Was talking to a friend of mine about this last night (he's a teacher at a private school). He was talking about how he and some younger colleagues are having to opt out of long term pension payments to make rent. By allowing landlordism and rent seeking to go out of control, alongside the refusal to build any affordable public housing, a huge number of people in their 30s are just completely buggered. We need a government who wants to break the backs of landlords as much as Thatcher wanted to break the power of unions.
Many private school teachers, especially at the major public schools, get a house rent free as a perk of the job.
Yes we need more affordable housing but then as local elections show there is lots of local Nimby opposition to any building on the greenbelt certainly. We also still need landlords as not everyone can afford to buy and some like the flexibility of renting eg students, the young and unmarried and those on contract work
You don't need landlords to rent houses - if no one lives there, the house still exists. You can either just live in it, or it could be a public asset. Private landlords are just rent seeking leeches.
**** off. There are many, many different types of landlord out there, from the companies that hold dozens, or hundreds, of properties, to those that hold one - often because their life circumstances changed.
Calling them 'leeches' says more about your brand of politics than them.
In short, No They Won’t. Republic is like the National Secular Society, or Just Stop Oil. They attract a band of committed activists, but come over as cranks to most.
I see Harry and Meghan remain about as popular as the Conservative Party.
The monarchy is impossible to abolish until a particular condition is met. It has to be an electoral advantage to put 'a Referendum on Abolishing the Monarchy' in a general election manifesto.
This can't happen as long as the question would negatively sway even a million or so royalist voters. So, for example, if Labour put it in their manifesto (which of course they won't) I would not vote for them, and I am very much a centrist moderate about politics, including the monarchy.
There are of course two big questions. Not only 'abolition' but also 'what replaces it'. The second is, in the age of elected heads of state like Trump, difficult. Monarchy replaced by Boris/Farage/Corbyn/ Gazza/Elton John anyone?
A democratic head of state is more legitimate than a non elected one - even if they're an awful person. Your position is "democracy is good, except for this part, where bloodline is apparently a good enough qualification".
Theory: In the UK the status on the monarchy in a matter for parliament. Our monarchy is part of a constitution in which parliament can abolish the monarchy, but the monarchy can't abolish parliament.
Practical: I shall keep Charles III. You may keep Putin and Trump.
This is just an argument against elections - should we not have MP elections because we might get a PM Trump-lite? No. We should do the things that can make democracies good at combatting literal fascists by making it responsive to the needs of most people - instead we live in a system where the needs of the few are put above the needs of the many no matter what the many vote for. That's an issue with capitalism alongside democracy - because the two are fundamentally incompatible.
In short, No They Won’t. Republic is like the National Secular Society, or Just Stop Oil. They attract a band of committed activists, but come over as cranks to most.
I see Harry and Meghan remain about as popular as the Conservative Party.
The monarchy is impossible to abolish until a particular condition is met. It has to be an electoral advantage to put 'a Referendum on Abolishing the Monarchy' in a general election manifesto.
This can't happen as long as the question would negatively sway even a million or so royalist voters. So, for example, if Labour put it in their manifesto (which of course they won't) I would not vote for them, and I am very much a centrist moderate about politics, including the monarchy.
There are of course two big questions. Not only 'abolition' but also 'what replaces it'. The second is, in the age of elected heads of state like Trump, difficult. Monarchy replaced by Boris/Farage/Corbyn/ Gazza/Elton John anyone?
A democratic head of state is more legitimate than a non elected one - even if they're an awful person. Your position is "democracy is good, except for this part, where bloodline is apparently a good enough qualification".
Titles don't matter. Some countries that are republics in name, are monarchies in reality. Some monarchies vest the majority of power in the elected representatives. But, in all countries, actual power is wielded by a pretty small section of the population.
Some countries have the word “Democratic” in their name. Very few of them are democracies.
In short, No They Won’t. Republic is like the National Secular Society, or Just Stop Oil. They attract a band of committed activists, but come over as cranks to most.
I see Harry and Meghan remain about as popular as the Conservative Party.
The monarchy is impossible to abolish until a particular condition is met. It has to be an electoral advantage to put 'a Referendum on Abolishing the Monarchy' in a general election manifesto.
This can't happen as long as the question would negatively sway even a million or so royalist voters. So, for example, if Labour put it in their manifesto (which of course they won't) I would not vote for them, and I am very much a centrist moderate about politics, including the monarchy.
There are of course two big questions. Not only 'abolition' but also 'what replaces it'. The second is, in the age of elected heads of state like Trump, difficult. Monarchy replaced by Boris/Farage/Corbyn/ Gazza/Elton John anyone?
A democratic head of state is more legitimate than a non elected one - even if they're an awful person. Your position is "democracy is good, except for this part, where bloodline is apparently a good enough qualification".
Titles don't matter. Some countries that are republics in name, are monarchies in reality. Some monarchies vest the majority of power in the elected representatives. But, in all countries, actual power is wielded by a pretty small section of the population.
Monarchies are also rather more successful than republics
14 of the top 20 territories/countries on the IMF GDP per capita list are monarchies
Food price inflation down to just over 4%, this matches with my lived experience, lots of prices falling now and only a few rising. I think by the end of March we may be close to deflation in food prices, just going by what is falling out of the calculation and what is likely to enter.
In April I expect prices to rise a bit due to the minimum wage going up, I think that adds 2-3% onto food prices but it's probably worth it to give the low paid a pretty big pay rise.
There is an interesting thing happening. Supermarkets are just about moving back into bottom line profit on many food items having made a loss for an extended period. They have been using petrol as the backstop for profit - no fuel price wars as of old, just decent margins on high volumes to balance off against the food parts of the business.
In the old days one of the big supermarkets would have gone for it - big price cuts on food or fuel with the others having to follow. Asda and Morrisons are out of that game - so heavily loaded with debt that their VC owners won't allow scale price cuts.
That allows Tesco and Sainsbury's to maintain higher fuel prices to cover their food losses and start to pull a few prices back from their peak. Its a few though rather than the whole basket - they need a return to profitability first before that happens.
So the profits Tesco has made were just due to fuel?
One issue which I have not seen mentioned here, which IMO may be pivotal, is a woman's right to abortion.
There has been a series of amendments, defeats and ballot initiatives at State level clipping the wings, or overturning, the attempts to make abortion difficult or impossible to provide. And Democrats seem to be winning elections in those circumstances, and in some unexpected places. Was this a factor in the midterms?
There are initiatives currently planned in around 9 states. The concept put forward is usually around "abortion until the time of fetus viability", which is very much along the lines of the principle here, and in many countries in Europe.
AFAICS Trump is not backing a federal abortion ban.
If abortion is the main issue, in November 2004, the Democrats will win. If the economy is the main issue, the Republicans will win.
Regardless of the Presidential election, it's very hard to see the Democrats holding the Senate, simply because of the nature of the seats that are being contested. West Virginia is lost, and Ohio, Montana, and Arizona, extremely vulnerable. The Republicans only need one of those three to take control.
If Trump is convicted and jailed, narrowly fails to get the nomination of the Republicans and runs as an Independent Biden could get re elected with just 40% of the vote whatever the economic situation.
As Democrat Wilson was elected in 1912 with just 41% of the vote with former Republican President Theodore Roosevelt running as an independent against Republican President Taft and getting 27% of the vote
In short, No They Won’t. Republic is like the National Secular Society, or Just Stop Oil. They attract a band of committed activists, but come over as cranks to most.
I see Harry and Meghan remain about as popular as the Conservative Party.
The monarchy is impossible to abolish until a particular condition is met. It has to be an electoral advantage to put 'a Referendum on Abolishing the Monarchy' in a general election manifesto.
This can't happen as long as the question would negatively sway even a million or so royalist voters. So, for example, if Labour put it in their manifesto (which of course they won't) I would not vote for them, and I am very much a centrist moderate about politics, including the monarchy.
There are of course two big questions. Not only 'abolition' but also 'what replaces it'. The second is, in the age of elected heads of state like Trump, difficult. Monarchy replaced by Boris/Farage/Corbyn/ Gazza/Elton John anyone?
A democratic head of state is more legitimate than a non elected one - even if they're an awful person. Your position is "democracy is good, except for this part, where bloodline is apparently a good enough qualification".
In short, No They Won’t. Republic is like the National Secular Society, or Just Stop Oil. They attract a band of committed activists, but come over as cranks to most.
I see Harry and Meghan remain about as popular as the Conservative Party.
The monarchy is impossible to abolish until a particular condition is met. It has to be an electoral advantage to put 'a Referendum on Abolishing the Monarchy' in a general election manifesto.
This can't happen as long as the question would negatively sway even a million or so royalist voters. So, for example, if Labour put it in their manifesto (which of course they won't) I would not vote for them, and I am very much a centrist moderate about politics, including the monarchy.
There are of course two big questions. Not only 'abolition' but also 'what replaces it'. The second is, in the age of elected heads of state like Trump, difficult. Monarchy replaced by Boris/Farage/Corbyn/ Gazza/Elton John anyone?
A democratic head of state is more legitimate than a non elected one - even if they're an awful person. Your position is "democracy is good, except for this part, where bloodline is apparently a good enough qualification".
I didn't think it would ever come to this but I am going to need photographic evidence of Platforms 13/14 at Manchester Piccadilly pls.
TIA.
Here it is.
And remember these are the only through platforms at Manchester Piccadilly - TSE isn’t kidding when he says you can have 1,000+ people waiting for their train to arrive
It’s like the first 25 mins of Saving Private Ryan most days on 13/14.
In short, No They Won’t. Republic is like the National Secular Society, or Just Stop Oil. They attract a band of committed activists, but come over as cranks to most.
I see Harry and Meghan remain about as popular as the Conservative Party.
The monarchy is impossible to abolish until a particular condition is met. It has to be an electoral advantage to put 'a Referendum on Abolishing the Monarchy' in a general election manifesto.
This can't happen as long as the question would negatively sway even a million or so royalist voters. So, for example, if Labour put it in their manifesto (which of course they won't) I would not vote for them, and I am very much a centrist moderate about politics, including the monarchy.
There are of course two big questions. Not only 'abolition' but also 'what replaces it'. The second is, in the age of elected heads of state like Trump, difficult. Monarchy replaced by Boris/Farage/Corbyn/ Gazza/Elton John anyone?
A democratic head of state is more legitimate than a non elected one - even if they're an awful person. Your position is "democracy is good, except for this part, where bloodline is apparently a good enough qualification".
In short, No They Won’t. Republic is like the National Secular Society, or Just Stop Oil. They attract a band of committed activists, but come over as cranks to most.
I see Harry and Meghan remain about as popular as the Conservative Party.
The monarchy is impossible to abolish until a particular condition is met. It has to be an electoral advantage to put 'a Referendum on Abolishing the Monarchy' in a general election manifesto.
This can't happen as long as the question would negatively sway even a million or so royalist voters. So, for example, if Labour put it in their manifesto (which of course they won't) I would not vote for them, and I am very much a centrist moderate about politics, including the monarchy.
There are of course two big questions. Not only 'abolition' but also 'what replaces it'. The second is, in the age of elected heads of state like Trump, difficult. Monarchy replaced by Boris/Farage/Corbyn/ Gazza/Elton John anyone?
A democratic head of state is more legitimate than a non elected one - even if they're an awful person. Your position is "democracy is good, except for this part, where bloodline is apparently a good enough qualification".
Theory: In the UK the status on the monarchy in a matter for parliament. Our monarchy is part of a constitution in which parliament can abolish the monarchy, but the monarchy can't abolish parliament.
Practical: I shall keep Charles III. You may keep Putin and Trump.
This is just an argument against elections - should we not have MP elections because we might get a PM Trump-lite? No. We should do the things that can make democracies good at combatting literal fascists by making it responsive to the needs of most people - instead we live in a system where the needs of the few are put above the needs of the many no matter what the many vote for. That's an issue with capitalism alongside democracy - because the two are fundamentally incompatible.
Yet, the growth of capitalism has gone hand in hand with the growth in democracy. Whereas, those countries that are avowedly anti-capitalist are rarely democracies.
One issue which I have not seen mentioned here, which IMO may be pivotal, is a woman's right to abortion.
There has been a series of amendments, defeats and ballot initiatives at State level clipping the wings, or overturning, the attempts to make abortion difficult or impossible to provide. And Democrats seem to be winning elections in those circumstances, and in some unexpected places. Was this a factor in the midterms?
There are initiatives currently planned in around 9 states. The concept put forward is usually around "abortion until the time of fetus viability", which is very much along the lines of the principle here, and in many countries in Europe.
AFAICS Trump is not backing a federal abortion ban.
If abortion is the main issue, in November 2004, the Democrats will win. If the economy is the main issue, the Republicans will win.
Regardless of the Presidential election, it's very hard to see the Democrats holding the Senate, simply because of the nature of the seats that are being contested. West Virginia is lost, and Ohio, Montana, and Arizona, extremely vulnerable. The Republicans only need one of those three to take control.
If Trump is convicted and jailed, narrowly fails to get the nomination of the Republicans and runs as an Independent Biden could get re elected with just 40% of the vote whatever the economic situation.
As Democrat Wilson was elected in 1912 with just 41% of the vote with former Republican President Theodore Roosevelt running as an independent against Republican President Taft and getting 27% of the vote
He could, but I'm expecting Trump to be the Republican candidate.
I do enjoy the sheer scale of a US Presidential election but it's hard to get worked up about this one because we all know it's going to be DJT vs Hunter's Dad (unless he drops off the twig which isn't impossible).
The real shit-housery will start after the conventions and hopefully we'll be into a full blown armed insurrection by this time next year.
In short, No They Won’t. Republic is like the National Secular Society, or Just Stop Oil. They attract a band of committed activists, but come over as cranks to most.
I see Harry and Meghan remain about as popular as the Conservative Party.
The monarchy is impossible to abolish until a particular condition is met. It has to be an electoral advantage to put 'a Referendum on Abolishing the Monarchy' in a general election manifesto.
This can't happen as long as the question would negatively sway even a million or so royalist voters. So, for example, if Labour put it in their manifesto (which of course they won't) I would not vote for them, and I am very much a centrist moderate about politics, including the monarchy.
There are of course two big questions. Not only 'abolition' but also 'what replaces it'. The second is, in the age of elected heads of state like Trump, difficult. Monarchy replaced by Boris/Farage/Corbyn/ Gazza/Elton John anyone?
A democratic head of state is more legitimate than a non elected one - even if they're an awful person. Your position is "democracy is good, except for this part, where bloodline is apparently a good enough qualification".
One issue which I have not seen mentioned here, which IMO may be pivotal, is a woman's right to abortion.
There has been a series of amendments, defeats and ballot initiatives at State level clipping the wings, or overturning, the attempts to make abortion difficult or impossible to provide. And Democrats seem to be winning elections in those circumstances, and in some unexpected places. Was this a factor in the midterms?
There are initiatives currently planned in around 9 states. The concept put forward is usually around "abortion until the time of fetus viability", which is very much along the lines of the principle here, and in many countries in Europe.
AFAICS Trump is not backing a federal abortion ban.
If abortion is the main issue, in November 2004, the Democrats will win. If the economy is the main issue, the Republicans will win.
Regardless of the Presidential election, it's very hard to see the Democrats holding the Senate, simply because of the nature of the seats that are being contested. West Virginia is lost, and Ohio, Montana, and Arizona, extremely vulnerable. The Republicans only need one of those three to take control.
If Trump is convicted and jailed, narrowly fails to get the nomination of the Republicans and runs as an Independent Biden could get re elected with just 40% of the vote whatever the economic situation.
As Democrat Wilson was elected in 1912 with just 41% of the vote with former Republican President Theodore Roosevelt running as an independent against Republican President Taft and getting 27% of the vote
He could, but I'm expecting Trump to be the Republican candidate.
Same, though not with certainty - a lot of odd things could yet happen.
On topic, Trump and Biden. Sorry - it's going to be a really boring primary campaign barring medical or legal interventions.
Iowa *might* throw up a surprise on the Republicans' side but frankly I doubt it. Its format plays to those candidates with strong organisation and highly dedicated supporters over those with broad but shallow general appeal, which would probably be Trump even without his pre-existing commanding poll leads.
In short, No They Won’t. Republic is like the National Secular Society, or Just Stop Oil. They attract a band of committed activists, but come over as cranks to most.
I see Harry and Meghan remain about as popular as the Conservative Party.
The monarchy is impossible to abolish until a particular condition is met. It has to be an electoral advantage to put 'a Referendum on Abolishing the Monarchy' in a general election manifesto.
This can't happen as long as the question would negatively sway even a million or so royalist voters. So, for example, if Labour put it in their manifesto (which of course they won't) I would not vote for them, and I am very much a centrist moderate about politics, including the monarchy.
There are of course two big questions. Not only 'abolition' but also 'what replaces it'. The second is, in the age of elected heads of state like Trump, difficult. Monarchy replaced by Boris/Farage/Corbyn/ Gazza/Elton John anyone?
A democratic head of state is more legitimate than a non elected one - even if they're an awful person. Your position is "democracy is good, except for this part, where bloodline is apparently a good enough qualification".
In short, No They Won’t. Republic is like the National Secular Society, or Just Stop Oil. They attract a band of committed activists, but come over as cranks to most.
I see Harry and Meghan remain about as popular as the Conservative Party.
The monarchy is impossible to abolish until a particular condition is met. It has to be an electoral advantage to put 'a Referendum on Abolishing the Monarchy' in a general election manifesto.
This can't happen as long as the question would negatively sway even a million or so royalist voters. So, for example, if Labour put it in their manifesto (which of course they won't) I would not vote for them, and I am very much a centrist moderate about politics, including the monarchy.
There are of course two big questions. Not only 'abolition' but also 'what replaces it'. The second is, in the age of elected heads of state like Trump, difficult. Monarchy replaced by Boris/Farage/Corbyn/ Gazza/Elton John anyone?
A democratic head of state is more legitimate than a non elected one - even if they're an awful person. Your position is "democracy is good, except for this part, where bloodline is apparently a good enough qualification".
Hitler was elected
So was H*m*s. Whisper it.
So was Bibi
Yes indeed. So was Bibi. Good point.
Your Stockholm Syndrome grows by the day.
Bibi and his fascist Government were elected.
Not next time though
I think if you put that on a placard and marched down Whitehall with it you would be arrested.
In short, No They Won’t. Republic is like the National Secular Society, or Just Stop Oil. They attract a band of committed activists, but come over as cranks to most.
I see Harry and Meghan remain about as popular as the Conservative Party.
The monarchy is impossible to abolish until a particular condition is met. It has to be an electoral advantage to put 'a Referendum on Abolishing the Monarchy' in a general election manifesto.
This can't happen as long as the question would negatively sway even a million or so royalist voters. So, for example, if Labour put it in their manifesto (which of course they won't) I would not vote for them, and I am very much a centrist moderate about politics, including the monarchy.
There are of course two big questions. Not only 'abolition' but also 'what replaces it'. The second is, in the age of elected heads of state like Trump, difficult. Monarchy replaced by Boris/Farage/Corbyn/ Gazza/Elton John anyone?
A democratic head of state is more legitimate than a non elected one - even if they're an awful person. Your position is "democracy is good, except for this part, where bloodline is apparently a good enough qualification".
Hitler was elected
So was H*m*s. Whisper it.
So was Bibi
Yes indeed. So was Bibi. Good point.
Your Stockholm Syndrome grows by the day.
Bibi and his fascist Government were elected.
Not next time though
' fascist ' ?
I'm unsure Israel, even under Likud, comes anywhere near a reasonable definition of 'fascist'.
In short, No They Won’t. Republic is like the National Secular Society, or Just Stop Oil. They attract a band of committed activists, but come over as cranks to most.
I see Harry and Meghan remain about as popular as the Conservative Party.
The monarchy is impossible to abolish until a particular condition is met. It has to be an electoral advantage to put 'a Referendum on Abolishing the Monarchy' in a general election manifesto.
This can't happen as long as the question would negatively sway even a million or so royalist voters. So, for example, if Labour put it in their manifesto (which of course they won't) I would not vote for them, and I am very much a centrist moderate about politics, including the monarchy.
There are of course two big questions. Not only 'abolition' but also 'what replaces it'. The second is, in the age of elected heads of state like Trump, difficult. Monarchy replaced by Boris/Farage/Corbyn/ Gazza/Elton John anyone?
A democratic head of state is more legitimate than a non elected one - even if they're an awful person. Your position is "democracy is good, except for this part, where bloodline is apparently a good enough qualification".
Theory: In the UK the status on the monarchy in a matter for parliament. Our monarchy is part of a constitution in which parliament can abolish the monarchy, but the monarchy can't abolish parliament.
Practical: I shall keep Charles III. You may keep Putin and Trump.
This is just an argument against elections - should we not have MP elections because we might get a PM Trump-lite? No. We should do the things that can make democracies good at combatting literal fascists by making it responsive to the needs of most people - instead we live in a system where the needs of the few are put above the needs of the many no matter what the many vote for. That's an issue with capitalism alongside democracy - because the two are fundamentally incompatible.
Thanks. An interesting but different question is how democracy is compatible generally with the complexities of an international order and large scale private enterprise in a capitalist system. You suggest in essence that democracy can't sort itself, being hamstring by incompatibilities. Which of course leads to the next set of very obvious questions. One of them is: Are you being utopian?
In short, No They Won’t. Republic is like the National Secular Society, or Just Stop Oil. They attract a band of committed activists, but come over as cranks to most.
I see Harry and Meghan remain about as popular as the Conservative Party.
The monarchy is impossible to abolish until a particular condition is met. It has to be an electoral advantage to put 'a Referendum on Abolishing the Monarchy' in a general election manifesto.
This can't happen as long as the question would negatively sway even a million or so royalist voters. So, for example, if Labour put it in their manifesto (which of course they won't) I would not vote for them, and I am very much a centrist moderate about politics, including the monarchy.
There are of course two big questions. Not only 'abolition' but also 'what replaces it'. The second is, in the age of elected heads of state like Trump, difficult. Monarchy replaced by Boris/Farage/Corbyn/ Gazza/Elton John anyone?
A democratic head of state is more legitimate than a non elected one - even if they're an awful person. Your position is "democracy is good, except for this part, where bloodline is apparently a good enough qualification".
Theory: In the UK the status on the monarchy in a matter for parliament. Our monarchy is part of a constitution in which parliament can abolish the monarchy, but the monarchy can't abolish parliament.
Practical: I shall keep Charles III. You may keep Putin and Trump.
This is just an argument against elections - should we not have MP elections because we might get a PM Trump-lite? No. We should do the things that can make democracies good at combatting literal fascists by making it responsive to the needs of most people - instead we live in a system where the needs of the few are put above the needs of the many no matter what the many vote for. That's an issue with capitalism alongside democracy - because the two are fundamentally incompatible.
Yet, the growth of capitalism has gone hand in hand with the growth in democracy. Whereas, those countries that are avowedly anti-capitalist are rarely democracies.
I mean, the places that claim to be democracies (like the US) do not address the needs of the average voter - indeed the literature makes clear that the issues that the rich care about get dealt with (in their favour) against the issues the poor want resolved. Capitalism tends towards monopoly, monopoly allows people to buy their political outcomes.
In short, No They Won’t. Republic is like the National Secular Society, or Just Stop Oil. They attract a band of committed activists, but come over as cranks to most.
I see Harry and Meghan remain about as popular as the Conservative Party.
The monarchy is impossible to abolish until a particular condition is met. It has to be an electoral advantage to put 'a Referendum on Abolishing the Monarchy' in a general election manifesto.
This can't happen as long as the question would negatively sway even a million or so royalist voters. So, for example, if Labour put it in their manifesto (which of course they won't) I would not vote for them, and I am very much a centrist moderate about politics, including the monarchy.
There are of course two big questions. Not only 'abolition' but also 'what replaces it'. The second is, in the age of elected heads of state like Trump, difficult. Monarchy replaced by Boris/Farage/Corbyn/ Gazza/Elton John anyone?
A democratic head of state is more legitimate than a non elected one - even if they're an awful person. Your position is "democracy is good, except for this part, where bloodline is apparently a good enough qualification".
Titles don't matter. Some countries that are republics in name, are monarchies in reality. Some monarchies vest the majority of power in the elected representatives. But, in all countries, actual power is wielded by a pretty small section of the population.
