions, but it's probably true more widely. It's usually best to have an advance plan all the way to the destination, but what do we do when that plan doesn't exist? We bumble, wander, try low-cost bets to see what happens. And usually, that gets us somewhere OK.
So, right now, the realistic choices for Israel are to continue their current actions, or in some sense to pause or turn down their intensity, or to go in harder.
Which of those is really going to give them the best odds of achieving what they want? Not sure that it's their current path. One of the criteria for a just war is that it has a reasonable chance of success.
Anybody caught in Israel gets life in jail to deter. Let the arabs fund the palestinians.
Unless I’m much mistaken he’s back in UK and, I think, running a cricket school.
I don’t include Omnium in that.
That doesn't mean we don't care or have views.
Jackboots are best left out of it.
But Nety's just obscene. I have a very good friend called Netty and she should not be tainted by association in this way.
But what is Israel's (*) ideal destination? Given their past actions, it is *not* to wipe out all Palestinians (hence why Palestinians are allowed into Israel to work, and the fact that Palestinians exist (given Israel's capacity to wipe them out...)
Are we seeing:
*) A genuine attempt to disrupt, or even wipe out, Hamas's capability to wage war, by direct combat or missile attack, made more difficult by the very nature of Hamas?
*) and/or a punishment beating for Hamas and the Palestinians generally?
*) and/or an attempt to make Gaza an unsustainable state?
*) and/or incoherent rage after a hideous terrorist attack, with no defined destination?
I've no idea which of these, or how much of any of them, are driving Israel's actions. Some are 'better' than others.
(*) The government.
Controversial though it might have been, would anyone really have supported her?
We may be watching it happen over the next few months.
If a member of your family had been killed in that attack, or carried away as a hostage, or you had to scurry to a bomb shelter every time Hamas launched a rocket (a frequent occurrence), wouldn't you be ever so slightly anti-Palestinian?
(And yes, I know Israeli actions have the opposite effect on Palestinians.)
BTW, do you have an answer to the question I asked below?
I'd like to add that Hamas's frequent rocket attacks are crass, self-defeating and utterly wrong.
Both just cement opposition in their rivals. In Hamas's case, that is what they want. In Israel's case, their policy is just bloody stupid.
Lets hope this isn't terminal. I wouldn't bet on it.
Israel has basically been a Likud-run state for 20 years.
https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1726304375776202832
Your post is more or less correct, of course, but that 20 year period does include Likud co-founder Ariel Sharon's complete disengagement from Gaza in 2005 - a move that cost him and his party a huge amount, politically and personally.
Sharon staked his reputation on the Gaza disengagement being a huge step towards long term peace, on the basis that it would be that much harder for Hamas and the other terror groups in Gaza to recruit, if there was no obvious enemy to fight against, and if Israel was seen to be providing water, jobs and other economic resources to the Strip. That theory has now been tested to destruction and been found severely wanting.
It is a bloody shambles.
-ish.
1) Journalists were writing stuff that they were making up. Remember the inside source who explained in detail that there was going to be no financial support in the COVID measures?
2) variant of 1) - trying to create political weather.
3) Various semi involved politicos were briefing their pet ideas.
4) IHT will be completely abolished on Wednesday.
All of the above, all at once.