Monarchies are also rather more successful than republics
14 of the top 20 territories/countries on the IMF GDP per capita list are monarchies
This is a "Brexit for the sovereignty" level of belief for me. A ruling class based on bloodline is morally abhorrent. I don't care if a ruling class based on bloodline is good for business - it is wrong.
In short, No They Won’t. Republic is like the National Secular Society, or Just Stop Oil. They attract a band of committed activists, but come over as cranks to most.
I see Harry and Meghan remain about as popular as the Conservative Party.
The monarchy is impossible to abolish until a particular condition is met. It has to be an electoral advantage to put 'a Referendum on Abolishing the Monarchy' in a general election manifesto.
This can't happen as long as the question would negatively sway even a million or so royalist voters. So, for example, if Labour put it in their manifesto (which of course they won't) I would not vote for them, and I am very much a centrist moderate about politics, including the monarchy.
There are of course two big questions. Not only 'abolition' but also 'what replaces it'. The second is, in the age of elected heads of state like Trump, difficult. Monarchy replaced by Boris/Farage/Corbyn/ Gazza/Elton John anyone?
A democratic head of state is more legitimate than a non elected one - even if they're an awful person. Your position is "democracy is good, except for this part, where bloodline is apparently a good enough qualification".
Hitler was elected
So was H*m*s. Whisper it.
So was Bibi
Yes indeed. So was Bibi. Good point.
Your Stockholm Syndrome grows by the day.
Bibi and his fascist Government were elected.
Not next time though
' fascist ' ?
I'm unsure Israel, even under Likud, comes anywhere near a reasonable definition of 'fascist'.
Well a number of Israeli Ministers have openly admitted it.
In short, No They Won’t. Republic is like the National Secular Society, or Just Stop Oil. They attract a band of committed activists, but come over as cranks to most.
I see Harry and Meghan remain about as popular as the Conservative Party.
The monarchy is impossible to abolish until a particular condition is met. It has to be an electoral advantage to put 'a Referendum on Abolishing the Monarchy' in a general election manifesto.
This can't happen as long as the question would negatively sway even a million or so royalist voters. So, for example, if Labour put it in their manifesto (which of course they won't) I would not vote for them, and I am very much a centrist moderate about politics, including the monarchy.
There are of course two big questions. Not only 'abolition' but also 'what replaces it'. The second is, in the age of elected heads of state like Trump, difficult. Monarchy replaced by Boris/Farage/Corbyn/ Gazza/Elton John anyone?
A democratic head of state is more legitimate than a non elected one - even if they're an awful person. Your position is "democracy is good, except for this part, where bloodline is apparently a good enough qualification".
Hitler was elected
So was H*m*s. Whisper it.
So was Bibi
Your Stockholm Syndrome grows by the day.
Same as the Israeli hostages!
I just find it funny. You were crapping yourself like a bitch when the Islamic "militants" were outside your hotel room door gunning down your fellow package holidaymakers and now they are your heroes.
One issue which I have not seen mentioned here, which IMO may be pivotal, is a woman's right to abortion.
There has been a series of amendments, defeats and ballot initiatives at State level clipping the wings, or overturning, the attempts to make abortion difficult or impossible to provide. And Democrats seem to be winning elections in those circumstances, and in some unexpected places. Was this a factor in the midterms?
There are initiatives currently planned in around 9 states. The concept put forward is usually around "abortion until the time of fetus viability", which is very much along the lines of the principle here, and in many countries in Europe.
AFAICS Trump is not backing a federal abortion ban.
Does anyone with a more granular knowledge of USA politics than me have any comments?
Abortion in many European countries, even Germany and Italy, is not allowed after 12 weeks which is more restricted than both here and many coastal US states
It's a fair assessment to say that in Europe in general abortion on request runs to 12-14 weeks, with significant exceptions. The most repressive regimes are micro states and Malta.
In short, No They Won’t. Republic is like the National Secular Society, or Just Stop Oil. They attract a band of committed activists, but come over as cranks to most.
I see Harry and Meghan remain about as popular as the Conservative Party.
The monarchy is impossible to abolish until a particular condition is met. It has to be an electoral advantage to put 'a Referendum on Abolishing the Monarchy' in a general election manifesto.
This can't happen as long as the question would negatively sway even a million or so royalist voters. So, for example, if Labour put it in their manifesto (which of course they won't) I would not vote for them, and I am very much a centrist moderate about politics, including the monarchy.
There are of course two big questions. Not only 'abolition' but also 'what replaces it'. The second is, in the age of elected heads of state like Trump, difficult. Monarchy replaced by Boris/Farage/Corbyn/ Gazza/Elton John anyone?
A democratic head of state is more legitimate than a non elected one - even if they're an awful person. Your position is "democracy is good, except for this part, where bloodline is apparently a good enough qualification".
Hitler was elected
So was H*m*s. Whisper it.
So was Bibi
Yes indeed. So was Bibi. Good point.
Your Stockholm Syndrome grows by the day.
Bibi and his fascist Government were elected.
Not next time though
' fascist ' ?
I'm unsure Israel, even under Likud, comes anywhere near a reasonable definition of 'fascist'.
Well a number of Israeli Ministers have openly admitted it.
In short, No They Won’t. Republic is like the National Secular Society, or Just Stop Oil. They attract a band of committed activists, but come over as cranks to most.
I see Harry and Meghan remain about as popular as the Conservative Party.
The monarchy is impossible to abolish until a particular condition is met. It has to be an electoral advantage to put 'a Referendum on Abolishing the Monarchy' in a general election manifesto.
This can't happen as long as the question would negatively sway even a million or so royalist voters. So, for example, if Labour put it in their manifesto (which of course they won't) I would not vote for them, and I am very much a centrist moderate about politics, including the monarchy.
There are of course two big questions. Not only 'abolition' but also 'what replaces it'. The second is, in the age of elected heads of state like Trump, difficult. Monarchy replaced by Boris/Farage/Corbyn/ Gazza/Elton John anyone?
A democratic head of state is more legitimate than a non elected one - even if they're an awful person. Your position is "democracy is good, except for this part, where bloodline is apparently a good enough qualification".
Titles don't matter. Some countries that are republics in name, are monarchies in reality. Some monarchies vest the majority of power in the elected representatives. But, in all countries, actual power is wielded by a pretty small section of the population.
Monarchies are also rather more successful than republics
14 of the top 20 territories/countries on the IMF GDP per capita list are monarchies
This is a "Brexit for the sovereignty" level of belief for me. A ruling class based on bloodline is morally abhorrent. I don't care if a ruling class based on bloodline is good for business - it is wrong.
It is certainly bonkers but we as a nation have shown that we like it and I don't see it changing any time soon.
One issue which I have not seen mentioned here, which IMO may be pivotal, is a woman's right to abortion.
There has been a series of amendments, defeats and ballot initiatives at State level clipping the wings, or overturning, the attempts to make abortion difficult or impossible to provide. And Democrats seem to be winning elections in those circumstances, and in some unexpected places. Was this a factor in the midterms?
There are initiatives currently planned in around 9 states. The concept put forward is usually around "abortion until the time of fetus viability", which is very much along the lines of the principle here, and in many countries in Europe.
AFAICS Trump is not backing a federal abortion ban.
If abortion is the main issue, in November 2004, the Democrats will win. If the economy is the main issue, the Republicans will win.
Regardless of the Presidential election, it's very hard to see the Democrats holding the Senate, simply because of the nature of the seats that are being contested. West Virginia is lost, and Ohio, Montana, and Arizona, extremely vulnerable. The Republicans only need one of those three to take control.
If Trump is convicted and jailed, narrowly fails to get the nomination of the Republicans and runs as an Independent Biden could get re elected with just 40% of the vote whatever the economic situation.
As Democrat Wilson was elected in 1912 with just 41% of the vote with former Republican President Theodore Roosevelt running as an independent against Republican President Taft and getting 27% of the vote
He could, but I'm expecting Trump to be the Republican candidate.
He can't - or not without major changes to state law, which it's in neither party's interest to make. Filing deadlines and sore-loser provisions mean that a losing candidate can't now run as an independent, or for an alternative party (whether pre-existing or splinter, as with Roosevelt's Bull Moose Progressives).
Even if the Democrats could see an advantage in letting Trump run and split the right-of-centre vote, they should be confident enough of winning against a non-Trump candidate battling against a raging Trump, even if the latter couldn't contest the election himself.
In short, No They Won’t. Republic is like the National Secular Society, or Just Stop Oil. They attract a band of committed activists, but come over as cranks to most.
I see Harry and Meghan remain about as popular as the Conservative Party.
The monarchy is impossible to abolish until a particular condition is met. It has to be an electoral advantage to put 'a Referendum on Abolishing the Monarchy' in a general election manifesto.
This can't happen as long as the question would negatively sway even a million or so royalist voters. So, for example, if Labour put it in their manifesto (which of course they won't) I would not vote for them, and I am very much a centrist moderate about politics, including the monarchy.
There are of course two big questions. Not only 'abolition' but also 'what replaces it'. The second is, in the age of elected heads of state like Trump, difficult. Monarchy replaced by Boris/Farage/Corbyn/ Gazza/Elton John anyone?
A democratic head of state is more legitimate than a non elected one - even if they're an awful person. Your position is "democracy is good, except for this part, where bloodline is apparently a good enough qualification".
Hitler was elected
So was H*m*s. Whisper it.
So was Bibi
Yes indeed. So was Bibi. Good point.
Your Stockholm Syndrome grows by the day.
Bibi and his fascist Government were elected.
Not next time though
' fascist ' ?
I'm unsure Israel, even under Likud, comes anywhere near a reasonable definition of 'fascist'.
Well a number of Israeli Ministers have openly admitted it.
Perhaps you have selective deafness
LOL. 'selective deafness' is a bit rich coming from you!
And here's some reading for you: not that I expect you to learn anything...
Dominic Waghorn @DominicWaghorn Hamas leader Yehya Sinwar met with the Israeli hostages a day after they were taken in tunnels under Gaza and told them they would not be harmed and would be returned as part of a hostage deal. Undermines the Israeli Hamas = ISIS storyline.
In short, No They Won’t. Republic is like the National Secular Society, or Just Stop Oil. They attract a band of committed activists, but come over as cranks to most.
I see Harry and Meghan remain about as popular as the Conservative Party.
The monarchy is impossible to abolish until a particular condition is met. It has to be an electoral advantage to put 'a Referendum on Abolishing the Monarchy' in a general election manifesto.
This can't happen as long as the question would negatively sway even a million or so royalist voters. So, for example, if Labour put it in their manifesto (which of course they won't) I would not vote for them, and I am very much a centrist moderate about politics, including the monarchy.
There are of course two big questions. Not only 'abolition' but also 'what replaces it'. The second is, in the age of elected heads of state like Trump, difficult. Monarchy replaced by Boris/Farage/Corbyn/ Gazza/Elton John anyone?
A democratic head of state is more legitimate than a non elected one - even if they're an awful person. Your position is "democracy is good, except for this part, where bloodline is apparently a good enough qualification".
Theory: In the UK the status on the monarchy in a matter for parliament. Our monarchy is part of a constitution in which parliament can abolish the monarchy, but the monarchy can't abolish parliament.
Practical: I shall keep Charles III. You may keep Putin and Trump.
This is just an argument against elections - should we not have MP elections because we might get a PM Trump-lite? No. We should do the things that can make democracies good at combatting literal fascists by making it responsive to the needs of most people - instead we live in a system where the needs of the few are put above the needs of the many no matter what the many vote for. That's an issue with capitalism alongside democracy - because the two are fundamentally incompatible.
Thanks. An interesting but different question is how democracy is compatible generally with the complexities of an international order and large scale private enterprise in a capitalist system. You suggest in essence that democracy can't sort itself, being hamstring by incompatibilities. Which of course leads to the next set of very obvious questions. One of them is: Are you being utopian?
Possibly - I am a leftist and the further right the world goes, the more my positions seem utopian. But, at the end of the day, if individual autonomy is good (which I believe it is), then democratic principles are good. I think one way of dealing with the complexities of international order and large scale companies is to make those things more democratic too. Workers should have voting power on what happens in their companies. There should be more democracy at local levels, and more democracy at international levels.
I don't think democracy can't sort itself, as such - I think democracy is incompatible with capitalism. Capitalists want to protect their access to capital and the means of production and profit; workers want to have capital to live. That is the class struggle. If you build democracy onto capitalism, you have created a means by which workers vote for things that politicians say will improve their lives, but cater to the needs of capitalists because they have all the money and power. If, on the other hands, you democratised the workplace, and diffused power from central governments to local governments, capitalists would have less influence (because few workers are going to use the workplace democracy to disempower themselves) and the more locally held the democracy the more impacted by negative outcomes even the politicians are.
In short, No They Won’t. Republic is like the National Secular Society, or Just Stop Oil. They attract a band of committed activists, but come over as cranks to most.
I see Harry and Meghan remain about as popular as the Conservative Party.
The monarchy is impossible to abolish until a particular condition is met. It has to be an electoral advantage to put 'a Referendum on Abolishing the Monarchy' in a general election manifesto.
This can't happen as long as the question would negatively sway even a million or so royalist voters. So, for example, if Labour put it in their manifesto (which of course they won't) I would not vote for them, and I am very much a centrist moderate about politics, including the monarchy.
There are of course two big questions. Not only 'abolition' but also 'what replaces it'. The second is, in the age of elected heads of state like Trump, difficult. Monarchy replaced by Boris/Farage/Corbyn/ Gazza/Elton John anyone?
A democratic head of state is more legitimate than a non elected one - even if they're an awful person. Your position is "democracy is good, except for this part, where bloodline is apparently a good enough qualification".
Titles don't matter. Some countries that are republics in name, are monarchies in reality. Some monarchies vest the majority of power in the elected representatives. But, in all countries, actual power is wielded by a pretty small section of the population.
Monarchies are also rather more successful than republics
14 of the top 20 territories/countries on the IMF GDP per capita list are monarchies
This is a "Brexit for the sovereignty" level of belief for me. A ruling class based on bloodline is morally abhorrent. I don't care if a ruling class based on bloodline is good for business - it is wrong.
It is certainly bonkers but we as a nation have shown that we like it and I don't see it changing any time soon.
I agree it is unlikely to happen soon - but I will always advocate for a Republic.
In short, No They Won’t. Republic is like the National Secular Society, or Just Stop Oil. They attract a band of committed activists, but come over as cranks to most.
I see Harry and Meghan remain about as popular as the Conservative Party.
The monarchy is impossible to abolish until a particular condition is met. It has to be an electoral advantage to put 'a Referendum on Abolishing the Monarchy' in a general election manifesto.
This can't happen as long as the question would negatively sway even a million or so royalist voters. So, for example, if Labour put it in their manifesto (which of course they won't) I would not vote for them, and I am very much a centrist moderate about politics, including the monarchy.
There are of course two big questions. Not only 'abolition' but also 'what replaces it'. The second is, in the age of elected heads of state like Trump, difficult. Monarchy replaced by Boris/Farage/Corbyn/ Gazza/Elton John anyone?
A democratic head of state is more legitimate than a non elected one - even if they're an awful person. Your position is "democracy is good, except for this part, where bloodline is apparently a good enough qualification".
Titles don't matter. Some countries that are republics in name, are monarchies in reality. Some monarchies vest the majority of power in the elected representatives. But, in all countries, actual power is wielded by a pretty small section of the population.
Monarchies are also rather more successful than republics
14 of the top 20 territories/countries on the IMF GDP per capita list are monarchies
This is a "Brexit for the sovereignty" level of belief for me. A ruling class based on bloodline is morally abhorrent. I don't care if a ruling class based on bloodline is good for business - it is wrong.
It is certainly bonkers but we as a nation have shown that we like it and I don't see it changing any time soon.
The fall of the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha needs a really good scandal to inflict a mortal wound on the institution. Chaz's shagging and moneygrubbing antics or Harry's admittedly brilliant book are just nowhere near enough.
Maybe one of William's kids will do something appalling. The podgy one looks like a right little psycho.
In short, No They Won’t. Republic is like the National Secular Society, or Just Stop Oil. They attract a band of committed activists, but come over as cranks to most.
I see Harry and Meghan remain about as popular as the Conservative Party.
The monarchy is impossible to abolish until a particular condition is met. It has to be an electoral advantage to put 'a Referendum on Abolishing the Monarchy' in a general election manifesto.
This can't happen as long as the question would negatively sway even a million or so royalist voters. So, for example, if Labour put it in their manifesto (which of course they won't) I would not vote for them, and I am very much a centrist moderate about politics, including the monarchy.
There are of course two big questions. Not only 'abolition' but also 'what replaces it'. The second is, in the age of elected heads of state like Trump, difficult. Monarchy replaced by Boris/Farage/Corbyn/ Gazza/Elton John anyone?
A democratic head of state is more legitimate than a non elected one - even if they're an awful person. Your position is "democracy is good, except for this part, where bloodline is apparently a good enough qualification".
Hitler was elected
So was H*m*s. Whisper it.
So was Bibi
Your Stockholm Syndrome grows by the day.
Same as the Israeli hostages!
I just find it funny. You were crapping yourself like a bitch when the Islamic "militants" were outside your hotel room door gunning down your fellow package holidaymakers and now they are your heroes.
Stupid comment.
Hamas are terrorists and fascists too
Same as the baby slaughterers in Israel you support.
Sticking up for Palestinian children being slaughtered by the fascists is something I would always have done.
Have you always supported Israels fascists oppression and killing of innocents
In short, No They Won’t. Republic is like the National Secular Society, or Just Stop Oil. They attract a band of committed activists, but come over as cranks to most.
I see Harry and Meghan remain about as popular as the Conservative Party.
The monarchy is impossible to abolish until a particular condition is met. It has to be an electoral advantage to put 'a Referendum on Abolishing the Monarchy' in a general election manifesto.
This can't happen as long as the question would negatively sway even a million or so royalist voters. So, for example, if Labour put it in their manifesto (which of course they won't) I would not vote for them, and I am very much a centrist moderate about politics, including the monarchy.
There are of course two big questions. Not only 'abolition' but also 'what replaces it'. The second is, in the age of elected heads of state like Trump, difficult. Monarchy replaced by Boris/Farage/Corbyn/ Gazza/Elton John anyone?
A democratic head of state is more legitimate than a non elected one - even if they're an awful person. Your position is "democracy is good, except for this part, where bloodline is apparently a good enough qualification".
Theory: In the UK the status on the monarchy in a matter for parliament. Our monarchy is part of a constitution in which parliament can abolish the monarchy, but the monarchy can't abolish parliament.
Practical: I shall keep Charles III. You may keep Putin and Trump.
This is just an argument against elections - should we not have MP elections because we might get a PM Trump-lite? No. We should do the things that can make democracies good at combatting literal fascists by making it responsive to the needs of most people - instead we live in a system where the needs of the few are put above the needs of the many no matter what the many vote for. That's an issue with capitalism alongside democracy - because the two are fundamentally incompatible.
Yet, the growth of capitalism has gone hand in hand with the growth in democracy. Whereas, those countries that are avowedly anti-capitalist are rarely democracies.
I mean, the places that claim to be democracies (like the US) do not address the needs of the average voter - indeed the literature makes clear that the issues that the rich care about get dealt with (in their favour) against the issues the poor want resolved. Capitalism tends towards monopoly, monopoly allows people to buy their political outcomes.
The average voter accumulates capital. Median net household wealth in the UK is £302,000. That means that the median voter identifies far more strongly with a capitalist system (tempered by social democracy) than with any form of radical socialism.
The type of government which you favour can only be imposed at gunpoint, because it runs so contrary to what people want.
In short, No They Won’t. Republic is like the National Secular Society, or Just Stop Oil. They attract a band of committed activists, but come over as cranks to most.
I see Harry and Meghan remain about as popular as the Conservative Party.
The monarchy is impossible to abolish until a particular condition is met. It has to be an electoral advantage to put 'a Referendum on Abolishing the Monarchy' in a general election manifesto.
This can't happen as long as the question would negatively sway even a million or so royalist voters. So, for example, if Labour put it in their manifesto (which of course they won't) I would not vote for them, and I am very much a centrist moderate about politics, including the monarchy.
There are of course two big questions. Not only 'abolition' but also 'what replaces it'. The second is, in the age of elected heads of state like Trump, difficult. Monarchy replaced by Boris/Farage/Corbyn/ Gazza/Elton John anyone?
A democratic head of state is more legitimate than a non elected one - even if they're an awful person. Your position is "democracy is good, except for this part, where bloodline is apparently a good enough qualification".
Hitler was elected
So was H*m*s. Whisper it.
Yes and no.
Hamas won the last Palestinian election (including in Gaza), in the sense of topping the poll but that election resulted in a power-sharing agreement - though granted that you could still argue that this counts as having been 'elected to government'. Either way though, they've been governing Gaza since 2007 (subject to Israeli interventions), due to taking over by force, not the ballot box.
In short, No They Won’t. Republic is like the National Secular Society, or Just Stop Oil. They attract a band of committed activists, but come over as cranks to most.
I see Harry and Meghan remain about as popular as the Conservative Party.
The monarchy is impossible to abolish until a particular condition is met. It has to be an electoral advantage to put 'a Referendum on Abolishing the Monarchy' in a general election manifesto.
This can't happen as long as the question would negatively sway even a million or so royalist voters. So, for example, if Labour put it in their manifesto (which of course they won't) I would not vote for them, and I am very much a centrist moderate about politics, including the monarchy.
There are of course two big questions. Not only 'abolition' but also 'what replaces it'. The second is, in the age of elected heads of state like Trump, difficult. Monarchy replaced by Boris/Farage/Corbyn/ Gazza/Elton John anyone?
A democratic head of state is more legitimate than a non elected one - even if they're an awful person. Your position is "democracy is good, except for this part, where bloodline is apparently a good enough qualification".
Titles don't matter. Some countries that are republics in name, are monarchies in reality. Some monarchies vest the majority of power in the elected representatives. But, in all countries, actual power is wielded by a pretty small section of the population.
Monarchies are also rather more successful than republics
14 of the top 20 territories/countries on the IMF GDP per capita list are monarchies
This is a "Brexit for the sovereignty" level of belief for me. A ruling class based on bloodline is morally abhorrent. I don't care if a ruling class based on bloodline is good for business - it is wrong.
It is certainly bonkers but we as a nation have shown that we like it and I don't see it changing any time soon.
I agree it is unlikely to happen soon - but I will always advocate for a Republic.
Makes sense. That and vegetarianism are logical positions to hold, if not observed by the majority.
In short, No They Won’t. Republic is like the National Secular Society, or Just Stop Oil. They attract a band of committed activists, but come over as cranks to most.
I see Harry and Meghan remain about as popular as the Conservative Party.
The monarchy is impossible to abolish until a particular condition is met. It has to be an electoral advantage to put 'a Referendum on Abolishing the Monarchy' in a general election manifesto.
This can't happen as long as the question would negatively sway even a million or so royalist voters. So, for example, if Labour put it in their manifesto (which of course they won't) I would not vote for them, and I am very much a centrist moderate about politics, including the monarchy.
There are of course two big questions. Not only 'abolition' but also 'what replaces it'. The second is, in the age of elected heads of state like Trump, difficult. Monarchy replaced by Boris/Farage/Corbyn/ Gazza/Elton John anyone?
A democratic head of state is more legitimate than a non elected one - even if they're an awful person. Your position is "democracy is good, except for this part, where bloodline is apparently a good enough qualification".
Hitler was elected
So was H*m*s. Whisper it.
So was Bibi
Your Stockholm Syndrome grows by the day.
Same as the Israeli hostages!
I just find it funny. You were crapping yourself like a bitch when the Islamic "militants" were outside your hotel room door gunning down your fellow package holidaymakers and now they are your heroes.
Stupid comment.
Hamas are terrorists and fascists too
Same as the baby slaughterers in Israel you support.
Sticking up for Palestinian children being slaughtered by the fascists is something I would always have done.
Have you always supported Israels fascists oppression and killing of innocents
First off, if you put on a banner what you are writing here on PB and marched in London you would be arrested so that ought to give you pause when considering your position.
Secondly, as has long been pointed out and I don't intend to spend the rest of the morning doing so again at length now, there are civilian casualties of war. You could easily say, and many do, that civilians in Dresden were slaughtered. But that is war.
The question then becomes which side of the war you are on. I am on the side of the Israelis for reasons also well-rehearsed.
The strange thing about you is that you are on the side of Hamas in this conflict. The union set of beliefs of Hamas and the attackers on Sousse beach is huge. They hate you and all you stand for with your left-leaning on the side of the powerless bollocks and want you dead. And that is another point that should give you pause to consider your position.
Food price inflation down to just over 4%, this matches with my lived experience, lots of prices falling now and only a few rising. I think by the end of March we may be close to deflation in food prices, just going by what is falling out of the calculation and what is likely to enter.
In April I expect prices to rise a bit due to the minimum wage going up, I think that adds 2-3% onto food prices but it's probably worth it to give the low paid a pretty big pay rise.
There is an interesting thing happening. Supermarkets are just about moving back into bottom line profit on many food items having made a loss for an extended period. They have been using petrol as the backstop for profit - no fuel price wars as of old, just decent margins on high volumes to balance off against the food parts of the business.
In the old days one of the big supermarkets would have gone for it - big price cuts on food or fuel with the others having to follow. Asda and Morrisons are out of that game - so heavily loaded with debt that their VC owners won't allow scale price cuts.
That allows Tesco and Sainsbury's to maintain higher fuel prices to cover their food losses and start to pull a few prices back from their peak. Its a few though rather than the whole basket - they need a return to profitability first before that happens.
So the profits Tesco has made were just due to fuel?
Dominic Waghorn @DominicWaghorn Hamas leader Yehya Sinwar met with the Israeli hostages a day after they were taken in tunnels under Gaza and told them they would not be harmed and would be returned as part of a hostage deal. Undermines the Israeli Hamas = ISIS storyline.
This is the same dickhead who when interviewing Hamas kept trying to say well you didn't really mean to do all the raping and torture, it was just a few rogue individuals, all got a bit out of hand like a party advertised on Facebook.
But Hamas guy wasn't playing ball, because of course it is absolutely part of the plan.
Was talking to a friend of mine about this last night (he's a teacher at a private school). He was talking about how he and some younger colleagues are having to opt out of long term pension payments to make rent. By allowing landlordism and rent seeking to go out of control, alongside the refusal to build any affordable public housing, a huge number of people in their 30s are just completely buggered. We need a government who wants to break the backs of landlords as much as Thatcher wanted to break the power of unions.
Many private school teachers, especially at the major public schools, get a house rent free as a perk of the job.
Yes we need more affordable housing but then as local elections show there is lots of local Nimby opposition to any building on the greenbelt certainly. We also still need landlords as not everyone can afford to buy and some like the flexibility of renting eg students, the young and unmarried and those on contract work
You don't need landlords to rent houses - if no one lives there, the house still exists. You can either just live in it, or it could be a public asset. Private landlords are just rent seeking leeches.
The problem isn’t landlords, private or public.
The problem is the shortage of housing.
Same population as France, 8 million fewer dwelling.
In short, No They Won’t. Republic is like the National Secular Society, or Just Stop Oil. They attract a band of committed activists, but come over as cranks to most.
I see Harry and Meghan remain about as popular as the Conservative Party.
The monarchy is impossible to abolish until a particular condition is met. It has to be an electoral advantage to put 'a Referendum on Abolishing the Monarchy' in a general election manifesto.
This can't happen as long as the question would negatively sway even a million or so royalist voters. So, for example, if Labour put it in their manifesto (which of course they won't) I would not vote for them, and I am very much a centrist moderate about politics, including the monarchy.
There are of course two big questions. Not only 'abolition' but also 'what replaces it'. The second is, in the age of elected heads of state like Trump, difficult. Monarchy replaced by Boris/Farage/Corbyn/ Gazza/Elton John anyone?
A democratic head of state is more legitimate than a non elected one - even if they're an awful person. Your position is "democracy is good, except for this part, where bloodline is apparently a good enough qualification".
Hitler was elected
So was H*m*s. Whisper it.
So was Bibi
Your Stockholm Syndrome grows by the day.
Same as the Israeli hostages!
I just find it funny. You were crapping yourself like a bitch when the Islamic "militants" were outside your hotel room door gunning down your fellow package holidaymakers.
I do enjoy the sheer scale of a US Presidential election but it's hard to get worked up about this one because we all know it's going to be DJT vs Hunter's Dad (unless he drops off the twig which isn't impossible).
The real shit-housery will start after the conventions and hopefully we'll be into a full blown armed insurrection by this time next year.
I’ve just arrived in Bangkok and they’re selling discount box sets of your favourite hilarious sitcom “Are You Being Served?” - do you want me to get a set for you? I know you love the show
In short, No They Won’t. Republic is like the National Secular Society, or Just Stop Oil. They attract a band of committed activists, but come over as cranks to most.
I see Harry and Meghan remain about as popular as the Conservative Party.
The monarchy is impossible to abolish until a particular condition is met. It has to be an electoral advantage to put 'a Referendum on Abolishing the Monarchy' in a general election manifesto.
This can't happen as long as the question would negatively sway even a million or so royalist voters. So, for example, if Labour put it in their manifesto (which of course they won't) I would not vote for them, and I am very much a centrist moderate about politics, including the monarchy.
There are of course two big questions. Not only 'abolition' but also 'what replaces it'. The second is, in the age of elected heads of state like Trump, difficult. Monarchy replaced by Boris/Farage/Corbyn/ Gazza/Elton John anyone?
A democratic head of state is more legitimate than a non elected one - even if they're an awful person. Your position is "democracy is good, except for this part, where bloodline is apparently a good enough qualification".
Titles don't matter. Some countries that are republics in name, are monarchies in reality. Some monarchies vest the majority of power in the elected representatives. But, in all countries, actual power is wielded by a pretty small section of the population.
Some countries have the word “Democratic” in their name. Very few of them are democracies.
Sir Humphrey Appleby : East Yemen, isn't that a democracy?
Sir Richard Wharton : Its full name is the Peoples' Democratic Republic of East Yemen.
Sir Humphrey Appleby : Ah I see, so it's a communist dictatorship.
In short, No They Won’t. Republic is like the National Secular Society, or Just Stop Oil. They attract a band of committed activists, but come over as cranks to most.
I see Harry and Meghan remain about as popular as the Conservative Party.
The monarchy is impossible to abolish until a particular condition is met. It has to be an electoral advantage to put 'a Referendum on Abolishing the Monarchy' in a general election manifesto.
This can't happen as long as the question would negatively sway even a million or so royalist voters. So, for example, if Labour put it in their manifesto (which of course they won't) I would not vote for them, and I am very much a centrist moderate about politics, including the monarchy.
There are of course two big questions. Not only 'abolition' but also 'what replaces it'. The second is, in the age of elected heads of state like Trump, difficult. Monarchy replaced by Boris/Farage/Corbyn/ Gazza/Elton John anyone?
A democratic head of state is more legitimate than a non elected one - even if they're an awful person. Your position is "democracy is good, except for this part, where bloodline is apparently a good enough qualification".
Titles don't matter. Some countries that are republics in name, are monarchies in reality. Some monarchies vest the majority of power in the elected representatives. But, in all countries, actual power is wielded by a pretty small section of the population.
Monarchies are also rather more successful than republics
14 of the top 20 territories/countries on the IMF GDP per capita list are monarchies
This is a "Brexit for the sovereignty" level of belief for me. A ruling class based on bloodline is morally abhorrent. I don't care if a ruling class based on bloodline is good for business - it is wrong.
It is certainly bonkers but we as a nation have shown that we like it and I don't see it changing any time soon.
The fall of the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha needs a really good scandal to inflict a mortal wound on the institution. Chaz's shagging and moneygrubbing antics or Harry's admittedly brilliant book are just nowhere near enough.
Maybe one of William's kids will do something appalling. The podgy one looks like a right little psycho.
Maybe the Sussexes organising the bombing of a plane carrying William, Kate, and their children?
In short, No They Won’t. Republic is like the National Secular Society, or Just Stop Oil. They attract a band of committed activists, but come over as cranks to most.
I see Harry and Meghan remain about as popular as the Conservative Party.
The monarchy is impossible to abolish until a particular condition is met. It has to be an electoral advantage to put 'a Referendum on Abolishing the Monarchy' in a general election manifesto.
This can't happen as long as the question would negatively sway even a million or so royalist voters. So, for example, if Labour put it in their manifesto (which of course they won't) I would not vote for them, and I am very much a centrist moderate about politics, including the monarchy.
There are of course two big questions. Not only 'abolition' but also 'what replaces it'. The second is, in the age of elected heads of state like Trump, difficult. Monarchy replaced by Boris/Farage/Corbyn/ Gazza/Elton John anyone?
A democratic head of state is more legitimate than a non elected one - even if they're an awful person. Your position is "democracy is good, except for this part, where bloodline is apparently a good enough qualification".
Hitler was elected
So was H*m*s. Whisper it.
So was Bibi
Your Stockholm Syndrome grows by the day.
Same as the Israeli hostages!
I just find it funny. You were crapping yourself like a bitch when the Islamic "militants" were outside your hotel room door gunning down your fellow package holidaymakers.
What would you have done?
Given them a stiff talking to!!
Surely you should have opened the door and welcomed them as your friends. Its what the Jeremy would have wanted.
In short, No They Won’t. Republic is like the National Secular Society, or Just Stop Oil. They attract a band of committed activists, but come over as cranks to most.
I see Harry and Meghan remain about as popular as the Conservative Party.
The monarchy is impossible to abolish until a particular condition is met. It has to be an electoral advantage to put 'a Referendum on Abolishing the Monarchy' in a general election manifesto.
This can't happen as long as the question would negatively sway even a million or so royalist voters. So, for example, if Labour put it in their manifesto (which of course they won't) I would not vote for them, and I am very much a centrist moderate about politics, including the monarchy.
There are of course two big questions. Not only 'abolition' but also 'what replaces it'. The second is, in the age of elected heads of state like Trump, difficult. Monarchy replaced by Boris/Farage/Corbyn/ Gazza/Elton John anyone?
A democratic head of state is more legitimate than a non elected one - even if they're an awful person. Your position is "democracy is good, except for this part, where bloodline is apparently a good enough qualification".
Hitler was elected
So was H*m*s. Whisper it.
So was Bibi
Your Stockholm Syndrome grows by the day.
Same as the Israeli hostages!
I just find it funny. You were crapping yourself like a bitch when the Islamic "militants" were outside your hotel room door gunning down your fellow package holidaymakers.
What would you have done?
Given them a stiff talking to!!
Mate if you read my posts at the time I was trying to give you some sound advice. We can't afford to lose any valued PB contributors. My point is that those people and Hamas are virtually the same. In belief, in what they want from the world and who they want to destroy. You in that case, Israel in the other.
Do you think, that being a Westerner and therefore part of the Western oppression of the Muslim lands, justified those people coming onto the beach and shooting all Westerners? Because that appears to be your position wrt Gaza.
Then we come to the Israeli response. As has been asked a zillion times, what would you have had them do?
In short, No They Won’t. Republic is like the National Secular Society, or Just Stop Oil. They attract a band of committed activists, but come over as cranks to most.
I see Harry and Meghan remain about as popular as the Conservative Party.
The monarchy is impossible to abolish until a particular condition is met. It has to be an electoral advantage to put 'a Referendum on Abolishing the Monarchy' in a general election manifesto.
This can't happen as long as the question would negatively sway even a million or so royalist voters. So, for example, if Labour put it in their manifesto (which of course they won't) I would not vote for them, and I am very much a centrist moderate about politics, including the monarchy.
There are of course two big questions. Not only 'abolition' but also 'what replaces it'. The second is, in the age of elected heads of state like Trump, difficult. Monarchy replaced by Boris/Farage/Corbyn/ Gazza/Elton John anyone?
A democratic head of state is more legitimate than a non elected one - even if they're an awful person. Your position is "democracy is good, except for this part, where bloodline is apparently a good enough qualification".
Hitler was elected
So was H*m*s. Whisper it.
So was Bibi
Yes indeed. So was Bibi. Good point.
Your Stockholm Syndrome grows by the day.
Bibi and his fascist Government were elected.
Not next time though
' fascist ' ?
I'm unsure Israel, even under Likud, comes anywhere near a reasonable definition of 'fascist'.
Depends on your definition, but I think the Israeli settler movement is fascistic and meets Umberto Eco's idea of Ur-Fascism (the idea that fascisms are not a set of beliefs that are the same, as such, but a set of beliefs that do the same thing). Taking a short version of his criteria (https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/umberto-eco-ur-fascism):
Cult of Tradition Rejection of Modernism Cult of Action for Action's Sake Disagreement is Treason Fear of Difference Appeals to Frustrated Middle Class Obsession with a Plot Humiliated by their Enemy / Enemy is Weak and Strong Pacifism is Trafficking with the Enemy / Life is Permanent War Contempt for the Weak Cult of Heroism / Everyone is a Hero Machismo Selective Populism Newspeak
Current Israeli culture / policy meets quite a few of these - Cult of Tradition - Part of the founding logic of Israel is that that land is the homeland, from a tradition spanning thousands of years, and references are made to scripture and traditions to back this up. Everyone is a Hero - the glorification of the IDF, the mandatory span in the military, the relative disregard for the actual hostages in a material sense, but a great emphasis on their use in a propaganda sense. Humiliated by the Enemy / Enemy is Weak and Strong - Palestinians are often portrayed as weak and strong; they are animals, little more than dogs, but they are also an existential threat to Israel and all Jewish people. Disagreement is Treason and Pacifism is Trafficking with the Enemy - Israel has always clamped down hard on those who are sympathetic to the plight of Palestinians inside their borders, and is doing more so now (including those who were kidnapped or the families of the kidnapped). See also the cries of Kapo or Judenrat aimed at Jewish people who are anti-Zionism. Machismo and Contempt for the Weak - I think I mentioned here last week the interesting article I read about how holocaust survivors in Israel were held in contempt, were considered the "weak Jews" and that the "strong Jews" were the ones who built Israel. Appeals to the Frustrated Middle Class / Selective Populism - that is the settler movement, many of those who take the houses or shops of Palestinians are middle class Israelis. The transfer of land and wealth from Palestinians to Jewish Israelis is a selective populism. Obsession with a Plot - Hamas is everywhere. The UN is Hamas. Everyone is Hamas. Rejection of Modernism - even though Israel tries to do pinkwashing, Bibi and his government are much more comfortable with the likes of Orban and the GOP then they are with progressive values. Cult of Action for Action's Sake - you can see the disproportionate response to Palestinian protests and violence as this, as well as the long term strategy of "Mowing the Lawn" - as well as the constant rising of tensions at Al-Aqsa mosque.
Food price inflation down to just over 4%, this matches with my lived experience, lots of prices falling now and only a few rising. I think by the end of March we may be close to deflation in food prices, just going by what is falling out of the calculation and what is likely to enter.
In April I expect prices to rise a bit due to the minimum wage going up, I think that adds 2-3% onto food prices but it's probably worth it to give the low paid a pretty big pay rise.
There is an interesting thing happening. Supermarkets are just about moving back into bottom line profit on many food items having made a loss for an extended period. They have been using petrol as the backstop for profit - no fuel price wars as of old, just decent margins on high volumes to balance off against the food parts of the business.
In the old days one of the big supermarkets would have gone for it - big price cuts on food or fuel with the others having to follow. Asda and Morrisons are out of that game - so heavily loaded with debt that their VC owners won't allow scale price cuts.
That allows Tesco and Sainsbury's to maintain higher fuel prices to cover their food losses and start to pull a few prices back from their peak. Its a few though rather than the whole basket - they need a return to profitability first before that happens.
So the profits Tesco has made were just due to fuel?
In short, No They Won’t. Republic is like the National Secular Society, or Just Stop Oil. They attract a band of committed activists, but come over as cranks to most.
I see Harry and Meghan remain about as popular as the Conservative Party.
The monarchy is impossible to abolish until a particular condition is met. It has to be an electoral advantage to put 'a Referendum on Abolishing the Monarchy' in a general election manifesto.
This can't happen as long as the question would negatively sway even a million or so royalist voters. So, for example, if Labour put it in their manifesto (which of course they won't) I would not vote for them, and I am very much a centrist moderate about politics, including the monarchy.
There are of course two big questions. Not only 'abolition' but also 'what replaces it'. The second is, in the age of elected heads of state like Trump, difficult. Monarchy replaced by Boris/Farage/Corbyn/ Gazza/Elton John anyone?
A democratic head of state is more legitimate than a non elected one - even if they're an awful person. Your position is "democracy is good, except for this part, where bloodline is apparently a good enough qualification".
Titles don't matter. Some countries that are republics in name, are monarchies in reality. Some monarchies vest the majority of power in the elected representatives. But, in all countries, actual power is wielded by a pretty small section of the population.
Monarchies are also rather more successful than republics
14 of the top 20 territories/countries on the IMF GDP per capita list are monarchies
This is a "Brexit for the sovereignty" level of belief for me. A ruling class based on bloodline is morally abhorrent. I don't care if a ruling class based on bloodline is good for business - it is wrong.
No political system is perfect. I dare you to name one. But recent history teaches us that democratic constitutional monarchy is probably the least imperfect
True power is exercised by the people via their elected tribunes. As it should be. But the monarchy embodies the ceremonial aspect and is usefully above the politicians - so it can steer and advise and - most importantly - act as a source of stability in times of trouble
Thailand - where I am now - is a great example of that. Democratic Thai politics is corrupt, vivid, angry, and sometimes ceases altogether with periods of military rule. How come Thailand doesn’t sink into civil war like so many countries in the region?
Call Me Lord Dave needs to hit the PM over the head with a cluebat PDQ, I'd say.
Sunak isn't going to be meeting any world leaders if he takes his bat and ball home over any long standing disagreements, as every country has them with one another.
In short, No They Won’t. Republic is like the National Secular Society, or Just Stop Oil. They attract a band of committed activists, but come over as cranks to most.
I see Harry and Meghan remain about as popular as the Conservative Party.
The monarchy is impossible to abolish until a particular condition is met. It has to be an electoral advantage to put 'a Referendum on Abolishing the Monarchy' in a general election manifesto.
This can't happen as long as the question would negatively sway even a million or so royalist voters. So, for example, if Labour put it in their manifesto (which of course they won't) I would not vote for them, and I am very much a centrist moderate about politics, including the monarchy.
There are of course two big questions. Not only 'abolition' but also 'what replaces it'. The second is, in the age of elected heads of state like Trump, difficult. Monarchy replaced by Boris/Farage/Corbyn/ Gazza/Elton John anyone?
A democratic head of state is more legitimate than a non elected one - even if they're an awful person. Your position is "democracy is good, except for this part, where bloodline is apparently a good enough qualification".
Titles don't matter. Some countries that are republics in name, are monarchies in reality. Some monarchies vest the majority of power in the elected representatives. But, in all countries, actual power is wielded by a pretty small section of the population.
Monarchies are also rather more successful than republics
14 of the top 20 territories/countries on the IMF GDP per capita list are monarchies
This is a "Brexit for the sovereignty" level of belief for me. A ruling class based on bloodline is morally abhorrent. I don't care if a ruling class based on bloodline is good for business - it is wrong.
No political system is perfect. I dare you to name one. But recent history teaches us that democratic constitutional monarchy is probably the least imperfect
True power is exercised by the people via their elected tribunes. As it should be. But the monarchy embodies the ceremonial aspect and is usefully above the politicians - so it can steer and advise and - most importantly - act as a source of stability in times of trouble
Thailand - where I am now - is a great example of that. Democratic Thai politics is corrupt, vivid, angry, and sometimes ceases altogether with periods of military rule. How come Thailand doesn’t sink into civil war like so many countries in the region?
The monarchy
Isn't it about time for another Thai coup? We haven't had one for a couple of years.
Call Me Lord Dave needs to hit the PM over the head with a cluebat PDQ, I'd say.
Sunak isn't going to be meeting any world leaders if he takes his bat and ball home over any long standing disagreements, as every country has them with one another.
That post misses the very important issue that most people at Piccadilly station are transferring to over trains that stop / start at Piccadilly from platforms 1-12.
Yes it may be possible for people to catch a train from Oxford Road instead but anyone who can do so would already be doing so.
In short, No They Won’t. Republic is like the National Secular Society, or Just Stop Oil. They attract a band of committed activists, but come over as cranks to most.
I see Harry and Meghan remain about as popular as the Conservative Party.
The monarchy is impossible to abolish until a particular condition is met. It has to be an electoral advantage to put 'a Referendum on Abolishing the Monarchy' in a general election manifesto.
This can't happen as long as the question would negatively sway even a million or so royalist voters. So, for example, if Labour put it in their manifesto (which of course they won't) I would not vote for them, and I am very much a centrist moderate about politics, including the monarchy.
There are of course two big questions. Not only 'abolition' but also 'what replaces it'. The second is, in the age of elected heads of state like Trump, difficult. Monarchy replaced by Boris/Farage/Corbyn/ Gazza/Elton John anyone?
A democratic head of state is more legitimate than a non elected one - even if they're an awful person. Your position is "democracy is good, except for this part, where bloodline is apparently a good enough qualification".
Titles don't matter. Some countries that are republics in name, are monarchies in reality. Some monarchies vest the majority of power in the elected representatives. But, in all countries, actual power is wielded by a pretty small section of the population.
Monarchies are also rather more successful than republics
14 of the top 20 territories/countries on the IMF GDP per capita list are monarchies
This is a "Brexit for the sovereignty" level of belief for me. A ruling class based on bloodline is morally abhorrent. I don't care if a ruling class based on bloodline is good for business - it is wrong.
No political system is perfect. I dare you to name one. But recent history teaches us that democratic constitutional monarchy is probably the least imperfect
True power is exercised by the people via their elected tribunes. As it should be. But the monarchy embodies the ceremonial aspect and is usefully above the politicians - so it can steer and advise and - most importantly - act as a source of stability in times of trouble
Thailand - where I am now - is a great example of that. Democratic Thai politics is corrupt, vivid, angry, and sometimes ceases altogether with periods of military rule. How come Thailand doesn’t sink into civil war like so many countries in the region?
The monarchy
Isn't it about time for another Thai coup?
Probably. In all the recent excitements elsewhere I confess I’ve lost track of Thai politics somewhat
So far I can say that: the airport is super efficient as ever (and now you don’t even need visa on arrival)
In short, No They Won’t. Republic is like the National Secular Society, or Just Stop Oil. They attract a band of committed activists, but come over as cranks to most.
I see Harry and Meghan remain about as popular as the Conservative Party.
The monarchy is impossible to abolish until a particular condition is met. It has to be an electoral advantage to put 'a Referendum on Abolishing the Monarchy' in a general election manifesto.
This can't happen as long as the question would negatively sway even a million or so royalist voters. So, for example, if Labour put it in their manifesto (which of course they won't) I would not vote for them, and I am very much a centrist moderate about politics, including the monarchy.
There are of course two big questions. Not only 'abolition' but also 'what replaces it'. The second is, in the age of elected heads of state like Trump, difficult. Monarchy replaced by Boris/Farage/Corbyn/ Gazza/Elton John anyone?
A democratic head of state is more legitimate than a non elected one - even if they're an awful person. Your position is "democracy is good, except for this part, where bloodline is apparently a good enough qualification".
Theory: In the UK the status on the monarchy in a matter for parliament. Our monarchy is part of a constitution in which parliament can abolish the monarchy, but the monarchy can't abolish parliament.
Practical: I shall keep Charles III. You may keep Putin and Trump.
This is just an argument against elections - should we not have MP elections because we might get a PM Trump-lite? No. We should do the things that can make democracies good at combatting literal fascists by making it responsive to the needs of most people - instead we live in a system where the needs of the few are put above the needs of the many no matter what the many vote for. That's an issue with capitalism alongside democracy - because the two are fundamentally incompatible.
Yet, the growth of capitalism has gone hand in hand with the growth in democracy. Whereas, those countries that are avowedly anti-capitalist are rarely democracies.
I mean, the places that claim to be democracies (like the US) do not address the needs of the average voter - indeed the literature makes clear that the issues that the rich care about get dealt with (in their favour) against the issues the poor want resolved. Capitalism tends towards monopoly, monopoly allows people to buy their political outcomes.
The average voter accumulates capital. Median net household wealth in the UK is £302,000. That means that the median voter identifies far more strongly with a capitalist system (tempered by social democracy) than with any form of radical socialism.
The type of government which you favour can only be imposed at gunpoint, because it runs so contrary to what people want.
And capitalism doesn't have you at gunpoint? If you're poor you have food precarity, precarity of housing, general amenities become luxuries, you're more likely to be menaced by state force - that's all a form of violence. We have more than enough food for people, but it's stuck behind a paywall for so many people. Same for a roof over their head.
And household net worth is not an endorsement of capitalism - it is an acceptance that we live in it. It's like the "you argue against capitalism but you buy starbucks" level of argument. Yeah, I want nice things and the only way the world allows me to have nice things is if I collaborate in a capitalist economy. I still would prefer a different economy - partly because I believe a different economic model would more fairly distribute the nice things!
In short, No They Won’t. Republic is like the National Secular Society, or Just Stop Oil. They attract a band of committed activists, but come over as cranks to most.
I see Harry and Meghan remain about as popular as the Conservative Party.
The monarchy is impossible to abolish until a particular condition is met. It has to be an electoral advantage to put 'a Referendum on Abolishing the Monarchy' in a general election manifesto.
This can't happen as long as the question would negatively sway even a million or so royalist voters. So, for example, if Labour put it in their manifesto (which of course they won't) I would not vote for them, and I am very much a centrist moderate about politics, including the monarchy.
There are of course two big questions. Not only 'abolition' but also 'what replaces it'. The second is, in the age of elected heads of state like Trump, difficult. Monarchy replaced by Boris/Farage/Corbyn/ Gazza/Elton John anyone?
A democratic head of state is more legitimate than a non elected one - even if they're an awful person. Your position is "democracy is good, except for this part, where bloodline is apparently a good enough qualification".
Hitler was elected
So was H*m*s. Whisper it.
So was Bibi
Your Stockholm Syndrome grows by the day.
Same as the Israeli hostages!
I just find it funny. You were crapping yourself like a bitch when the Islamic "militants" were outside your hotel room door gunning down your fellow package holidaymakers and now they are your heroes.
Stupid comment.
Hamas are terrorists and fascists too
Same as the baby slaughterers in Israel you support.
Sticking up for Palestinian children being slaughtered by the fascists is something I would always have done.
Have you always supported Israels fascists oppression and killing of innocents
First off, if you put on a banner what you are writing here on PB and marched in London you would be arrested so that ought to give you pause when considering your position.
Secondly, as has long been pointed out and I don't intend to spend the rest of the morning doing so again at length now, there are civilian casualties of war. You could easily say, and many do, that civilians in Dresden were slaughtered. But that is war.
The question then becomes which side of the war you are on. I am on the side of the Israelis for reasons also well-rehearsed.
The strange thing about you is that you are on the side of Hamas in this conflict. The union set of beliefs of Hamas and the attackers on Sousse beach is huge. They hate you and all you stand for with your left-leaning on the side of the powerless bollocks and want you dead. And that is another point that should give you pause to consider your position.
Firstly i dont think so if Israeli Ministers are saying they are fascists a banner saying that Israeli leaders are fascists would not result in arrest as it is true
Secondly its not a war, its a slaughter of innocents How many Hamas have been killed compared to civillians. If it is a war Israel have carried out collective punishment which is a war crime.
Thirdly being on the side of innocents is not being on the side of Hamas.
Your position is literally that "Israel has that right" whatever it does and you dont care how many innocents are slaughtered. That should give you pause to consider your position.
In short, No They Won’t. Republic is like the National Secular Society, or Just Stop Oil. They attract a band of committed activists, but come over as cranks to most.
I see Harry and Meghan remain about as popular as the Conservative Party.
The monarchy is impossible to abolish until a particular condition is met. It has to be an electoral advantage to put 'a Referendum on Abolishing the Monarchy' in a general election manifesto.
This can't happen as long as the question would negatively sway even a million or so royalist voters. So, for example, if Labour put it in their manifesto (which of course they won't) I would not vote for them, and I am very much a centrist moderate about politics, including the monarchy.
There are of course two big questions. Not only 'abolition' but also 'what replaces it'. The second is, in the age of elected heads of state like Trump, difficult. Monarchy replaced by Boris/Farage/Corbyn/ Gazza/Elton John anyone?
A democratic head of state is more legitimate than a non elected one - even if they're an awful person. Your position is "democracy is good, except for this part, where bloodline is apparently a good enough qualification".
Hitler was elected
So was H*m*s. Whisper it.
So was Bibi
Yes indeed. So was Bibi. Good point.
Your Stockholm Syndrome grows by the day.
Bibi and his fascist Government were elected.
Not next time though
' fascist ' ?
I'm unsure Israel, even under Likud, comes anywhere near a reasonable definition of 'fascist'.
Depends on your definition, but I think the Israeli settler movement is fascistic and meets Umberto Eco's idea of Ur-Fascism (the idea that fascisms are not a set of beliefs that are the same, as such, but a set of beliefs that do the same thing). Taking a short version of his criteria (https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/umberto-eco-ur-fascism):
Cult of Tradition Rejection of Modernism Cult of Action for Action's Sake Disagreement is Treason Fear of Difference Appeals to Frustrated Middle Class Obsession with a Plot Humiliated by their Enemy / Enemy is Weak and Strong Pacifism is Trafficking with the Enemy / Life is Permanent War Contempt for the Weak Cult of Heroism / Everyone is a Hero Machismo Selective Populism Newspeak
Current Israeli culture / policy meets quite a few of these - Cult of Tradition - Part of the founding logic of Israel is that that land is the homeland, from a tradition spanning thousands of years, and references are made to scripture and traditions to back this up. Everyone is a Hero - the glorification of the IDF, the mandatory span in the military, the relative disregard for the actual hostages in a material sense, but a great emphasis on their use in a propaganda sense. Humiliated by the Enemy / Enemy is Weak and Strong - Palestinians are often portrayed as weak and strong; they are animals, little more than dogs, but they are also an existential threat to Israel and all Jewish people. Disagreement is Treason and Pacifism is Trafficking with the Enemy - Israel has always clamped down hard on those who are sympathetic to the plight of Palestinians inside their borders, and is doing more so now (including those who were kidnapped or the families of the kidnapped). See also the cries of Kapo or Judenrat aimed at Jewish people who are anti-Zionism. Machismo and Contempt for the Weak - I think I mentioned here last week the interesting article I read about how holocaust survivors in Israel were held in contempt, were considered the "weak Jews" and that the "strong Jews" were the ones who built Israel. Appeals to the Frustrated Middle Class / Selective Populism - that is the settler movement, many of those who take the houses or shops of Palestinians are middle class Israelis. The transfer of land and wealth from Palestinians to Jewish Israelis is a selective populism. Obsession with a Plot - Hamas is everywhere. The UN is Hamas. Everyone is Hamas. Rejection of Modernism - even though Israel tries to do pinkwashing, Bibi and his government are much more comfortable with the likes of Orban and the GOP then they are with progressive values. Cult of Action for Action's Sake - you can see the disproportionate response to Palestinian protests and violence as this, as well as the long term strategy of "Mowing the Lawn" - as well as the constant rising of tensions at Al-Aqsa mosque.
I'd argue that 1) the settler movement is not one item, and neither is the Israeli population. But I'd also argue that Israeli movements for peace, and allowing Palestinians to work within Israel is a pointer against the above. Thridly, some of the points above are rather weak.
Then again, you promote the Nazi scheme to send Jews to Madagascar, so perhaps you have an inside track on fascism...
Big blizzard last night, Major highways were blocked for a while with metre drifts, but the morning is clearer and temperatures have come up from about minus 9 to about minus 2.
Warmer and wetter in Kyiv, and another big storm hit the Black Sea a couple of days ago.
The usual Russian tactics of using lots of simple kit in massive numbers to overwhelm their enemies has clearly worked a bit around Avdiivka, but the cost in Russian lives is staggering, so even these minimal advances look unsustainable. In any event the weather is now so bad that the two armies are simply dug in and likely to stay that way for a while.
Putin is now trying to consolidate and then offer a peace deal. It might even work, but the Kremlin is increasingly aware of how brittle their domestic political situation has become, so we will see.
As for the far right in both the US and Europe... expect more revelations on their connections with Putin in due course...
As for railways, the problem is the capital intensity of railways, nothing works until the tracks or powerlines are all connected, whereas you can build roads incrementally. Labour and the Tories hate the bigger upfront cost of railways, and in any event the utter incompetence over HS2 shows how hard it is to get any rail infrastructure over the line.
In short, No They Won’t. Republic is like the National Secular Society, or Just Stop Oil. They attract a band of committed activists, but come over as cranks to most.
I see Harry and Meghan remain about as popular as the Conservative Party.
The monarchy is impossible to abolish until a particular condition is met. It has to be an electoral advantage to put 'a Referendum on Abolishing the Monarchy' in a general election manifesto.
This can't happen as long as the question would negatively sway even a million or so royalist voters. So, for example, if Labour put it in their manifesto (which of course they won't) I would not vote for them, and I am very much a centrist moderate about politics, including the monarchy.
There are of course two big questions. Not only 'abolition' but also 'what replaces it'. The second is, in the age of elected heads of state like Trump, difficult. Monarchy replaced by Boris/Farage/Corbyn/ Gazza/Elton John anyone?
A democratic head of state is more legitimate than a non elected one - even if they're an awful person. Your position is "democracy is good, except for this part, where bloodline is apparently a good enough qualification".
Hitler was elected
So was H*m*s. Whisper it.
So was Bibi
Yes indeed. So was Bibi. Good point.
Your Stockholm Syndrome grows by the day.
Bibi and his fascist Government were elected.
Not next time though
' fascist ' ?
I'm unsure Israel, even under Likud, comes anywhere near a reasonable definition of 'fascist'.
I am no fan of Bibi and wish he were not the Prime Minister of Israel, but neither he nor the State of Israel are fascist in any normal use of the term...
In short, No They Won’t. Republic is like the National Secular Society, or Just Stop Oil. They attract a band of committed activists, but come over as cranks to most.
I see Harry and Meghan remain about as popular as the Conservative Party.
The monarchy is impossible to abolish until a particular condition is met. It has to be an electoral advantage to put 'a Referendum on Abolishing the Monarchy' in a general election manifesto.
This can't happen as long as the question would negatively sway even a million or so royalist voters. So, for example, if Labour put it in their manifesto (which of course they won't) I would not vote for them, and I am very much a centrist moderate about politics, including the monarchy.
There are of course two big questions. Not only 'abolition' but also 'what replaces it'. The second is, in the age of elected heads of state like Trump, difficult. Monarchy replaced by Boris/Farage/Corbyn/ Gazza/Elton John anyone?
A democratic head of state is more legitimate than a non elected one - even if they're an awful person. Your position is "democracy is good, except for this part, where bloodline is apparently a good enough qualification".
Hitler was elected
So was H*m*s. Whisper it.
So was Bibi
Your Stockholm Syndrome grows by the day.
Same as the Israeli hostages!
I just find it funny. You were crapping yourself like a bitch when the Islamic "militants" were outside your hotel room door gunning down your fellow package holidaymakers and now they are your heroes.
Stupid comment.
Hamas are terrorists and fascists too
Same as the baby slaughterers in Israel you support.
Sticking up for Palestinian children being slaughtered by the fascists is something I would always have done.
Have you always supported Israels fascists oppression and killing of innocents
First off, if you put on a banner what you are writing here on PB and marched in London you would be arrested so that ought to give you pause when considering your position.
Secondly, as has long been pointed out and I don't intend to spend the rest of the morning doing so again at length now, there are civilian casualties of war. You could easily say, and many do, that civilians in Dresden were slaughtered. But that is war.
The question then becomes which side of the war you are on. I am on the side of the Israelis for reasons also well-rehearsed.
The strange thing about you is that you are on the side of Hamas in this conflict. The union set of beliefs of Hamas and the attackers on Sousse beach is huge. They hate you and all you stand for with your left-leaning on the side of the powerless bollocks and want you dead. And that is another point that should give you pause to consider your position.
Firstly i dont think so if Israeli Ministers are saying they are fascists a banner saying that Israeli leaders are fascists would not result in arrest as it is true
Secondly its not a war, its a slaughter of innocents How many Hamas have been killed compared to civillians. If it is a war Israel have carried out collective punishment which is a war crime.
Thirdly being on the side of innocents is not being on the side of Hamas.
Your position is literally that "Israel has that right" whatever it does and you dont care how many innocents are slaughtered. That should give you pause to consider your position.
It is a war. According to Israel Hamas invaded their country on October 7th with their army. Israel is treating this as a war and I am minded not to argue too much with this view. Like art, if the protagonist says it is war then it is war. What would you call the events?
As to how many Hamas have been killed compared to civilians the answer is we don't know. I would say many Hamas have been killed but have no idea how many. But undoubtedly civilians have been killed. No doubt about that at all. Equally, not as many civilians have been killed as Israel could have killed had it acted as your rhetoric says it acted.
And finally, to address your first point, I will say again, if you marched down Whitehall with a banner saying Israel = Fascist then you would be arrested.
And finally x2, you are PM of Israel, apart from not starting from there, what would you have done?
In short, No They Won’t. Republic is like the National Secular Society, or Just Stop Oil. They attract a band of committed activists, but come over as cranks to most.
I see Harry and Meghan remain about as popular as the Conservative Party.
The monarchy is impossible to abolish until a particular condition is met. It has to be an electoral advantage to put 'a Referendum on Abolishing the Monarchy' in a general election manifesto.
This can't happen as long as the question would negatively sway even a million or so royalist voters. So, for example, if Labour put it in their manifesto (which of course they won't) I would not vote for them, and I am very much a centrist moderate about politics, including the monarchy.
There are of course two big questions. Not only 'abolition' but also 'what replaces it'. The second is, in the age of elected heads of state like Trump, difficult. Monarchy replaced by Boris/Farage/Corbyn/ Gazza/Elton John anyone?
A democratic head of state is more legitimate than a non elected one - even if they're an awful person. Your position is "democracy is good, except for this part, where bloodline is apparently a good enough qualification".
Theory: In the UK the status on the monarchy in a matter for parliament. Our monarchy is part of a constitution in which parliament can abolish the monarchy, but the monarchy can't abolish parliament.
Practical: I shall keep Charles III. You may keep Putin and Trump.
This is just an argument against elections - should we not have MP elections because we might get a PM Trump-lite? No. We should do the things that can make democracies good at combatting literal fascists by making it responsive to the needs of most people - instead we live in a system where the needs of the few are put above the needs of the many no matter what the many vote for. That's an issue with capitalism alongside democracy - because the two are fundamentally incompatible.
Thanks. An interesting but different question is how democracy is compatible generally with the complexities of an international order and large scale private enterprise in a capitalist system. You suggest in essence that democracy can't sort itself, being hamstring by incompatibilities.
In short, No They Won’t. Republic is like the National Secular Society, or Just Stop Oil. They attract a band of committed activists, but come over as cranks to most.
I see Harry and Meghan remain about as popular as the Conservative Party.
The monarchy is impossible to abolish until a particular condition is met. It has to be an electoral advantage to put 'a Referendum on Abolishing the Monarchy' in a general election manifesto.
This can't happen as long as the question would negatively sway even a million or so royalist voters. So, for example, if Labour put it in their manifesto (which of course they won't) I would not vote for them, and I am very much a centrist moderate about politics, including the monarchy.
There are of course two big questions. Not only 'abolition' but also 'what replaces it'. The second is, in the age of elected heads of state like Trump, difficult. Monarchy replaced by Boris/Farage/Corbyn/ Gazza/Elton John anyone?
A democratic head of state is more legitimate than a non elected one - even if they're an awful person. Your position is "democracy is good, except for this part, where bloodline is apparently a good enough qualification".
Theory: In the UK the status on the monarchy in a matter for parliament. Our monarchy is part of a constitution in which parliament can abolish the monarchy, but the monarchy can't abolish parliament.
Practical: I shall keep Charles III. You may keep Putin and Trump.
This is just an argument against elections - should we not have MP elections because we might get a PM Trump-lite? No. We should do the things that can make democracies good at combatting literal fascists by making it responsive to the needs of most people - instead we live in a system where the needs of the few are put above the needs of the many no matter what the many vote for. That's an issue with capitalism alongside democracy - because the two are fundamentally incompatible.
Thanks. An interesting but different question is how democracy is compatible generally with the complexities of an international order and large scale private enterprise in a capitalist system. You suggest in essence that democracy can't sort itself, being hamstring by incompatibilities. Which of course leads to the next set of very obvious questions. One of them is: Are you being utopian?
Possibly - I am a leftist and the further right the world goes, the more my positions seem utopian. But, at the end of the day, if individual autonomy is good (which I believe it is), then democratic principles are good. I think one way of dealing with the complexities of international order and large scale companies is to make those things more democratic too. Workers should have voting power on what happens in their companies. There should be more democracy at local levels, and more democracy at international levels.
I don't think democracy can't sort itself, as such - I think democracy is incompatible with capitalism. Capitalists want to protect their access to capital and the means of production and profit; workers want to have capital to live. That is the class struggle. If you build democracy onto capitalism, you have created a means by which workers vote for things that politicians say will improve their lives, but cater to the needs of capitalists because they have all the money and power. If, on the other hands, you democratised the workplace, and diffused power from central governments to local governments, capitalists would have less influence (because few workers are going to use the workplace democracy to disempower themselves) and the more locally held the democracy the more impacted by negative outcomes even the politicians are.
Thanks. The difficulty with criticising democracy is that any system for organising a population in a humanist way needs to take account of both where we have got to in the last 4 billion years - our current starting point - and also people's wants and aspirations. Some version of democracy seems to be the only way of finding out; the alternatives tend to involve telling people what they want. I find that that leftists, a group I respect and with which you identify, are as resistant to being told what you want as much as I am. I think they are right. Do you?
In short, No They Won’t. Republic is like the National Secular Society, or Just Stop Oil. They attract a band of committed activists, but come over as cranks to most.
I see Harry and Meghan remain about as popular as the Conservative Party.
The monarchy is impossible to abolish until a particular condition is met. It has to be an electoral advantage to put 'a Referendum on Abolishing the Monarchy' in a general election manifesto.
This can't happen as long as the question would negatively sway even a million or so royalist voters. So, for example, if Labour put it in their manifesto (which of course they won't) I would not vote for them, and I am very much a centrist moderate about politics, including the monarchy.
There are of course two big questions. Not only 'abolition' but also 'what replaces it'. The second is, in the age of elected heads of state like Trump, difficult. Monarchy replaced by Boris/Farage/Corbyn/ Gazza/Elton John anyone?
A democratic head of state is more legitimate than a non elected one - even if they're an awful person. Your position is "democracy is good, except for this part, where bloodline is apparently a good enough qualification".
Hitler was elected
So was H*m*s. Whisper it.
So was Bibi
Yes indeed. So was Bibi. Good point.
Your Stockholm Syndrome grows by the day.
Bibi and his fascist Government were elected.
Not next time though
' fascist ' ?
I'm unsure Israel, even under Likud, comes anywhere near a reasonable definition of 'fascist'.
Depends on your definition, but I think the Israeli settler movement is fascistic and meets Umberto Eco's idea of Ur-Fascism (the idea that fascisms are not a set of beliefs that are the same, as such, but a set of beliefs that do the same thing). Taking a short version of his criteria (https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/umberto-eco-ur-fascism):
Cult of Tradition Rejection of Modernism Cult of Action for Action's Sake Disagreement is Treason Fear of Difference Appeals to Frustrated Middle Class Obsession with a Plot Humiliated by their Enemy / Enemy is Weak and Strong Pacifism is Trafficking with the Enemy / Life is Permanent War Contempt for the Weak Cult of Heroism / Everyone is a Hero Machismo Selective Populism Newspeak
Current Israeli culture / policy meets quite a few of these - Cult of Tradition - Part of the founding logic of Israel is that that land is the homeland, from a tradition spanning thousands of years, and references are made to scripture and traditions to back this up. Everyone is a Hero - the glorification of the IDF, the mandatory span in the military, the relative disregard for the actual hostages in a material sense, but a great emphasis on their use in a propaganda sense. Humiliated by the Enemy / Enemy is Weak and Strong - Palestinians are often portrayed as weak and strong; they are animals, little more than dogs, but they are also an existential threat to Israel and all Jewish people. Disagreement is Treason and Pacifism is Trafficking with the Enemy - Israel has always clamped down hard on those who are sympathetic to the plight of Palestinians inside their borders, and is doing more so now (including those who were kidnapped or the families of the kidnapped). See also the cries of Kapo or Judenrat aimed at Jewish people who are anti-Zionism. Machismo and Contempt for the Weak - I think I mentioned here last week the interesting article I read about how holocaust survivors in Israel were held in contempt, were considered the "weak Jews" and that the "strong Jews" were the ones who built Israel. Appeals to the Frustrated Middle Class / Selective Populism - that is the settler movement, many of those who take the houses or shops of Palestinians are middle class Israelis. The transfer of land and wealth from Palestinians to Jewish Israelis is a selective populism. Obsession with a Plot - Hamas is everywhere. The UN is Hamas. Everyone is Hamas. Rejection of Modernism - even though Israel tries to do pinkwashing, Bibi and his government are much more comfortable with the likes of Orban and the GOP then they are with progressive values. Cult of Action for Action's Sake - you can see the disproportionate response to Palestinian protests and violence as this, as well as the long term strategy of "Mowing the Lawn" - as well as the constant rising of tensions at Al-Aqsa mosque.
I'd argue that 1) the settler movement is not one item, and neither is the Israeli population. But I'd also argue that Israeli movements for peace, and allowing Palestinians to work within Israel is a pointer against the above. Thridly, some of the points above are rather weak.
Then again, you promote the Nazi scheme to send Jews to Madagascar, so perhaps you have an inside track on fascism...
My position isn't that every Israeli is a fascist, but that the Israeli policy and political culture is pretty fascistic. I would say that the settler aspect of Israeli policy is pretty fascistic, yes.
I didn't "promote" the scheme, I misremembered the countries that were discussed as alternatives for a Jewish homeland that both the Nazis and the Allies (and even some Jewish people) wanted. And my position is still that the best way for Jewish people to be safe is not for a Jewish homeland country, but for all the countries who were (and still are) amazingly anti-Semitic to confront their anti-Semitism. Instead what we have is a political discourse that allows people to be hugely anti-Semitic, going so far as to suggest that whites are under attack from Jewish people, but then are deemed as Jewish allies for supporting Israel; and on the flip side means that Jewish activists against Zionism whose own families died in the Holocaust get called anti-Semites or Kapos for their criticisms of Israel.
And the Greek PM has every right to not meet Dowden after the snub.
It doesn’t seem like smart politics to me. Every time you raise the salience of the Elgin marbles you bring forward the inevitable moment they get returned to Greece. It’s very difficult to win the argument so the best possible thing to do is avoid the argument in the first place.
This snub puts the marbles on the front pages again and makes it more likely, not less, that they’ll be on their way to the acropolis museum in due course.
The sensible approach I think would be to lease them on a long (ie indefinite) basis to Greece. That way they get their marbles and shut up about them, while Britain gets to pretend it still actually owns them.
In short, No They Won’t. Republic is like the National Secular Society, or Just Stop Oil. They attract a band of committed activists, but come over as cranks to most.
I see Harry and Meghan remain about as popular as the Conservative Party.
The monarchy is impossible to abolish until a particular condition is met. It has to be an electoral advantage to put 'a Referendum on Abolishing the Monarchy' in a general election manifesto.
This can't happen as long as the question would negatively sway even a million or so royalist voters. So, for example, if Labour put it in their manifesto (which of course they won't) I would not vote for them, and I am very much a centrist moderate about politics, including the monarchy.
There are of course two big questions. Not only 'abolition' but also 'what replaces it'. The second is, in the age of elected heads of state like Trump, difficult. Monarchy replaced by Boris/Farage/Corbyn/ Gazza/Elton John anyone?
A democratic head of state is more legitimate than a non elected one - even if they're an awful person. Your position is "democracy is good, except for this part, where bloodline is apparently a good enough qualification".
Hitler was elected
So was H*m*s. Whisper it.
So was Bibi
Yes indeed. So was Bibi. Good point.
Your Stockholm Syndrome grows by the day.
Bibi and his fascist Government were elected.
Not next time though
' fascist ' ?
I'm unsure Israel, even under Likud, comes anywhere near a reasonable definition of 'fascist'.
I am no fan of Bibi and wish he were not the Prime Minister of Israel, but neither he nor the State of Israel are fascist in any normal use of the term...
Hamas on the other hand...
I am tended to agree. A problem is that there are so many definitions of 'fascism', which seem to be developed to include some regimes and exclude others. For instance, I find it odd that some can get angry when I call the Russian regime 'fascist', but call the Israeli government it. IMV it is much more fitting for the Russian regime.
As an aside, definitions that include things like "Obsession with national security" falls down with a state like Israel, where national security *is* a justifiable priority, given the hatred there is towards them (as shown on Oct 7th). Likewise, "obsession with plot".
Then there are ones like 'racial exclusiveness', which I'd argue in no way fits Israel (but does Russia with its slav-centredness), or its rather pro-LGBT stance.
In short, No They Won’t. Republic is like the National Secular Society, or Just Stop Oil. They attract a band of committed activists, but come over as cranks to most.
I see Harry and Meghan remain about as popular as the Conservative Party.
The monarchy is impossible to abolish until a particular condition is met. It has to be an electoral advantage to put 'a Referendum on Abolishing the Monarchy' in a general election manifesto.
This can't happen as long as the question would negatively sway even a million or so royalist voters. So, for example, if Labour put it in their manifesto (which of course they won't) I would not vote for them, and I am very much a centrist moderate about politics, including the monarchy.
There are of course two big questions. Not only 'abolition' but also 'what replaces it'. The second is, in the age of elected heads of state like Trump, difficult. Monarchy replaced by Boris/Farage/Corbyn/ Gazza/Elton John anyone?
A democratic head of state is more legitimate than a non elected one - even if they're an awful person. Your position is "democracy is good, except for this part, where bloodline is apparently a good enough qualification".
Titles don't matter. Some countries that are republics in name, are monarchies in reality. Some monarchies vest the majority of power in the elected representatives. But, in all countries, actual power is wielded by a pretty small section of the population.
Monarchies are also rather more successful than republics
14 of the top 20 territories/countries on the IMF GDP per capita list are monarchies
This is a "Brexit for the sovereignty" level of belief for me. A ruling class based on bloodline is morally abhorrent. I don't care if a ruling class based on bloodline is good for business - it is wrong.
No political system is perfect. I dare you to name one. But recent history teaches us that democratic constitutional monarchy is probably the least imperfect
True power is exercised by the people via their elected tribunes. As it should be. But the monarchy embodies the ceremonial aspect and is usefully above the politicians - so it can steer and advise and - most importantly - act as a source of stability in times of trouble
Thailand - where I am now - is a great example of that. Democratic Thai politics is corrupt, vivid, angry, and sometimes ceases altogether with periods of military rule. How come Thailand doesn’t sink into civil war like so many countries in the region?
The monarchy
That doesn't make sense. It doesn't follow logical rules. You pick an example that fits your conclusion and ignore any that didn't. Even if there weren't any, and there are, it still isn't logical. It is like saying I have a yellow jelly baby therefore all jelly babies are yellow.
And the Greek PM has every right to not meet Dowden after the snub.
It doesn’t seem like smart politics to me. Every time you raise the salience of the Elgin marbles you bring forward the inevitable moment they get returned to Greece. It’s very difficult to win the argument so the best possible thing to do is avoid the argument in the first place.
This snub puts the marbles on the front pages again and makes it more likely, not less, that they’ll be on their way to the acropolis museum in due course.
The sensible approach I think would be to lease them on a long (ie indefinite) basis to Greece. That way they get their marbles and shut up about them, while Britain gets to pretend it still actually owns them.
Don't forget George Osborne 279th job is head of British Museum and the all the rumblings are that he is negotiating some sort of loan / swap deal. So makes Sunak behaviour even stranger.
In short, No They Won’t. Republic is like the National Secular Society, or Just Stop Oil. They attract a band of committed activists, but come over as cranks to most.
I see Harry and Meghan remain about as popular as the Conservative Party.
The monarchy is impossible to abolish until a particular condition is met. It has to be an electoral advantage to put 'a Referendum on Abolishing the Monarchy' in a general election manifesto.
This can't happen as long as the question would negatively sway even a million or so royalist voters. So, for example, if Labour put it in their manifesto (which of course they won't) I would not vote for them, and I am very much a centrist moderate about politics, including the monarchy.
There are of course two big questions. Not only 'abolition' but also 'what replaces it'. The second is, in the age of elected heads of state like Trump, difficult. Monarchy replaced by Boris/Farage/Corbyn/ Gazza/Elton John anyone?
A democratic head of state is more legitimate than a non elected one - even if they're an awful person. Your position is "democracy is good, except for this part, where bloodline is apparently a good enough qualification".
Theory: In the UK the status on the monarchy in a matter for parliament. Our monarchy is part of a constitution in which parliament can abolish the monarchy, but the monarchy can't abolish parliament.
Practical: I shall keep Charles III. You may keep Putin and Trump.
This is just an argument against elections - should we not have MP elections because we might get a PM Trump-lite? No. We should do the things that can make democracies good at combatting literal fascists by making it responsive to the needs of most people - instead we live in a system where the needs of the few are put above the needs of the many no matter what the many vote for. That's an issue with capitalism alongside democracy - because the two are fundamentally incompatible.
Thanks. An interesting but different question is how democracy is compatible generally with the complexities of an international order and large scale private enterprise in a capitalist system. You suggest in essence that democracy can't sort itself, being hamstring by incompatibilities.
In short, No They Won’t. Republic is like the National Secular Society, or Just Stop Oil. They attract a band of committed activists, but come over as cranks to most.
I see Harry and Meghan remain about as popular as the Conservative Party.
The monarchy is impossible to abolish until a particular condition is met. It has to be an electoral advantage to put 'a Referendum on Abolishing the Monarchy' in a general election manifesto.
This can't happen as long as the question would negatively sway even a million or so royalist voters. So, for example, if Labour put it in their manifesto (which of course they won't) I would not vote for them, and I am very much a centrist moderate about politics, including the monarchy.
There are of course two big questions. Not only 'abolition' but also 'what replaces it'. The second is, in the age of elected heads of state like Trump, difficult. Monarchy replaced by Boris/Farage/Corbyn/ Gazza/Elton John anyone?
A democratic head of state is more legitimate than a non elected one - even if they're an awful person. Your position is "democracy is good, except for this part, where bloodline is apparently a good enough qualification".
Theory: In the UK the status on the monarchy in a matter for parliament. Our monarchy is part of a constitution in which parliament can abolish the monarchy, but the monarchy can't abolish parliament.
Practical: I shall keep Charles III. You may keep Putin and Trump.
This is just an argument against elections - should we not have MP elections because we might get a PM Trump-lite? No. We should do the things that can make democracies good at combatting literal fascists by making it responsive to the needs of most people - instead we live in a system where the needs of the few are put above the needs of the many no matter what the many vote for. That's an issue with capitalism alongside democracy - because the two are fundamentally incompatible.
Thanks. An interesting but different question is how democracy is compatible generally with the complexities of an international order and large scale private enterprise in a capitalist system. You suggest in essence that democracy can't sort itself, being hamstring by incompatibilities. Which of course leads to the next set of very obvious questions. One of them is: Are you being utopian?
Possibly - I am a leftist and the further right the world goes, the more my positions seem utopian. But, at the end of the day, if individual autonomy is good (which I believe it is), then democratic principles are good. I think one way of dealing with the complexities of international order and large scale companies is to make those things more democratic too. Workers should have voting power on what happens in their companies. There should be more democracy at local levels, and more democracy at international levels.
I don't think democracy can't sort itself, as such - I think democracy is incompatible with capitalism. Capitalists want to protect their access to capital and the means of production and profit; workers want to have capital to live. That is the class struggle. If you build democracy onto capitalism, you have created a means by which workers vote for things that politicians say will improve their lives, but cater to the needs of capitalists because they have all the money and power. If, on the other hands, you democratised the workplace, and diffused power from central governments to local governments, capitalists would have less influence (because few workers are going to use the workplace democracy to disempower themselves) and the more locally held the democracy the more impacted by negative outcomes even the politicians are.
Thanks. The difficulty with criticising democracy is that any system for organising a population in a humanist way needs to take account of both where we have got to in the last 4 billion years - our current starting point - and also people's wants and aspirations. Some version of democracy seems to be the only way of finding out; the alternatives tend to involve telling people what they want. I find that that leftists, a group I respect and with which you identify, are as resistant to being told what you want as much as I am. I think they are right. Do you?
I'm not quite sure what you're getting at. If your saying that top down imposition of policy is bad - I would generally agree. That's why I'm not a leftist statist (like a Lenonist or a Stalinist, although not everything they did or said was bad) and am much more of a leftist anarchist (like a Makhno, Kropotkin or Bookchin, although not everything they did or said was good). I like the idea of democratic confederalism - local areas making decisions democratically, then sending representatives with a mandate to share those decisions at a more macro forum. Not in the sense that that individual can substitute their own view for their communities view (like MPs) but that they just explain and share the view of their community (more like a delegate, or ambassador I guess). This continues up and down the different levels of negotiations, depending on how interconnected things are, and the hope is differences can be negotiated but, at the end of the day, it is a participatory democracy. In the internet age, logistically, this could be easier than the past. (There are a lot more complexities then that, but in the general sense, that's what I'm interested in).
In short, No They Won’t. Republic is like the National Secular Society, or Just Stop Oil. They attract a band of committed activists, but come over as cranks to most.
I see Harry and Meghan remain about as popular as the Conservative Party.
The monarchy is impossible to abolish until a particular condition is met. It has to be an electoral advantage to put 'a Referendum on Abolishing the Monarchy' in a general election manifesto.
This can't happen as long as the question would negatively sway even a million or so royalist voters. So, for example, if Labour put it in their manifesto (which of course they won't) I would not vote for them, and I am very much a centrist moderate about politics, including the monarchy.
There are of course two big questions. Not only 'abolition' but also 'what replaces it'. The second is, in the age of elected heads of state like Trump, difficult. Monarchy replaced by Boris/Farage/Corbyn/ Gazza/Elton John anyone?
A democratic head of state is more legitimate than a non elected one - even if they're an awful person. Your position is "democracy is good, except for this part, where bloodline is apparently a good enough qualification".
Hitler was elected
So was H*m*s. Whisper it.
So was Bibi
Your Stockholm Syndrome grows by the day.
Same as the Israeli hostages!
I just find it funny. You were crapping yourself like a bitch when the Islamic "militants" were outside your hotel room door gunning down your fellow package holidaymakers and now they are your heroes.
Stupid comment.
Hamas are terrorists and fascists too
Same as the baby slaughterers in Israel you support.
Sticking up for Palestinian children being slaughtered by the fascists is something I would always have done.
Have you always supported Israels fascists oppression and killing of innocents
First off, if you put on a banner what you are writing here on PB and marched in London you would be arrested so that ought to give you pause when considering your position.
Secondly, as has long been pointed out and I don't intend to spend the rest of the morning doing so again at length now, there are civilian casualties of war. You could easily say, and many do, that civilians in Dresden were slaughtered. But that is war.
The question then becomes which side of the war you are on. I am on the side of the Israelis for reasons also well-rehearsed.
The strange thing about you is that you are on the side of Hamas in this conflict. The union set of beliefs of Hamas and the attackers on Sousse beach is huge. They hate you and all you stand for with your left-leaning on the side of the powerless bollocks and want you dead. And that is another point that should give you pause to consider your position.
Firstly i dont think so if Israeli Ministers are saying they are fascists a banner saying that Israeli leaders are fascists would not result in arrest as it is true
Secondly its not a war, its a slaughter of innocents How many Hamas have been killed compared to civillians. If it is a war Israel have carried out collective punishment which is a war crime.
Thirdly being on the side of innocents is not being on the side of Hamas.
Your position is literally that "Israel has that right" whatever it does and you dont care how many innocents are slaughtered. That should give you pause to consider your position.
On 1, you're welcome to test that theory in court. I wouldn't advise it though.
On 2, yes, it is a war. Hamas launched it and Israel responded. If the war is one-sided, that's the way it is; there's no obligation to keep a fair balance. Israel has the right, in international law, to take such measures as are necessary to achieve its legitimate war aims - and to continue to take those measures until those aims are met. While it should at all times aim to avoid or minimise civilian casualties where possible (and, to my mind, hasn't always done that), we should be clear on this next point: there is no upper limit to the number of casualties Israel can cause, providing they come from legitimate military actions. Urban fighting is always going to be bloody. Hamas knew this when they started the war.
The logic of your argument is that Israel should never be allowed to make war on Palestine, whatever the provocations of its government, because of the nature of the geography of the territory, which is obvious nonsense.
The cessation of trade between warring states is also an international norm. It is not, in any way, a 'collective punishment', and simply asserting it does not make it so. If the Palestinian government did not arrange for domestic water and energy supply, that's on them and no-one else.
On 3, that depends on what "being on the side of innocents" means, and whether it's being equally applied to innocents on both sides.
Just because you don't like something, that doesn't make it illegal. Just because something is a tragedy of death and destruction, that doesn't make it illegal.
We are not used to seeing full-scale war these days but it does exist and states have the right - in appropriate circumstances - to wage it. And on that basis, if Israel sets its objective as the unconditional surrender of the Gazan government, it has that right - and, hence, the right to make war, within its obligations to international law and its own practical constraints, up to the point of that surrender. Whether it would be wise to is an entirely different question.
In short, No They Won’t. Republic is like the National Secular Society, or Just Stop Oil. They attract a band of committed activists, but come over as cranks to most.
I see Harry and Meghan remain about as popular as the Conservative Party.
The monarchy is impossible to abolish until a particular condition is met. It has to be an electoral advantage to put 'a Referendum on Abolishing the Monarchy' in a general election manifesto.
This can't happen as long as the question would negatively sway even a million or so royalist voters. So, for example, if Labour put it in their manifesto (which of course they won't) I would not vote for them, and I am very much a centrist moderate about politics, including the monarchy.
There are of course two big questions. Not only 'abolition' but also 'what replaces it'. The second is, in the age of elected heads of state like Trump, difficult. Monarchy replaced by Boris/Farage/Corbyn/ Gazza/Elton John anyone?
A democratic head of state is more legitimate than a non elected one - even if they're an awful person. Your position is "democracy is good, except for this part, where bloodline is apparently a good enough qualification".
Hitler was elected
So was H*m*s. Whisper it.
So was Bibi
Your Stockholm Syndrome grows by the day.
Same as the Israeli hostages!
I just find it funny. You were crapping yourself like a bitch when the Islamic "militants" were outside your hotel room door gunning down your fellow package holidaymakers.
What would you have done?
Given them a stiff talking to!!
Then we come to the Israeli response. As has been asked a zillion times, what would you have had them do?
Negotiate with Hamas as has now happened securing a release of hostages by exchange.
Then go after the perpetrators properly targeting them using proper intelligence rather than flattening the place with a huge loss of innocent life and killing bugger all Hamas .
What has it achieved how many hostages were freed by the IDF?.
Are future generation of Palestinians more or less likely to want to kill Israelis?
Do you think Israel is going to be a safer place to live with less terrorism following its current campaign?
In short, No They Won’t. Republic is like the National Secular Society, or Just Stop Oil. They attract a band of committed activists, but come over as cranks to most.
I see Harry and Meghan remain about as popular as the Conservative Party.
The monarchy is impossible to abolish until a particular condition is met. It has to be an electoral advantage to put 'a Referendum on Abolishing the Monarchy' in a general election manifesto.
This can't happen as long as the question would negatively sway even a million or so royalist voters. So, for example, if Labour put it in their manifesto (which of course they won't) I would not vote for them, and I am very much a centrist moderate about politics, including the monarchy.
There are of course two big questions. Not only 'abolition' but also 'what replaces it'. The second is, in the age of elected heads of state like Trump, difficult. Monarchy replaced by Boris/Farage/Corbyn/ Gazza/Elton John anyone?
A democratic head of state is more legitimate than a non elected one - even if they're an awful person. Your position is "democracy is good, except for this part, where bloodline is apparently a good enough qualification".
Hitler was elected
So was H*m*s. Whisper it.
So was Bibi
Yes indeed. So was Bibi. Good point.
Your Stockholm Syndrome grows by the day.
Bibi and his fascist Government were elected.
Not next time though
' fascist ' ?
I'm unsure Israel, even under Likud, comes anywhere near a reasonable definition of 'fascist'.
Depends on your definition, but I think the Israeli settler movement is fascistic and meets Umberto Eco's idea of Ur-Fascism (the idea that fascisms are not a set of beliefs that are the same, as such, but a set of beliefs that do the same thing). Taking a short version of his criteria (https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/umberto-eco-ur-fascism):
Cult of Tradition Rejection of Modernism Cult of Action for Action's Sake Disagreement is Treason Fear of Difference Appeals to Frustrated Middle Class Obsession with a Plot Humiliated by their Enemy / Enemy is Weak and Strong Pacifism is Trafficking with the Enemy / Life is Permanent War Contempt for the Weak Cult of Heroism / Everyone is a Hero Machismo Selective Populism Newspeak
Current Israeli culture / policy meets quite a few of these - Cult of Tradition - Part of the founding logic of Israel is that that land is the homeland, from a tradition spanning thousands of years, and references are made to scripture and traditions to back this up. Everyone is a Hero - the glorification of the IDF, the mandatory span in the military, the relative disregard for the actual hostages in a material sense, but a great emphasis on their use in a propaganda sense. Humiliated by the Enemy / Enemy is Weak and Strong - Palestinians are often portrayed as weak and strong; they are animals, little more than dogs, but they are also an existential threat to Israel and all Jewish people. Disagreement is Treason and Pacifism is Trafficking with the Enemy - Israel has always clamped down hard on those who are sympathetic to the plight of Palestinians inside their borders, and is doing more so now (including those who were kidnapped or the families of the kidnapped). See also the cries of Kapo or Judenrat aimed at Jewish people who are anti-Zionism. Machismo and Contempt for the Weak - I think I mentioned here last week the interesting article I read about how holocaust survivors in Israel were held in contempt, were considered the "weak Jews" and that the "strong Jews" were the ones who built Israel. Appeals to the Frustrated Middle Class / Selective Populism - that is the settler movement, many of those who take the houses or shops of Palestinians are middle class Israelis. The transfer of land and wealth from Palestinians to Jewish Israelis is a selective populism. Obsession with a Plot - Hamas is everywhere. The UN is Hamas. Everyone is Hamas. Rejection of Modernism - even though Israel tries to do pinkwashing, Bibi and his government are much more comfortable with the likes of Orban and the GOP then they are with progressive values. Cult of Action for Action's Sake - you can see the disproportionate response to Palestinian protests and violence as this, as well as the long term strategy of "Mowing the Lawn" - as well as the constant rising of tensions at Al-Aqsa mosque.
I'd argue that 1) the settler movement is not one item, and neither is the Israeli population. But I'd also argue that Israeli movements for peace, and allowing Palestinians to work within Israel is a pointer against the above. Thridly, some of the points above are rather weak.
Then again, you promote the Nazi scheme to send Jews to Madagascar, so perhaps you have an inside track on fascism...
My position isn't that every Israeli is a fascist, but that the Israeli policy and political culture is pretty fascistic. I would say that the settler aspect of Israeli policy is pretty fascistic, yes.
I didn't "promote" the scheme, I misremembered the countries that were discussed as alternatives for a Jewish homeland that both the Nazis and the Allies (and even some Jewish people) wanted. And my position is still that the best way for Jewish people to be safe is not for a Jewish homeland country, but for all the countries who were (and still are) amazingly anti-Semitic to confront their anti-Semitism. Instead what we have is a political discourse that allows people to be hugely anti-Semitic, going so far as to suggest that whites are under attack from Jewish people, but then are deemed as Jewish allies for supporting Israel; and on the flip side means that Jewish activists against Zionism whose own families died in the Holocaust get called anti-Semites or Kapos for their criticisms of Israel.
"...both the Nazis and the Allies (and even some Jewish people) wanted."
And note the following line: "They assumed that many Jews would succumb to its harsh conditions should the plan be implemented."
and:
"The head of the commission, Mieczysław Lepecki [pl], felt the island could accommodate 5-7000 families, but Jewish members of the group estimated that, because of the climate and poor infrastructure, only 500 or even fewer families could safely be accommodated."
Your 'position' is one that would lead to another Holocaust, as has shown repeatedly with your 'one state' solution bollocks.
Your reading of 'history' is rather odd, to say the least.
In short, No They Won’t. Republic is like the National Secular Society, or Just Stop Oil. They attract a band of committed activists, but come over as cranks to most.
I see Harry and Meghan remain about as popular as the Conservative Party.
The monarchy is impossible to abolish until a particular condition is met. It has to be an electoral advantage to put 'a Referendum on Abolishing the Monarchy' in a general election manifesto.
This can't happen as long as the question would negatively sway even a million or so royalist voters. So, for example, if Labour put it in their manifesto (which of course they won't) I would not vote for them, and I am very much a centrist moderate about politics, including the monarchy.
There are of course two big questions. Not only 'abolition' but also 'what replaces it'. The second is, in the age of elected heads of state like Trump, difficult. Monarchy replaced by Boris/Farage/Corbyn/ Gazza/Elton John anyone?
A democratic head of state is more legitimate than a non elected one - even if they're an awful person. Your position is "democracy is good, except for this part, where bloodline is apparently a good enough qualification".
Titles don't matter. Some countries that are republics in name, are monarchies in reality. Some monarchies vest the majority of power in the elected representatives. But, in all countries, actual power is wielded by a pretty small section of the population.
Monarchies are also rather more successful than republics
14 of the top 20 territories/countries on the IMF GDP per capita list are monarchies
This is a "Brexit for the sovereignty" level of belief for me. A ruling class based on bloodline is morally abhorrent. I don't care if a ruling class based on bloodline is good for business - it is wrong.
No political system is perfect. I dare you to name one. But recent history teaches us that democratic constitutional monarchy is probably the least imperfect
True power is exercised by the people via their elected tribunes. As it should be. But the monarchy embodies the ceremonial aspect and is usefully above the politicians - so it can steer and advise and - most importantly - act as a source of stability in times of trouble
Thailand - where I am now - is a great example of that. Democratic Thai politics is corrupt, vivid, angry, and sometimes ceases altogether with periods of military rule. How come Thailand doesn’t sink into civil war like so many countries in the region?
The monarchy
That doesn't make sense. It doesn't follow logical rules. You pick an example that fits your conclusion and ignore any that didn't. Even if there weren't any, and there are, it still isn't logical. It is like saying I have a yellow jelly baby therefore all jelly babies are yellow.
True. Although as an example, it does work.
In reality, political culture matters much more than systems. A monarchy can be useful in creating or maintaining a working political culture but it's neither necessary nor sufficient.
In short, No They Won’t. Republic is like the National Secular Society, or Just Stop Oil. They attract a band of committed activists, but come over as cranks to most.
I see Harry and Meghan remain about as popular as the Conservative Party.
The monarchy is impossible to abolish until a particular condition is met. It has to be an electoral advantage to put 'a Referendum on Abolishing the Monarchy' in a general election manifesto.
This can't happen as long as the question would negatively sway even a million or so royalist voters. So, for example, if Labour put it in their manifesto (which of course they won't) I would not vote for them, and I am very much a centrist moderate about politics, including the monarchy.
There are of course two big questions. Not only 'abolition' but also 'what replaces it'. The second is, in the age of elected heads of state like Trump, difficult. Monarchy replaced by Boris/Farage/Corbyn/ Gazza/Elton John anyone?
A democratic head of state is more legitimate than a non elected one - even if they're an awful person. Your position is "democracy is good, except for this part, where bloodline is apparently a good enough qualification".
Hitler was elected
So was H*m*s. Whisper it.
So was Bibi
Your Stockholm Syndrome grows by the day.
Same as the Israeli hostages!
I just find it funny. You were crapping yourself like a bitch when the Islamic "militants" were outside your hotel room door gunning down your fellow package holidaymakers.
What would you have done?
Given them a stiff talking to!!
Then we come to the Israeli response. As has been asked a zillion times, what would you have had them do?
Negotiate with Hamas as has now happened securing a release of hostages by exchange.
Then go after the perpetrators properly targeting them using proper intelligence rather than flattening the place with a huge loss of innocent life and killing bugger all Hamas .
What has it achieved how many hostages were freed by the IDF?.
Are future generation of Palestinians more or less likely to want to kill Israelis?
Do you think Israel is going to be a safer place to live with less terrorism following its current campaign?
Pointless slaughter does nobody any good.
"Then go after the perpetrators properly targeting them using proper intelligence rather than flattening the place with a huge loss of innocent life and killing bugger all Hamas ."
You assume no Hamas fighters have been killed by Israel, and I'd argue that's probably fantasy. You might also ask yourself why Hamas have been very keen to show scenes of civilian devastation, but are quiet about military deaths. And why Hamas embed themselves in civilian infrastructure.
And the Israeli action is not just about killing Hamas; it is about harming Hamas's ability to perform another spectacular like the Oct 7th atrocity.
"Do you think Israel is going to be a safer place to live with less terrorism following its current campaign?"
Given what happened on October 7th, it's unlikely to be massively less safe.
BTW, what's your view on the tunnels underneath the hospital? Are you still a sceptic?
In short, No They Won’t. Republic is like the National Secular Society, or Just Stop Oil. They attract a band of committed activists, but come over as cranks to most.
I see Harry and Meghan remain about as popular as the Conservative Party.
The monarchy is impossible to abolish until a particular condition is met. It has to be an electoral advantage to put 'a Referendum on Abolishing the Monarchy' in a general election manifesto.
This can't happen as long as the question would negatively sway even a million or so royalist voters. So, for example, if Labour put it in their manifesto (which of course they won't) I would not vote for them, and I am very much a centrist moderate about politics, including the monarchy.
There are of course two big questions. Not only 'abolition' but also 'what replaces it'. The second is, in the age of elected heads of state like Trump, difficult. Monarchy replaced by Boris/Farage/Corbyn/ Gazza/Elton John anyone?
A democratic head of state is more legitimate than a non elected one - even if they're an awful person. Your position is "democracy is good, except for this part, where bloodline is apparently a good enough qualification".
Hitler was elected
So was H*m*s. Whisper it.
So was Bibi
Yes indeed. So was Bibi. Good point.
Your Stockholm Syndrome grows by the day.
Bibi and his fascist Government were elected.
Not next time though
' fascist ' ?
I'm unsure Israel, even under Likud, comes anywhere near a reasonable definition of 'fascist'.
I am no fan of Bibi and wish he were not the Prime Minister of Israel, but neither he nor the State of Israel are fascist in any normal use of the term...
Hamas on the other hand...
I am tended to agree. A problem is that there are so many definitions of 'fascism', which seem to be developed to include some regimes and exclude others. For instance, I find it odd that some can get angry when I call the Russian regime 'fascist', but call the Israeli government it. IMV it is much more fitting for the Russian regime.
As an aside, definitions that include things like "Obsession with national security" falls down with a state like Israel, where national security *is* a justifiable priority, given the hatred there is towards them (as shown on Oct 7th). Likewise, "obsession with plot".
Then there are ones like 'racial exclusiveness', which I'd argue in no way fits Israel (but does Russia with its slav-centredness), or its rather pro-LGBT stance.
I would defo agree that the Russian state and Putinism fits more of Eco's points on his definition of fascism than the Israeli state and Netanyahuism - but if fascism is a scale, not a binary, then Israel is on the fascist side of that scale, and comfortably so.
The racial exclusiveness of Israel is long standing, for a long time the Israeli state gave Ethiopian Jewish people birth control without consent because they were black. And I don't see the Israeli state's move of being "pro-LGBT" as particularly sincere (as a state, not the people within it) - they are a Western ally, so kind of don't have a choice to move with Western politics in many ways, and the way they use their LGBT rights falls pretty squarely within homonationalism. The "Brand Israel" project was specifically aimed at arguing Israel is a modern progressive country who accepted queer people, and juxtaposed that with Palestinians to make them out as barbaric.
In short, No They Won’t. Republic is like the National Secular Society, or Just Stop Oil. They attract a band of committed activists, but come over as cranks to most.
I see Harry and Meghan remain about as popular as the Conservative Party.
The monarchy is impossible to abolish until a particular condition is met. It has to be an electoral advantage to put 'a Referendum on Abolishing the Monarchy' in a general election manifesto.
This can't happen as long as the question would negatively sway even a million or so royalist voters. So, for example, if Labour put it in their manifesto (which of course they won't) I would not vote for them, and I am very much a centrist moderate about politics, including the monarchy.
There are of course two big questions. Not only 'abolition' but also 'what replaces it'. The second is, in the age of elected heads of state like Trump, difficult. Monarchy replaced by Boris/Farage/Corbyn/ Gazza/Elton John anyone?
A democratic head of state is more legitimate than a non elected one - even if they're an awful person. Your position is "democracy is good, except for this part, where bloodline is apparently a good enough qualification".
Hitler was elected
So was H*m*s. Whisper it.
So was Bibi
Yes indeed. So was Bibi. Good point.
Your Stockholm Syndrome grows by the day.
Bibi and his fascist Government were elected.
Not next time though
' fascist ' ?
I'm unsure Israel, even under Likud, comes anywhere near a reasonable definition of 'fascist'.
I am no fan of Bibi and wish he were not the Prime Minister of Israel, but neither he nor the State of Israel are fascist in any normal use of the term...
Hamas on the other hand...
I am tended to agree. A problem is that there are so many definitions of 'fascism', which seem to be developed to include some regimes and exclude others. For instance, I find it odd that some can get angry when I call the Russian regime 'fascist', but call the Israeli government it. IMV it is much more fitting for the Russian regime.
As an aside, definitions that include things like "Obsession with national security" falls down with a state like Israel, where national security *is* a justifiable priority, given the hatred there is towards them (as shown on Oct 7th). Likewise, "obsession with plot".
Then there are ones like 'racial exclusiveness', which I'd argue in no way fits Israel (but does Russia with its slav-centredness), or its rather pro-LGBT stance.
I would defo agree that the Russian state and Putinism fits more of Eco's points on his definition of fascism than the Israeli state and Netanyahuism - but if fascism is a scale, not a binary, then Israel is on the fascist side of that scale, and comfortably so.
The racial exclusiveness of Israel is long standing, for a long time the Israeli state gave Ethiopian Jewish people birth control without consent because they were black. And I don't see the Israeli state's move of being "pro-LGBT" as particularly sincere (as a state, not the people within it) - they are a Western ally, so kind of don't have a choice to move with Western politics in many ways, and the way they use their LGBT rights falls pretty squarely within homonationalism. The "Brand Israel" project was specifically aimed at arguing Israel is a modern progressive country who accepted queer people, and juxtaposed that with Palestinians to make them out as barbaric.
LOL. " but if fascism is a scale, not a binary," is an odd thing to say, and a sign you're on rocky ground. And as I said in another post, some of the definitions fit Israel because they *are* a state under threat, as Oct 7th show. Whereas the fascist definition really refers to 'invented' threats, based on lies such as the Nazi 'stabbed in the back' mythos. The threats to Israel are all too real.
"I don't see the Israeli state's move of being "pro-LGBT" as particularly sincere (as a state, not the people within it) - they are a Western ally, so kind of don't have a choice to move with Western politics in many ways,"
So when Israel does the right thing (esp. compared to its neighbouring states), it's not because they're good; it's because they're forced to by the west? What absolute bullshit.
What was Rishi playing at with the Elgin Marbles? Presumably someone advised him (badly) that this issue is in the same category as 'Rhodes Must Fall' so would be a good cultural-wars feather to put in in his cap. Foolish. He just came across as tetchy, cornered and not in a strong place.
In short, No They Won’t. Republic is like the National Secular Society, or Just Stop Oil. They attract a band of committed activists, but come over as cranks to most.
I see Harry and Meghan remain about as popular as the Conservative Party.
The monarchy is impossible to abolish until a particular condition is met. It has to be an electoral advantage to put 'a Referendum on Abolishing the Monarchy' in a general election manifesto.
This can't happen as long as the question would negatively sway even a million or so royalist voters. So, for example, if Labour put it in their manifesto (which of course they won't) I would not vote for them, and I am very much a centrist moderate about politics, including the monarchy.
There are of course two big questions. Not only 'abolition' but also 'what replaces it'. The second is, in the age of elected heads of state like Trump, difficult. Monarchy replaced by Boris/Farage/Corbyn/ Gazza/Elton John anyone?
A democratic head of state is more legitimate than a non elected one - even if they're an awful person. Your position is "democracy is good, except for this part, where bloodline is apparently a good enough qualification".
Theory: In the UK the status on the monarchy in a matter for parliament. Our monarchy is part of a constitution in which parliament can abolish the monarchy, but the monarchy can't abolish parliament.
Practical: I shall keep Charles III. You may keep Putin and Trump.
This is just an argument against elections - should we not have MP elections because we might get a PM Trump-lite? No. We should do the things that can make democracies good at combatting literal fascists by making it responsive to the needs of most people - instead we live in a system where the needs of the few are put above the needs of the many no matter what the many vote for. That's an issue with capitalism alongside democracy - because the two are fundamentally incompatible.
Thanks. An interesting but different question is how democracy is compatible generally with the complexities of an international order and large scale private enterprise in a capitalist system. You suggest in essence that democracy can't sort itself, being hamstring by incompatibilities.
In short, No They Won’t. Republic is like the National Secular Society, or Just Stop Oil. They attract a band of committed activists, but come over as cranks to most.
I see Harry and Meghan remain about as popular as the Conservative Party.
The monarchy is impossible to abolish until a particular condition is met. It has to be an electoral advantage to put 'a Referendum on Abolishing the Monarchy' in a general election manifesto.
This can't happen as long as the question would negatively sway even a million or so royalist voters. So, for example, if Labour put it in their manifesto (which of course they won't) I would not vote for them, and I am very much a centrist moderate about politics, including the monarchy.
There are of course two big questions. Not only 'abolition' but also 'what replaces it'. The second is, in the age of elected heads of state like Trump, difficult. Monarchy replaced by Boris/Farage/Corbyn/ Gazza/Elton John anyone?
A democratic head of state is more legitimate than a non elected one - even if they're an awful person. Your position is "democracy is good, except for this part, where bloodline is apparently a good enough qualification".
Theory: In the UK the status on the monarchy in a matter for parliament. Our monarchy is part of a constitution in which parliament can abolish the monarchy, but the monarchy can't abolish parliament.
Practical: I shall keep Charles III. You may keep Putin and Trump.
This is just an argument against elections - should we not have MP elections because we might get a PM Trump-lite? No. We should do the things that can make democracies good at combatting literal fascists by making it responsive to the needs of most people - instead we live in a system where the needs of the few are put above the needs of the many no matter what the many vote for. That's an issue with capitalism alongside democracy - because the two are fundamentally incompatible.
Thanks. An interesting but different question is how democracy is compatible generally with the complexities of an international order and large scale private enterprise in a capitalist system. You suggest in essence that democracy can't sort itself, being hamstring by incompatibilities. Which of course leads to the next set of very obvious questions. One of them is: Are you being utopian?
Possibly - I am a leftist and the further right the world goes, the more my positions seem utopian. But, at the end of the day, if individual autonomy is good (which I believe it is), then democratic principles are good. I think one way of dealing with the complexities of international order and large scale companies is to make those things more democratic too. Workers should have voting power on what happens in their companies. There should be more democracy at local levels, and more democracy at international levels.
I don't think democracy can't sort itself, as such - I think democracy is incompatible with capitalism. Capitalists want to protect their access to capital and the means of production and profit; workers want to have capital to live. That is the class struggle. If you build democracy onto capitalism, you have created a means by which workers vote for things that politicians say will improve their lives, but cater to the needs of capitalists because they have all the money and power. If, on the other hands, you democratised the workplace, and diffused power from central governments to local governments, capitalists would have less influence (because few workers are going to use the workplace democracy to disempower themselves) and the more locally held the democracy the more impacted by negative outcomes even the politicians are.
Thanks. The difficulty with criticising democracy is that any system for organising a population in a humanist way needs to take account of both where we have got to in the last 4 billion years - our current starting point - and also people's wants and aspirations. Some version of democracy seems to be the only way of finding out; the alternatives tend to involve telling people what they want. I find that that leftists, a group I respect and with which you identify, are as resistant to being told what you want as much as I am. I think they are right. Do you?
I'm not quite sure what you're getting at. If your saying that top down imposition of policy is bad - I would generally agree. That's why I'm not a leftist statist (like a Lenonist or a Stalinist, although not everything they did or said was bad) and am much more of a leftist anarchist (like a Makhno, Kropotkin or Bookchin, although not everything they did or said was good). I like the idea of democratic confederalism - local areas making decisions democratically, then sending representatives with a mandate to share those decisions at a more macro forum. Not in the sense that that individual can substitute their own view for their communities view (like MPs) but that they just explain and share the view of their community (more like a delegate, or ambassador I guess). This continues up and down the different levels of negotiations, depending on how interconnected things are, and the hope is differences can be negotiated but, at the end of the day, it is a participatory democracy. In the internet age, logistically, this could be easier than the past. (There are a lot more complexities then that, but in the general sense, that's what I'm interested in).
Thanks. Just to note that your view is perfectly intelligible, but isn't remotely 'leftish' as it is entirely compatible with horrifically fascist outcomes as well as a whole range of other non-leftish outcomes. Unless of course one is attached to more idealistic beliefs about the human condition and human nature. For myself I am too attached to Thomas Hobbes, the hermeneutic of suspicion, and Edmund Burke to go along with it.
And your vision, excellent though it is, is like that of some religious people; it is mostly aimed at that small group who are fond of both theoretical formulation and of attending large numbers of earnest meetings in cold halls. But good luck.
In short, No They Won’t. Republic is like the National Secular Society, or Just Stop Oil. They attract a band of committed activists, but come over as cranks to most.
I see Harry and Meghan remain about as popular as the Conservative Party.
The monarchy is impossible to abolish until a particular condition is met. It has to be an electoral advantage to put 'a Referendum on Abolishing the Monarchy' in a general election manifesto.
This can't happen as long as the question would negatively sway even a million or so royalist voters. So, for example, if Labour put it in their manifesto (which of course they won't) I would not vote for them, and I am very much a centrist moderate about politics, including the monarchy.
There are of course two big questions. Not only 'abolition' but also 'what replaces it'. The second is, in the age of elected heads of state like Trump, difficult. Monarchy replaced by Boris/Farage/Corbyn/ Gazza/Elton John anyone?
A democratic head of state is more legitimate than a non elected one - even if they're an awful person. Your position is "democracy is good, except for this part, where bloodline is apparently a good enough qualification".
Hitler was elected
So was H*m*s. Whisper it.
So was Bibi
Yes indeed. So was Bibi. Good point.
Your Stockholm Syndrome grows by the day.
Bibi and his fascist Government were elected.
Not next time though
' fascist ' ?
I'm unsure Israel, even under Likud, comes anywhere near a reasonable definition of 'fascist'.
Depends on your definition, but I think the Israeli settler movement is fascistic and meets Umberto Eco's idea of Ur-Fascism (the idea that fascisms are not a set of beliefs that are the same, as such, but a set of beliefs that do the same thing). Taking a short version of his criteria (https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/umberto-eco-ur-fascism):
Cult of Tradition Rejection of Modernism Cult of Action for Action's Sake Disagreement is Treason Fear of Difference Appeals to Frustrated Middle Class Obsession with a Plot Humiliated by their Enemy / Enemy is Weak and Strong Pacifism is Trafficking with the Enemy / Life is Permanent War Contempt for the Weak Cult of Heroism / Everyone is a Hero Machismo Selective Populism Newspeak
Current Israeli culture / policy meets quite a few of these - Cult of Tradition - Part of the founding logic of Israel is that that land is the homeland, from a tradition spanning thousands of years, and references are made to scripture and traditions to back this up. Everyone is a Hero - the glorification of the IDF, the mandatory span in the military, the relative disregard for the actual hostages in a material sense, but a great emphasis on their use in a propaganda sense. Humiliated by the Enemy / Enemy is Weak and Strong - Palestinians are often portrayed as weak and strong; they are animals, little more than dogs, but they are also an existential threat to Israel and all Jewish people. Disagreement is Treason and Pacifism is Trafficking with the Enemy - Israel has always clamped down hard on those who are sympathetic to the plight of Palestinians inside their borders, and is doing more so now (including those who were kidnapped or the families of the kidnapped). See also the cries of Kapo or Judenrat aimed at Jewish people who are anti-Zionism. Machismo and Contempt for the Weak - I think I mentioned here last week the interesting article I read about how holocaust survivors in Israel were held in contempt, were considered the "weak Jews" and that the "strong Jews" were the ones who built Israel. Appeals to the Frustrated Middle Class / Selective Populism - that is the settler movement, many of those who take the houses or shops of Palestinians are middle class Israelis. The transfer of land and wealth from Palestinians to Jewish Israelis is a selective populism. Obsession with a Plot - Hamas is everywhere. The UN is Hamas. Everyone is Hamas. Rejection of Modernism - even though Israel tries to do pinkwashing, Bibi and his government are much more comfortable with the likes of Orban and the GOP then they are with progressive values. Cult of Action for Action's Sake - you can see the disproportionate response to Palestinian protests and violence as this, as well as the long term strategy of "Mowing the Lawn" - as well as the constant rising of tensions at Al-Aqsa mosque.
I'd argue that 1) the settler movement is not one item, and neither is the Israeli population. But I'd also argue that Israeli movements for peace, and allowing Palestinians to work within Israel is a pointer against the above. Thridly, some of the points above are rather weak.
Then again, you promote the Nazi scheme to send Jews to Madagascar, so perhaps you have an inside track on fascism...
My position isn't that every Israeli is a fascist, but that the Israeli policy and political culture is pretty fascistic. I would say that the settler aspect of Israeli policy is pretty fascistic, yes.
I didn't "promote" the scheme, I misremembered the countries that were discussed as alternatives for a Jewish homeland that both the Nazis and the Allies (and even some Jewish people) wanted. And my position is still that the best way for Jewish people to be safe is not for a Jewish homeland country, but for all the countries who were (and still are) amazingly anti-Semitic to confront their anti-Semitism. Instead what we have is a political discourse that allows people to be hugely anti-Semitic, going so far as to suggest that whites are under attack from Jewish people, but then are deemed as Jewish allies for supporting Israel; and on the flip side means that Jewish activists against Zionism whose own families died in the Holocaust get called anti-Semites or Kapos for their criticisms of Israel.
"...both the Nazis and the Allies (and even some Jewish people) wanted."
And note the following line: "They assumed that many Jews would succumb to its harsh conditions should the plan be implemented."
and:
"The head of the commission, Mieczysław Lepecki [pl], felt the island could accommodate 5-7000 families, but Jewish members of the group estimated that, because of the climate and poor infrastructure, only 500 or even fewer families could safely be accommodated."
Your 'position' is one that would lead to another Holocaust, as has shown repeatedly with your 'one state' solution bollocks.
Your reading of 'history' is rather odd, to say the least.
As I said, I misremembered the countries - you are correct that the Nazi plan specifically was for putting the Jewish people on Madagascar - the Allies and even some Jewish people still did consider countries other than Israel for the placement of a Jewish state.
So your position is that all countries post war were so anti-Semitic that the Jewish diaspora would have been so unsafe to stay in, say, post-war Europe or USA that another Holocaust would have happened? Because my hope would have been that after the Holocaust and the reflections on anti-Semitism that the European powers (many countries within which having both the most Jewish people and anti-Semitic cultures) could have adjusted our cultures to be less anti-Semitic without the need for a single Jewish state. That is, indeed, the argument many diasporic Jewish people make when discussing why they do not live in / support Israel or Zionism.
I have also made it clear that my desire for a one state solution would not be to allow another Holocaust to happen. I think the only road to peace is a non-apartheid state which gives full citizen rights to Israeli Jewish people and Palestinian Arabs, as well as all other groups within their borders. Of course if the state was coopted by those who wished to oppress Israeli Jewish people - I would be against that and think the state should a) be designed to prevent that (like many other countries that have had historical ethnic / religious violence) and b) that the international community would not allow that to happen.
In short, No They Won’t. Republic is like the National Secular Society, or Just Stop Oil. They attract a band of committed activists, but come over as cranks to most.
I see Harry and Meghan remain about as popular as the Conservative Party.
The monarchy is impossible to abolish until a particular condition is met. It has to be an electoral advantage to put 'a Referendum on Abolishing the Monarchy' in a general election manifesto.
This can't happen as long as the question would negatively sway even a million or so royalist voters. So, for example, if Labour put it in their manifesto (which of course they won't) I would not vote for them, and I am very much a centrist moderate about politics, including the monarchy.
There are of course two big questions. Not only 'abolition' but also 'what replaces it'. The second is, in the age of elected heads of state like Trump, difficult. Monarchy replaced by Boris/Farage/Corbyn/ Gazza/Elton John anyone?
A democratic head of state is more legitimate than a non elected one - even if they're an awful person. Your position is "democracy is good, except for this part, where bloodline is apparently a good enough qualification".
Hitler was elected
So was H*m*s. Whisper it.
So was Bibi
Yes indeed. So was Bibi. Good point.
Your Stockholm Syndrome grows by the day.
Bibi and his fascist Government were elected.
Not next time though
' fascist ' ?
I'm unsure Israel, even under Likud, comes anywhere near a reasonable definition of 'fascist'.
Depends on your definition, but I think the Israeli settler movement is fascistic and meets Umberto Eco's idea of Ur-Fascism (the idea that fascisms are not a set of beliefs that are the same, as such, but a set of beliefs that do the same thing). Taking a short version of his criteria (https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/umberto-eco-ur-fascism):
Cult of Tradition Rejection of Modernism Cult of Action for Action's Sake Disagreement is Treason Fear of Difference Appeals to Frustrated Middle Class Obsession with a Plot Humiliated by their Enemy / Enemy is Weak and Strong Pacifism is Trafficking with the Enemy / Life is Permanent War Contempt for the Weak Cult of Heroism / Everyone is a Hero Machismo Selective Populism Newspeak
Current Israeli culture / policy meets quite a few of these - Cult of Tradition - Part of the founding logic of Israel is that that land is the homeland, from a tradition spanning thousands of years, and references are made to scripture and traditions to back this up. Everyone is a Hero - the glorification of the IDF, the mandatory span in the military, the relative disregard for the actual hostages in a material sense, but a great emphasis on their use in a propaganda sense. Humiliated by the Enemy / Enemy is Weak and Strong - Palestinians are often portrayed as weak and strong; they are animals, little more than dogs, but they are also an existential threat to Israel and all Jewish people. Disagreement is Treason and Pacifism is Trafficking with the Enemy - Israel has always clamped down hard on those who are sympathetic to the plight of Palestinians inside their borders, and is doing more so now (including those who were kidnapped or the families of the kidnapped). See also the cries of Kapo or Judenrat aimed at Jewish people who are anti-Zionism. Machismo and Contempt for the Weak - I think I mentioned here last week the interesting article I read about how holocaust survivors in Israel were held in contempt, were considered the "weak Jews" and that the "strong Jews" were the ones who built Israel. Appeals to the Frustrated Middle Class / Selective Populism - that is the settler movement, many of those who take the houses or shops of Palestinians are middle class Israelis. The transfer of land and wealth from Palestinians to Jewish Israelis is a selective populism. Obsession with a Plot - Hamas is everywhere. The UN is Hamas. Everyone is Hamas. Rejection of Modernism - even though Israel tries to do pinkwashing, Bibi and his government are much more comfortable with the likes of Orban and the GOP then they are with progressive values. Cult of Action for Action's Sake - you can see the disproportionate response to Palestinian protests and violence as this, as well as the long term strategy of "Mowing the Lawn" - as well as the constant rising of tensions at Al-Aqsa mosque.
I'd argue that 1) the settler movement is not one item, and neither is the Israeli population. But I'd also argue that Israeli movements for peace, and allowing Palestinians to work within Israel is a pointer against the above. Thridly, some of the points above are rather weak.
Then again, you promote the Nazi scheme to send Jews to Madagascar, so perhaps you have an inside track on fascism...
My position isn't that every Israeli is a fascist, but that the Israeli policy and political culture is pretty fascistic. I would say that the settler aspect of Israeli policy is pretty fascistic, yes.
I didn't "promote" the scheme, I misremembered the countries that were discussed as alternatives for a Jewish homeland that both the Nazis and the Allies (and even some Jewish people) wanted. And my position is still that the best way for Jewish people to be safe is not for a Jewish homeland country, but for all the countries who were (and still are) amazingly anti-Semitic to confront their anti-Semitism. Instead what we have is a political discourse that allows people to be hugely anti-Semitic, going so far as to suggest that whites are under attack from Jewish people, but then are deemed as Jewish allies for supporting Israel; and on the flip side means that Jewish activists against Zionism whose own families died in the Holocaust get called anti-Semites or Kapos for their criticisms of Israel.
"...both the Nazis and the Allies (and even some Jewish people) wanted."
And note the following line: "They assumed that many Jews would succumb to its harsh conditions should the plan be implemented."
and:
"The head of the commission, Mieczysław Lepecki [pl], felt the island could accommodate 5-7000 families, but Jewish members of the group estimated that, because of the climate and poor infrastructure, only 500 or even fewer families could safely be accommodated."
Your 'position' is one that would lead to another Holocaust, as has shown repeatedly with your 'one state' solution bollocks.
Your reading of 'history' is rather odd, to say the least.
As I said, I misremembered the countries - you are correct that the Nazi plan specifically was for putting the Jewish people on Madagascar - the Allies and even some Jewish people still did consider countries other than Israel for the placement of a Jewish state.
So your position is that all countries post war were so anti-Semitic that the Jewish diaspora would have been so unsafe to stay in, say, post-war Europe or USA that another Holocaust would have happened? Because my hope would have been that after the Holocaust and the reflections on anti-Semitism that the European powers (many countries within which having both the most Jewish people and anti-Semitic cultures) could have adjusted our cultures to be less anti-Semitic without the need for a single Jewish state. That is, indeed, the argument many diasporic Jewish people make when discussing why they do not live in / support Israel or Zionism.
I have also made it clear that my desire for a one state solution would not be to allow another Holocaust to happen. I think the only road to peace is a non-apartheid state which gives full citizen rights to Israeli Jewish people and Palestinian Arabs, as well as all other groups within their borders. Of course if the state was coopted by those who wished to oppress Israeli Jewish people - I would be against that and think the state should a) be designed to prevent that (like many other countries that have had historical ethnic / religious violence) and b) that the international community would not allow that to happen.
The model to follow imo, as faulty as it is is Northern Ireland. But we are sadly a long way from any Good Friday agreement.
In short, No They Won’t. Republic is like the National Secular Society, or Just Stop Oil. They attract a band of committed activists, but come over as cranks to most.
I see Harry and Meghan remain about as popular as the Conservative Party.
The monarchy is impossible to abolish until a particular condition is met. It has to be an electoral advantage to put 'a Referendum on Abolishing the Monarchy' in a general election manifesto.
This can't happen as long as the question would negatively sway even a million or so royalist voters. So, for example, if Labour put it in their manifesto (which of course they won't) I would not vote for them, and I am very much a centrist moderate about politics, including the monarchy.
There are of course two big questions. Not only 'abolition' but also 'what replaces it'. The second is, in the age of elected heads of state like Trump, difficult. Monarchy replaced by Boris/Farage/Corbyn/ Gazza/Elton John anyone?
A democratic head of state is more legitimate than a non elected one - even if they're an awful person. Your position is "democracy is good, except for this part, where bloodline is apparently a good enough qualification".
Hitler was elected
So was H*m*s. Whisper it.
So was Bibi
Yes indeed. So was Bibi. Good point.
Your Stockholm Syndrome grows by the day.
Bibi and his fascist Government were elected.
Not next time though
' fascist ' ?
I'm unsure Israel, even under Likud, comes anywhere near a reasonable definition of 'fascist'.
Depends on your definition, but I think the Israeli settler movement is fascistic and meets Umberto Eco's idea of Ur-Fascism (the idea that fascisms are not a set of beliefs that are the same, as such, but a set of beliefs that do the same thing). Taking a short version of his criteria (https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/umberto-eco-ur-fascism):
Cult of Tradition Rejection of Modernism Cult of Action for Action's Sake Disagreement is Treason Fear of Difference Appeals to Frustrated Middle Class Obsession with a Plot Humiliated by their Enemy / Enemy is Weak and Strong Pacifism is Trafficking with the Enemy / Life is Permanent War Contempt for the Weak Cult of Heroism / Everyone is a Hero Machismo Selective Populism Newspeak
Current Israeli culture / policy meets quite a few of these - Cult of Tradition - Part of the founding logic of Israel is that that land is the homeland, from a tradition spanning thousands of years, and references are made to scripture and traditions to back this up. Everyone is a Hero - the glorification of the IDF, the mandatory span in the military, the relative disregard for the actual hostages in a material sense, but a great emphasis on their use in a propaganda sense. Humiliated by the Enemy / Enemy is Weak and Strong - Palestinians are often portrayed as weak and strong; they are animals, little more than dogs, but they are also an existential threat to Israel and all Jewish people. Disagreement is Treason and Pacifism is Trafficking with the Enemy - Israel has always clamped down hard on those who are sympathetic to the plight of Palestinians inside their borders, and is doing more so now (including those who were kidnapped or the families of the kidnapped). See also the cries of Kapo or Judenrat aimed at Jewish people who are anti-Zionism. Machismo and Contempt for the Weak - I think I mentioned here last week the interesting article I read about how holocaust survivors in Israel were held in contempt, were considered the "weak Jews" and that the "strong Jews" were the ones who built Israel. Appeals to the Frustrated Middle Class / Selective Populism - that is the settler movement, many of those who take the houses or shops of Palestinians are middle class Israelis. The transfer of land and wealth from Palestinians to Jewish Israelis is a selective populism. Obsession with a Plot - Hamas is everywhere. The UN is Hamas. Everyone is Hamas. Rejection of Modernism - even though Israel tries to do pinkwashing, Bibi and his government are much more comfortable with the likes of Orban and the GOP then they are with progressive values. Cult of Action for Action's Sake - you can see the disproportionate response to Palestinian protests and violence as this, as well as the long term strategy of "Mowing the Lawn" - as well as the constant rising of tensions at Al-Aqsa mosque.
I'd argue that 1) the settler movement is not one item, and neither is the Israeli population. But I'd also argue that Israeli movements for peace, and allowing Palestinians to work within Israel is a pointer against the above. Thridly, some of the points above are rather weak.
Then again, you promote the Nazi scheme to send Jews to Madagascar, so perhaps you have an inside track on fascism...
My position isn't that every Israeli is a fascist, but that the Israeli policy and political culture is pretty fascistic. I would say that the settler aspect of Israeli policy is pretty fascistic, yes.
I didn't "promote" the scheme, I misremembered the countries that were discussed as alternatives for a Jewish homeland that both the Nazis and the Allies (and even some Jewish people) wanted. And my position is still that the best way for Jewish people to be safe is not for a Jewish homeland country, but for all the countries who were (and still are) amazingly anti-Semitic to confront their anti-Semitism. Instead what we have is a political discourse that allows people to be hugely anti-Semitic, going so far as to suggest that whites are under attack from Jewish people, but then are deemed as Jewish allies for supporting Israel; and on the flip side means that Jewish activists against Zionism whose own families died in the Holocaust get called anti-Semites or Kapos for their criticisms of Israel.
"...both the Nazis and the Allies (and even some Jewish people) wanted."
And note the following line: "They assumed that many Jews would succumb to its harsh conditions should the plan be implemented."
and:
"The head of the commission, Mieczysław Lepecki [pl], felt the island could accommodate 5-7000 families, but Jewish members of the group estimated that, because of the climate and poor infrastructure, only 500 or even fewer families could safely be accommodated."
Your 'position' is one that would lead to another Holocaust, as has shown repeatedly with your 'one state' solution bollocks.
Your reading of 'history' is rather odd, to say the least.
As I said, I misremembered the countries - you are correct that the Nazi plan specifically was for putting the Jewish people on Madagascar - the Allies and even some Jewish people still did consider countries other than Israel for the placement of a Jewish state.
So your position is that all countries post war were so anti-Semitic that the Jewish diaspora would have been so unsafe to stay in, say, post-war Europe or USA that another Holocaust would have happened? Because my hope would have been that after the Holocaust and the reflections on anti-Semitism that the European powers (many countries within which having both the most Jewish people and anti-Semitic cultures) could have adjusted our cultures to be less anti-Semitic without the need for a single Jewish state. That is, indeed, the argument many diasporic Jewish people make when discussing why they do not live in / support Israel or Zionism.
I have also made it clear that my desire for a one state solution would not be to allow another Holocaust to happen. I think the only road to peace is a non-apartheid state which gives full citizen rights to Israeli Jewish people and Palestinian Arabs, as well as all other groups within their borders. Of course if the state was coopted by those who wished to oppress Israeli Jewish people - I would be against that and think the state should a) be designed to prevent that (like many other countries that have had historical ethnic / religious violence) and b) that the international community would not allow that to happen.
You repeatedly mentioned Madagascar; and I'm intrigued as to why, given it was famously a Nazi plan designed to wipe out the Jews - without looking as if they were wiping them out.
Your one-state solution is bullshit, as it gives fuck-all guarantees that the Jews will not be wiped out. "Truth and reconciliation" is just a pathetic get-out clause for what you *know* will happen. Its like October 7th never happened in your eyes.
Given both of the above, I have no doubt you are not interested in the welfare of Jews.
In short, No They Won’t. Republic is like the National Secular Society, or Just Stop Oil. They attract a band of committed activists, but come over as cranks to most.
I see Harry and Meghan remain about as popular as the Conservative Party.
The monarchy is impossible to abolish until a particular condition is met. It has to be an electoral advantage to put 'a Referendum on Abolishing the Monarchy' in a general election manifesto.
This can't happen as long as the question would negatively sway even a million or so royalist voters. So, for example, if Labour put it in their manifesto (which of course they won't) I would not vote for them, and I am very much a centrist moderate about politics, including the monarchy.
There are of course two big questions. Not only 'abolition' but also 'what replaces it'. The second is, in the age of elected heads of state like Trump, difficult. Monarchy replaced by Boris/Farage/Corbyn/ Gazza/Elton John anyone?
A democratic head of state is more legitimate than a non elected one - even if they're an awful person. Your position is "democracy is good, except for this part, where bloodline is apparently a good enough qualification".
Hitler was elected
So was H*m*s. Whisper it.
So was Bibi
Your Stockholm Syndrome grows by the day.
Same as the Israeli hostages!
I just find it funny. You were crapping yourself like a bitch when the Islamic "militants" were outside your hotel room door gunning down your fellow package holidaymakers.
What would you have done?
Given them a stiff talking to!!
Then we come to the Israeli response. As has been asked a zillion times, what would you have had them do?
Negotiate with Hamas as has now happened securing a release of hostages by exchange.
Then go after the perpetrators properly targeting them using proper intelligence rather than flattening the place with a huge loss of innocent life and killing bugger all Hamas .
What has it achieved how many hostages were freed by the IDF?.
Are future generation of Palestinians more or less likely to want to kill Israelis?
Do you think Israel is going to be a safer place to live with less terrorism following its current campaign?
Pointless slaughter does nobody any good.
BTW, what's your view on the tunnels underneath the hospital? Are you still a sceptic?
Israeli contractors built it according to Ehud Barak former Israel PM
“Decades ago, we were running the place so we … helped them to build these bunkers in order to enable more space for the operation of the hospital within the very limited size of this compound.”
In short, No They Won’t. Republic is like the National Secular Society, or Just Stop Oil. They attract a band of committed activists, but come over as cranks to most.
I see Harry and Meghan remain about as popular as the Conservative Party.
The monarchy is impossible to abolish until a particular condition is met. It has to be an electoral advantage to put 'a Referendum on Abolishing the Monarchy' in a general election manifesto.
This can't happen as long as the question would negatively sway even a million or so royalist voters. So, for example, if Labour put it in their manifesto (which of course they won't) I would not vote for them, and I am very much a centrist moderate about politics, including the monarchy.
There are of course two big questions. Not only 'abolition' but also 'what replaces it'. The second is, in the age of elected heads of state like Trump, difficult. Monarchy replaced by Boris/Farage/Corbyn/ Gazza/Elton John anyone?
A democratic head of state is more legitimate than a non elected one - even if they're an awful person. Your position is "democracy is good, except for this part, where bloodline is apparently a good enough qualification".
Hitler was elected
So was H*m*s. Whisper it.
So was Bibi
Your Stockholm Syndrome grows by the day.
Same as the Israeli hostages!
I just find it funny. You were crapping yourself like a bitch when the Islamic "militants" were outside your hotel room door gunning down your fellow package holidaymakers.
What would you have done?
Given them a stiff talking to!!
Then we come to the Israeli response. As has been asked a zillion times, what would you have had them do?
Negotiate with Hamas as has now happened securing a release of hostages by exchange.
Then go after the perpetrators properly targeting them using proper intelligence rather than flattening the place with a huge loss of innocent life and killing bugger all Hamas .
What has it achieved how many hostages were freed by the IDF?.
Are future generation of Palestinians more or less likely to want to kill Israelis?
Do you think Israel is going to be a safer place to live with less terrorism following its current campaign?
Pointless slaughter does nobody any good.
Let's look at incentives. Hamas invades Israel, kills a thousand Israelis, takes 200 hostages. Then via negotiation receives 600 Hamas operatives in return freed from Israeli prisons.
Meanwhile Hamas leaders (er, in Qatar) are 2x cautious because they know they are on an Israeli hitlist.
Let's now do the maths. However many Hamas operatives are in prison Hamas only needs to kidnap that number/3 Israelis and voila! All Hamas operatives back in Gaza.
Plus how exactly do you think "properly targeting" perpetrators in Gaza would work. V interested in your opinions.
In short, No They Won’t. Republic is like the National Secular Society, or Just Stop Oil. They attract a band of committed activists, but come over as cranks to most.
I see Harry and Meghan remain about as popular as the Conservative Party.
The monarchy is impossible to abolish until a particular condition is met. It has to be an electoral advantage to put 'a Referendum on Abolishing the Monarchy' in a general election manifesto.
This can't happen as long as the question would negatively sway even a million or so royalist voters. So, for example, if Labour put it in their manifesto (which of course they won't) I would not vote for them, and I am very much a centrist moderate about politics, including the monarchy.
There are of course two big questions. Not only 'abolition' but also 'what replaces it'. The second is, in the age of elected heads of state like Trump, difficult. Monarchy replaced by Boris/Farage/Corbyn/ Gazza/Elton John anyone?
A democratic head of state is more legitimate than a non elected one - even if they're an awful person. Your position is "democracy is good, except for this part, where bloodline is apparently a good enough qualification".
Hitler was elected
So was H*m*s. Whisper it.
So was Bibi
Your Stockholm Syndrome grows by the day.
Same as the Israeli hostages!
I just find it funny. You were crapping yourself like a bitch when the Islamic "militants" were outside your hotel room door gunning down your fellow package holidaymakers.
What would you have done?
Given them a stiff talking to!!
Then we come to the Israeli response. As has been asked a zillion times, what would you have had them do?
Negotiate with Hamas as has now happened securing a release of hostages by exchange.
Then go after the perpetrators properly targeting them using proper intelligence rather than flattening the place with a huge loss of innocent life and killing bugger all Hamas .
What has it achieved how many hostages were freed by the IDF?.
Are future generation of Palestinians more or less likely to want to kill Israelis?
Do you think Israel is going to be a safer place to live with less terrorism following its current campaign?
Pointless slaughter does nobody any good.
I don't really want to engage with antisemites (and especially after their "contributions" last night it is now abundantly clear that's what this poster is), but I do think it's important to remind everyone else that Hamas and the other terrorist groups in Gaza have fired over ten thousand missiles at Israeli urban areas since October 7 (including a barrage of around 5,000 as a prelude to the atrocities of that day), and that that campaign has been ongoing more or less non-stop for over 20 years.
Stopping the almost daily interruption to everyday life in large parts of the country due to air raid sirens going off is an absolute pre-requisite for the ending of the current war. It is very clear that this could not have been accomplished via negotiation, and also that the current negotiations have been made significantly easier due to Hamas' desperate desire for a temporary ceasefire so it can resupply.
There are zero other countries in the world with means to stop it that would have tolerated the missile bombardment out of a hostile neighbouring state for this long. Frankly it's ridiculous that Israel did tolerate it, not least because I now have to make this point, like stopping your civilians coming under near constant rocket fire is some sort of mad idea.
In short, No They Won’t. Republic is like the National Secular Society, or Just Stop Oil. They attract a band of committed activists, but come over as cranks to most.
I see Harry and Meghan remain about as popular as the Conservative Party.
The monarchy is impossible to abolish until a particular condition is met. It has to be an electoral advantage to put 'a Referendum on Abolishing the Monarchy' in a general election manifesto.
This can't happen as long as the question would negatively sway even a million or so royalist voters. So, for example, if Labour put it in their manifesto (which of course they won't) I would not vote for them, and I am very much a centrist moderate about politics, including the monarchy.
There are of course two big questions. Not only 'abolition' but also 'what replaces it'. The second is, in the age of elected heads of state like Trump, difficult. Monarchy replaced by Boris/Farage/Corbyn/ Gazza/Elton John anyone?
A democratic head of state is more legitimate than a non elected one - even if they're an awful person. Your position is "democracy is good, except for this part, where bloodline is apparently a good enough qualification".
Hitler was elected
So was H*m*s. Whisper it.
So was Bibi
Yes indeed. So was Bibi. Good point.
Your Stockholm Syndrome grows by the day.
Bibi and his fascist Government were elected.
Not next time though
' fascist ' ?
I'm unsure Israel, even under Likud, comes anywhere near a reasonable definition of 'fascist'.
I am no fan of Bibi and wish he were not the Prime Minister of Israel, but neither he nor the State of Israel are fascist in any normal use of the term...
Hamas on the other hand...
I am tended to agree. A problem is that there are so many definitions of 'fascism', which seem to be developed to include some regimes and exclude others. For instance, I find it odd that some can get angry when I call the Russian regime 'fascist', but call the Israeli government it. IMV it is much more fitting for the Russian regime.
As an aside, definitions that include things like "Obsession with national security" falls down with a state like Israel, where national security *is* a justifiable priority, given the hatred there is towards them (as shown on Oct 7th). Likewise, "obsession with plot".
Then there are ones like 'racial exclusiveness', which I'd argue in no way fits Israel (but does Russia with its slav-centredness), or its rather pro-LGBT stance.
I would defo agree that the Russian state and Putinism fits more of Eco's points on his definition of fascism than the Israeli state and Netanyahuism - but if fascism is a scale, not a binary, then Israel is on the fascist side of that scale, and comfortably so.
The racial exclusiveness of Israel is long standing, for a long time the Israeli state gave Ethiopian Jewish people birth control without consent because they were black. And I don't see the Israeli state's move of being "pro-LGBT" as particularly sincere (as a state, not the people within it) - they are a Western ally, so kind of don't have a choice to move with Western politics in many ways, and the way they use their LGBT rights falls pretty squarely within homonationalism. The "Brand Israel" project was specifically aimed at arguing Israel is a modern progressive country who accepted queer people, and juxtaposed that with Palestinians to make them out as barbaric.
LOL. " but if fascism is a scale, not a binary," is an odd thing to say, and a sign you're on rocky ground. And as I said in another post, some of the definitions fit Israel because they *are* a state under threat, as Oct 7th show. Whereas the fascist definition really refers to 'invented' threats, based on lies such as the Nazi 'stabbed in the back' mythos. The threats to Israel are all too real.
"I don't see the Israeli state's move of being "pro-LGBT" as particularly sincere (as a state, not the people within it) - they are a Western ally, so kind of don't have a choice to move with Western politics in many ways,"
So when Israel does the right thing (esp. compared to its neighbouring states), it's not because they're good; it's because they're forced to by the west? What absolute bullshit.
The idea that Israel is sincerely under existential threat - that Hamas or any coalition of Middle Eastern countries has the material capability and / or the political capital to destroy the state of Israel - is absurd. Yes, Hamas has the capability to attack Israel. But it doesn't have the capability to destroy Israel, even if it wanted to.
I literally gave you my preferred method of identifying fascisms, which provides a 14 point criteria. Eco even says that not all forms of fascism will tick every criteria, and some may have fewer individual criteria but some so intensely that they are more obviously fascistic. It's one of the reasons why defining fascism (like defining many things, such as democratic) is so difficult - people disagree when it starts and ends. One famous scholar on fascism, for example, in 2016 was not willing to call Trump a fascist but did so after January 6th because he thought that kind of anti-democratic action was enough to warrant that definition. It isn't only fascism after the genocide has happened. It doesn't have to come from the specific Fascisti region of Italy (that's a joke, btw). It is a mode, a model, of thought and politics that depends on the national politics and traditions of the individual country at that time.
In short, No They Won’t. Republic is like the National Secular Society, or Just Stop Oil. They attract a band of committed activists, but come over as cranks to most.
I see Harry and Meghan remain about as popular as the Conservative Party.
The monarchy is impossible to abolish until a particular condition is met. It has to be an electoral advantage to put 'a Referendum on Abolishing the Monarchy' in a general election manifesto.
This can't happen as long as the question would negatively sway even a million or so royalist voters. So, for example, if Labour put it in their manifesto (which of course they won't) I would not vote for them, and I am very much a centrist moderate about politics, including the monarchy.
There are of course two big questions. Not only 'abolition' but also 'what replaces it'. The second is, in the age of elected heads of state like Trump, difficult. Monarchy replaced by Boris/Farage/Corbyn/ Gazza/Elton John anyone?
A democratic head of state is more legitimate than a non elected one - even if they're an awful person. Your position is "democracy is good, except for this part, where bloodline is apparently a good enough qualification".
Hitler was elected
So was H*m*s. Whisper it.
So was Bibi
Your Stockholm Syndrome grows by the day.
Same as the Israeli hostages!
I just find it funny. You were crapping yourself like a bitch when the Islamic "militants" were outside your hotel room door gunning down your fellow package holidaymakers.
What would you have done?
Given them a stiff talking to!!
Then we come to the Israeli response. As has been asked a zillion times, what would you have had them do?
Negotiate with Hamas as has now happened securing a release of hostages by exchange.
Then go after the perpetrators properly targeting them using proper intelligence rather than flattening the place with a huge loss of innocent life and killing bugger all Hamas .
What has it achieved how many hostages were freed by the IDF?.
Are future generation of Palestinians more or less likely to want to kill Israelis?
Do you think Israel is going to be a safer place to live with less terrorism following its current campaign?
Pointless slaughter does nobody any good.
BTW, what's your view on the tunnels underneath the hospital? Are you still a sceptic?
Israeli contractors built it according to Ehud Barak former Israel PM
“Decades ago, we were running the place so we … helped them to build these bunkers in order to enable more space for the operation of the hospital within the very limited size of this compound.”
LOL, no. They built some as part of the upgrades to the hospital. If you're telling me that the tunnels shown by Israel under the hospital were built by Israelis then you're having a laugh.
In short, No They Won’t. Republic is like the National Secular Society, or Just Stop Oil. They attract a band of committed activists, but come over as cranks to most.
I see Harry and Meghan remain about as popular as the Conservative Party.
The monarchy is impossible to abolish until a particular condition is met. It has to be an electoral advantage to put 'a Referendum on Abolishing the Monarchy' in a general election manifesto.
This can't happen as long as the question would negatively sway even a million or so royalist voters. So, for example, if Labour put it in their manifesto (which of course they won't) I would not vote for them, and I am very much a centrist moderate about politics, including the monarchy.
There are of course two big questions. Not only 'abolition' but also 'what replaces it'. The second is, in the age of elected heads of state like Trump, difficult. Monarchy replaced by Boris/Farage/Corbyn/ Gazza/Elton John anyone?
A democratic head of state is more legitimate than a non elected one - even if they're an awful person. Your position is "democracy is good, except for this part, where bloodline is apparently a good enough qualification".
Hitler was elected
So was H*m*s. Whisper it.
So was Bibi
Your Stockholm Syndrome grows by the day.
Same as the Israeli hostages!
I just find it funny. You were crapping yourself like a bitch when the Islamic "militants" were outside your hotel room door gunning down your fellow package holidaymakers.
What would you have done?
Given them a stiff talking to!!
Then we come to the Israeli response. As has been asked a zillion times, what would you have had them do?
Negotiate with Hamas as has now happened securing a release of hostages by exchange.
Then go after the perpetrators properly targeting them using proper intelligence rather than flattening the place with a huge loss of innocent life and killing bugger all Hamas .
What has it achieved how many hostages were freed by the IDF?.
Are future generation of Palestinians more or less likely to want to kill Israelis?
Do you think Israel is going to be a safer place to live with less terrorism following its current campaign?
Pointless slaughter does nobody any good.
BTW, what's your view on the tunnels underneath the hospital? Are you still a sceptic?
Israeli contractors built it according to Ehud Barak former Israel PM
“Decades ago, we were running the place so we … helped them to build these bunkers in order to enable more space for the operation of the hospital within the very limited size of this compound.”
LOL, no. They built some as part of the upgrades to the hospital. If you're telling me that the tunnels shown by Israel under the hospital were built by Israelis then you're having a laugh.
I will wait for independent verification Anything "shown by Israel" is very likely to be propaganda until independently verified,
In short, No They Won’t. Republic is like the National Secular Society, or Just Stop Oil. They attract a band of committed activists, but come over as cranks to most.
I see Harry and Meghan remain about as popular as the Conservative Party.
The monarchy is impossible to abolish until a particular condition is met. It has to be an electoral advantage to put 'a Referendum on Abolishing the Monarchy' in a general election manifesto.
This can't happen as long as the question would negatively sway even a million or so royalist voters. So, for example, if Labour put it in their manifesto (which of course they won't) I would not vote for them, and I am very much a centrist moderate about politics, including the monarchy.
There are of course two big questions. Not only 'abolition' but also 'what replaces it'. The second is, in the age of elected heads of state like Trump, difficult. Monarchy replaced by Boris/Farage/Corbyn/ Gazza/Elton John anyone?
A democratic head of state is more legitimate than a non elected one - even if they're an awful person. Your position is "democracy is good, except for this part, where bloodline is apparently a good enough qualification".
Hitler was elected
So was H*m*s. Whisper it.
So was Bibi
Yes indeed. So was Bibi. Good point.
Your Stockholm Syndrome grows by the day.
Bibi and his fascist Government were elected.
Not next time though
' fascist ' ?
I'm unsure Israel, even under Likud, comes anywhere near a reasonable definition of 'fascist'.
I am no fan of Bibi and wish he were not the Prime Minister of Israel, but neither he nor the State of Israel are fascist in any normal use of the term...
Hamas on the other hand...
I am tended to agree. A problem is that there are so many definitions of 'fascism', which seem to be developed to include some regimes and exclude others. For instance, I find it odd that some can get angry when I call the Russian regime 'fascist', but call the Israeli government it. IMV it is much more fitting for the Russian regime.
As an aside, definitions that include things like "Obsession with national security" falls down with a state like Israel, where national security *is* a justifiable priority, given the hatred there is towards them (as shown on Oct 7th). Likewise, "obsession with plot".
Then there are ones like 'racial exclusiveness', which I'd argue in no way fits Israel (but does Russia with its slav-centredness), or its rather pro-LGBT stance.
I would defo agree that the Russian state and Putinism fits more of Eco's points on his definition of fascism than the Israeli state and Netanyahuism - but if fascism is a scale, not a binary, then Israel is on the fascist side of that scale, and comfortably so.
The racial exclusiveness of Israel is long standing, for a long time the Israeli state gave Ethiopian Jewish people birth control without consent because they were black. And I don't see the Israeli state's move of being "pro-LGBT" as particularly sincere (as a state, not the people within it) - they are a Western ally, so kind of don't have a choice to move with Western politics in many ways, and the way they use their LGBT rights falls pretty squarely within homonationalism. The "Brand Israel" project was specifically aimed at arguing Israel is a modern progressive country who accepted queer people, and juxtaposed that with Palestinians to make them out as barbaric.
LOL. " but if fascism is a scale, not a binary," is an odd thing to say, and a sign you're on rocky ground. And as I said in another post, some of the definitions fit Israel because they *are* a state under threat, as Oct 7th show. Whereas the fascist definition really refers to 'invented' threats, based on lies such as the Nazi 'stabbed in the back' mythos. The threats to Israel are all too real.
"I don't see the Israeli state's move of being "pro-LGBT" as particularly sincere (as a state, not the people within it) - they are a Western ally, so kind of don't have a choice to move with Western politics in many ways,"
So when Israel does the right thing (esp. compared to its neighbouring states), it's not because they're good; it's because they're forced to by the west? What absolute bullshit.
The idea that Israel is sincerely under existential threat - that Hamas or any coalition of Middle Eastern countries has the material capability and / or the political capital to destroy the state of Israel - is absurd. Yes, Hamas has the capability to attack Israel. But it doesn't have the capability to destroy Israel, even if it wanted to.
I literally gave you my preferred method of identifying fascisms, which provides a 14 point criteria. Eco even says that not all forms of fascism will tick every criteria, and some may have fewer individual criteria but some so intensely that they are more obviously fascistic. It's one of the reasons why defining fascism (like defining many things, such as democratic) is so difficult - people disagree when it starts and ends. One famous scholar on fascism, for example, in 2016 was not willing to call Trump a fascist but did so after January 6th because he thought that kind of anti-democratic action was enough to warrant that definition. It isn't only fascism after the genocide has happened. It doesn't have to come from the specific Fascisti region of Italy (that's a joke, btw). It is a mode, a model, of thought and politics that depends on the national politics and traditions of the individual country at that time.
"The idea that Israel is sincerely under existential threat - that Hamas or any coalition of Middle Eastern countries has the material capability and / or the political capital to destroy the state of Israel - is absurd."
That's quite an amazing comment to make. Yes, a coalition could destroy Israel - as they nearly did in 1973. Much more easily, in fact, if the west withdraws its support for Israel. Which is what a lot of the current pro-Palestinian angst is about.
I've looked at your definition of fascism, and Israel simply doesn't meet it. And as you've shown, you have to twist facts - e.g. LGBT rights - to get some of them to fit. Why? Why don't you just say "Israel has forward-looking LGBT rights, especially compared to its neighbours", rather than just saying "the west makes them do it!"
Comments
Calling them 'leeches' says more about your brand of politics than them.
Thanks
14 of the top 20 territories/countries on the IMF GDP per capita list are monarchies
https://www.unitetheunion.org/news-events/news/2023/april/tesco-accused-of-rampant-profiteering-as-obscene-profits-published
vote whatever the economic situation.
As Democrat Wilson was
elected in 1912 with just
41% of the vote with former
Republican President Theodore Roosevelt running
as an independent against
Republican President Taft and
getting 27% of the vote
Your Stockholm Syndrome grows by the day.
He could, but I'm expecting Trump to be the Republican candidate.
The real shit-housery will start after the conventions and hopefully we'll be into a full blown armed insurrection by this time next year.
Not next time though
Iowa *might* throw up a surprise on the Republicans' side but frankly I doubt it. Its format plays to those candidates with strong organisation and highly dedicated supporters over those with broad but shallow general appeal, which would probably be Trump even without his pre-existing commanding poll leads.
I'm unsure Israel, even under Likud, comes anywhere near a reasonable definition of 'fascist'.
Perhaps you have selective deafness
Useful comparative summaries:
https://reproductiverights.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/European-abortion-law-a-comparative-review.pdf
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1268439/legal-abortion-time-frames-in-europe/
https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2023-01-16/ty-article/.premium/israels-far-right-finance-minister-im-a-fascist-homophobe-but-i-wont-stone-gays/00000185-b921-de59-a98f-ff7f47c70000
Even if the Democrats could see an advantage in letting Trump run and split the right-of-centre vote, they should be confident enough of winning against a non-Trump candidate battling against a raging Trump, even if the latter couldn't contest the election himself.
And here's some reading for you: not that I expect you to learn anything...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism
https://twitter.com/DominicWaghorn/status/1729392997714784451
Dominic Waghorn @DominicWaghorn
Hamas leader Yehya Sinwar met with the Israeli hostages a day after they were taken in tunnels under Gaza and told them they would not be harmed and would be returned as part of a hostage deal. Undermines the Israeli Hamas = ISIS storyline.
I don't think democracy can't sort itself, as such - I think democracy is incompatible with capitalism. Capitalists want to protect their access to capital and the means of production and profit; workers want to have capital to live. That is the class struggle. If you build democracy onto capitalism, you have created a means by which workers vote for things that politicians say will improve their lives, but cater to the needs of capitalists because they have all the money and power. If, on the other hands, you democratised the workplace, and diffused power from central governments to local governments, capitalists would have less influence (because few workers are going to use the workplace democracy to disempower themselves) and the more locally held the democracy the more impacted by negative outcomes even the politicians are.
Maybe one of William's kids will do something appalling. The podgy one looks like a right little psycho.
Hamas are terrorists and fascists too
Same as the baby slaughterers in Israel you support.
Sticking up for Palestinian children being slaughtered by the fascists is something I would always have done.
Have you always supported Israels fascists oppression and killing of innocents
"First transatlantic flight using 100% green fuels to take off - BBC News" https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-67548961
The type of government which you favour can only be imposed at gunpoint, because it runs so contrary to what people want.
Hamas won the last Palestinian election (including in Gaza), in the sense of topping the poll but that election resulted in a power-sharing agreement - though granted that you could still argue that this counts as having been 'elected to government'. Either way though, they've been governing Gaza since 2007 (subject to Israeli interventions), due to taking over by force, not the ballot box.
Secondly, as has long been pointed out and I don't intend to spend the rest of the morning doing so again at length now, there are civilian casualties of war. You could easily say, and many do, that civilians in Dresden were slaughtered. But that is war.
The question then becomes which side of the war you are on. I am on the side of the Israelis for reasons also well-rehearsed.
The strange thing about you is that you are on the side of Hamas in this conflict. The union set of beliefs of Hamas and the attackers on Sousse beach is huge. They hate you and all you stand for with your left-leaning on the side of the powerless bollocks and want you dead. And that is another point that should give you pause to consider your position.
But Hamas guy wasn't playing ball, because of course it is absolutely part of the plan.
So many in the media are useful idiots for Hamas.
The problem is the shortage of housing.
Same population as France, 8 million fewer dwelling.
Given them a stiff talking to!!
Sir Richard Wharton : Its full name is the Peoples' Democratic Republic of East Yemen.
Sir Humphrey Appleby : Ah I see, so it's a communist dictatorship.
Do you think, that being a Westerner and therefore part of the Western oppression of the Muslim lands, justified those people coming onto the beach and shooting all Westerners? Because that appears to be your position wrt Gaza.
Then we come to the Israeli response. As has been asked a zillion times, what would you have had them do?
Cult of Tradition
Rejection of Modernism
Cult of Action for Action's Sake
Disagreement is Treason
Fear of Difference
Appeals to Frustrated Middle Class
Obsession with a Plot
Humiliated by their Enemy / Enemy is Weak and Strong
Pacifism is Trafficking with the Enemy / Life is Permanent War
Contempt for the Weak
Cult of Heroism / Everyone is a Hero
Machismo
Selective Populism
Newspeak
Current Israeli culture / policy meets quite a few of these -
Cult of Tradition - Part of the founding logic of Israel is that that land is the homeland, from a tradition spanning thousands of years, and references are made to scripture and traditions to back this up.
Everyone is a Hero - the glorification of the IDF, the mandatory span in the military, the relative disregard for the actual hostages in a material sense, but a great emphasis on their use in a propaganda sense.
Humiliated by the Enemy / Enemy is Weak and Strong - Palestinians are often portrayed as weak and strong; they are animals, little more than dogs, but they are also an existential threat to Israel and all Jewish people.
Disagreement is Treason and Pacifism is Trafficking with the Enemy - Israel has always clamped down hard on those who are sympathetic to the plight of Palestinians inside their borders, and is doing more so now (including those who were kidnapped or the families of the kidnapped). See also the cries of Kapo or Judenrat aimed at Jewish people who are anti-Zionism.
Machismo and Contempt for the Weak - I think I mentioned here last week the interesting article I read about how holocaust survivors in Israel were held in contempt, were considered the "weak Jews" and that the "strong Jews" were the ones who built Israel.
Appeals to the Frustrated Middle Class / Selective Populism - that is the settler movement, many of those who take the houses or shops of Palestinians are middle class Israelis. The transfer of land and wealth from Palestinians to Jewish Israelis is a selective populism.
Obsession with a Plot - Hamas is everywhere. The UN is Hamas. Everyone is Hamas.
Rejection of Modernism - even though Israel tries to do pinkwashing, Bibi and his government are much more comfortable with the likes of Orban and the GOP then they are with progressive values.
Cult of Action for Action's Sake - you can see the disproportionate response to Palestinian protests and violence as this, as well as the long term strategy of "Mowing the Lawn" - as well as the constant rising of tensions at Al-Aqsa mosque.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-67551732
Call Me Lord Dave needs to hit the PM over the head with a cluebat PDQ, I'd say.
If Tesco is making "obscene profits" but is making a loss on food it must be massively overhcarging on something.
True power is exercised by the people via their elected tribunes. As it should be. But the monarchy embodies the ceremonial aspect and is usefully above the politicians - so it can steer and advise and - most importantly - act as a source of stability in times of trouble
Thailand - where I am now - is a great example of that. Democratic Thai politics is corrupt, vivid, angry, and sometimes ceases altogether with periods of military rule. How come Thailand doesn’t sink into civil war like so many countries in the region?
The monarchy
Yes it may be possible for people to catch a train from Oxford Road instead but anyone who can do so would already be doing so.
So far I can say that: the airport is super efficient as ever (and now you don’t even need visa on arrival)
The traffic is pretty grim
Several new skyscrapers have shot up. Again
So: plus ca change
And household net worth is not an endorsement of capitalism - it is an acceptance that we live in it. It's like the "you argue against capitalism but you buy starbucks" level of argument. Yeah, I want nice things and the only way the world allows me to have nice things is if I collaborate in a capitalist economy. I still would prefer a different economy - partly because I believe a different economic model would more fairly distribute the nice things!
Secondly its not a war, its a slaughter of innocents How many Hamas have been killed compared to civillians. If it is a war Israel have carried out collective punishment which is a war crime.
Thirdly being on the side of innocents is not being on the side of Hamas.
Your position is literally that "Israel has that right" whatever it does and you dont care how many innocents are slaughtered. That should give you pause to consider your position.
And the Greek PM has every right to not meet Dowden after the snub.
Then again, you promote the Nazi scheme to send Jews to Madagascar, so perhaps you have an inside track on fascism...
Warmer and wetter in Kyiv, and another big storm hit the Black Sea a couple of days ago.
The usual Russian tactics of using lots of simple kit in massive numbers to overwhelm their enemies has clearly worked a bit around Avdiivka, but the cost in Russian lives is staggering, so even these minimal advances look unsustainable. In any event the weather is now so bad that the two armies are simply dug in and likely to stay that way for a while.
Putin is now trying to consolidate and then offer a peace deal. It might even work, but the Kremlin is increasingly aware of how brittle their domestic political situation has become, so we will see.
As for the far right in both the US and Europe... expect more revelations on their connections with Putin in due course...
As for railways, the problem is the capital intensity of railways, nothing works until the tracks or powerlines are all connected, whereas you can build roads incrementally. Labour and the Tories hate the bigger upfront cost of railways, and in any event the utter incompetence over HS2 shows how hard it is to get any rail infrastructure over the line.
I am off into the snow... I may be some time.
Hamas on the other hand...
As to how many Hamas have been killed compared to civilians the answer is we don't know. I would say many Hamas have been killed but have no idea how many. But undoubtedly civilians have been killed. No doubt about that at all. Equally, not as many civilians have been killed as Israel could have killed had it acted as your rhetoric says it acted.
And finally, to address your first point, I will say again, if you marched down Whitehall with a banner saying Israel = Fascist then you would be arrested.
And finally x2, you are PM of Israel, apart from not starting from there, what would you have done?
I didn't "promote" the scheme, I misremembered the countries that were discussed as alternatives for a Jewish homeland that both the Nazis and the Allies (and even some Jewish people) wanted. And my position is still that the best way for Jewish people to be safe is not for a Jewish homeland country, but for all the countries who were (and still are) amazingly anti-Semitic to confront their anti-Semitism. Instead what we have is a political discourse that allows people to be hugely anti-Semitic, going so far as to suggest that whites are under attack from Jewish people, but then are deemed as Jewish allies for supporting Israel; and on the flip side means that Jewish activists against Zionism whose own families died in the Holocaust get called anti-Semites or Kapos for their criticisms of Israel.
This snub puts the marbles on the front pages again and makes it more likely, not less, that they’ll be on their way to the acropolis museum in due course.
The sensible approach I think would be to lease them on a long (ie indefinite) basis to Greece. That way they get their marbles and shut up about them, while Britain gets to pretend it still actually owns them.
As an aside, definitions that include things like "Obsession with national security" falls down with a state like Israel, where national security *is* a justifiable priority, given the hatred there is towards them (as shown on Oct 7th). Likewise, "obsession with plot".
Then there are ones like 'racial exclusiveness', which I'd argue in no way fits Israel (but does Russia with its slav-centredness), or its rather pro-LGBT stance.
After today's utter embarrassment I think Lord Dave Cameron should move Sunak to oneside and take his job
On 2, yes, it is a war. Hamas launched it and Israel responded. If the war is one-sided, that's the way it is; there's no obligation to keep a fair balance. Israel has the right, in international law, to take such measures as are necessary to achieve its legitimate war aims - and to continue to take those measures until those aims are met. While it should at all times aim to avoid or minimise civilian casualties where possible (and, to my mind, hasn't always done that), we should be clear on this next point: there is no upper limit to the number of casualties Israel can cause, providing they come from legitimate military actions. Urban fighting is always going to be bloody. Hamas knew this when they started the war.
The logic of your argument is that Israel should never be allowed to make war on Palestine, whatever the provocations of its government, because of the nature of the geography of the territory, which is obvious nonsense.
The cessation of trade between warring states is also an international norm. It is not, in any way, a 'collective punishment', and simply asserting it does not make it so. If the Palestinian government did not arrange for domestic water and energy supply, that's on them and no-one else.
On 3, that depends on what "being on the side of innocents" means, and whether it's being equally applied to innocents on both sides.
Just because you don't like something, that doesn't make it illegal. Just because something is a tragedy of death and destruction, that doesn't make it illegal.
We are not used to seeing full-scale war these days but it does exist and states have the right - in appropriate circumstances - to wage it. And on that basis, if Israel sets its objective as the unconditional surrender of the Gazan government, it has that right - and, hence, the right to make war, within its obligations to international law and its own practical constraints, up to the point of that surrender. Whether it would be wise to is an entirely different question.
Then go after the perpetrators properly targeting them using proper intelligence rather than flattening the place with a huge loss of innocent life and killing bugger all Hamas .
What has it achieved how many hostages were freed by the IDF?.
Are future generation of Palestinians more or less likely to want to kill Israelis?
Do you think Israel is going to be a safer place to live with less terrorism following its current campaign?
Pointless slaughter does nobody any good.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madagascar_Plan shows that that is a rather large stretch.
And note the following line: "They assumed that many Jews would succumb to its harsh conditions should the plan be implemented."
and:
"The head of the commission, Mieczysław Lepecki [pl], felt the island could accommodate 5-7000 families, but Jewish members of the group estimated that, because of the climate and poor infrastructure, only 500 or even fewer families could safely be accommodated."
Your 'position' is one that would lead to another Holocaust, as has shown repeatedly with your 'one state' solution bollocks.
Your reading of 'history' is rather odd, to say the least.
In reality, political culture matters much more than systems. A monarchy can be useful in creating or maintaining a working political culture but it's neither necessary nor sufficient.
"The End of the World Is Just the Beginning: a presentation by Peter Zaihan to the Burns & McDonnell 2023 Best Practices Forum", Burns & McDonnell/Peter Zeihan, YouTube, 16Nov2023, see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZhTzqIuQ660
You assume no Hamas fighters have been killed by Israel, and I'd argue that's probably fantasy. You might also ask yourself why Hamas have been very keen to show scenes of civilian devastation, but are quiet about military deaths. And why Hamas embed themselves in civilian infrastructure.
And the Israeli action is not just about killing Hamas; it is about harming Hamas's ability to perform another spectacular like the Oct 7th atrocity.
"Do you think Israel is going to be a safer place to live with less terrorism following its current campaign?"
Given what happened on October 7th, it's unlikely to be massively less safe.
BTW, what's your view on the tunnels underneath the hospital? Are you still a sceptic?
The racial exclusiveness of Israel is long standing, for a long time the Israeli state gave Ethiopian Jewish people birth control without consent because they were black. And I don't see the Israeli state's move of being "pro-LGBT" as particularly sincere (as a state, not the people within it) - they are a Western ally, so kind of don't have a choice to move with Western politics in many ways, and the way they use their LGBT rights falls pretty squarely within homonationalism. The "Brand Israel" project was specifically aimed at arguing Israel is a modern progressive country who accepted queer people, and juxtaposed that with Palestinians to make them out as barbaric.
"I don't see the Israeli state's move of being "pro-LGBT" as particularly sincere (as a state, not the people within it) - they are a Western ally, so kind of don't have a choice to move with Western politics in many ways,"
So when Israel does the right thing (esp. compared to its neighbouring states), it's not because they're good; it's because they're forced to by the west? What absolute bullshit.
And your vision, excellent though it is, is like that of some religious people; it is mostly aimed at that small group who are fond of both theoretical formulation and of attending large numbers of earnest meetings in cold halls. But good luck.
So your position is that all countries post war were so anti-Semitic that the Jewish diaspora would have been so unsafe to stay in, say, post-war Europe or USA that another Holocaust would have happened? Because my hope would have been that after the Holocaust and the reflections on anti-Semitism that the European powers (many countries within which having both the most Jewish people and anti-Semitic cultures) could have adjusted our cultures to be less anti-Semitic without the need for a single Jewish state. That is, indeed, the argument many diasporic Jewish people make when discussing why they do not live in / support Israel or Zionism.
I have also made it clear that my desire for a one state solution would not be to allow another Holocaust to happen. I think the only road to peace is a non-apartheid state which gives full citizen rights to Israeli Jewish people and Palestinian Arabs, as well as all other groups within their borders. Of course if the state was coopted by those who wished to oppress Israeli Jewish people - I would be against that and think the state should a) be designed to prevent that (like many other countries that have had historical ethnic / religious violence) and b) that the international community would not allow that to happen.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MS_St._Louis
You repeatedly mentioned Madagascar; and I'm intrigued as to why, given it was famously a Nazi plan designed to wipe out the Jews - without looking as if they were wiping them out.
Your one-state solution is bullshit, as it gives fuck-all guarantees that the Jews will not be wiped out. "Truth and reconciliation" is just a pathetic get-out clause for what you *know* will happen. Its like October 7th never happened in your eyes.
Given both of the above, I have no doubt you are not interested in the welfare of Jews.
“Decades ago, we were running the place so we … helped them to build these bunkers in order to enable more space for the operation of the hospital within the very limited size of this compound.”
Meanwhile Hamas leaders (er, in Qatar) are 2x cautious because they know they are on an Israeli hitlist.
Let's now do the maths. However many Hamas operatives are in prison Hamas only needs to kidnap that number/3 Israelis and voila! All Hamas operatives back in Gaza.
Plus how exactly do you think "properly targeting" perpetrators in Gaza would work. V interested in your opinions.
abundantly clear that's what this poster is), but I do think it's important to remind everyone else that Hamas and the other terrorist groups in Gaza have fired over ten thousand missiles at Israeli urban areas since October 7 (including a barrage of around 5,000 as a prelude to the atrocities of that day), and that that campaign has been ongoing more or less non-stop for over 20 years.
Stopping the almost daily interruption to everyday life in large parts of the country due to air raid sirens going off is an absolute pre-requisite for the ending of the current war. It is very clear that this could not have been accomplished via negotiation, and also that the current negotiations have been made significantly easier due to Hamas' desperate desire for a temporary ceasefire so it can resupply.
There are zero other countries in the world with means to stop it that would have tolerated the missile bombardment out of a hostile neighbouring state for this long. Frankly it's ridiculous that Israel did tolerate it, not least because I now have to make this point, like stopping your civilians coming under near constant rocket fire is some sort of mad idea.
I literally gave you my preferred method of identifying fascisms, which provides a 14 point criteria. Eco even says that not all forms of fascism will tick every criteria, and some may have fewer individual criteria but some so intensely that they are more obviously fascistic. It's one of the reasons why defining fascism (like defining many things, such as democratic) is so difficult - people disagree when it starts and ends. One famous scholar on fascism, for example, in 2016 was not willing to call Trump a fascist but did so after January 6th because he thought that kind of anti-democratic action was enough to warrant that definition. It isn't only fascism after the genocide has happened. It doesn't have to come from the specific Fascisti region of Italy (that's a joke, btw). It is a mode, a model, of thought and politics that depends on the national politics and traditions of the individual country at that time.
I will point out that all you are doing is underlining the faults of checklist diagnostics...
Same with Hamas TBF
That's quite an amazing comment to make. Yes, a coalition could destroy Israel - as they nearly did in 1973. Much more easily, in fact, if the west withdraws its support for Israel. Which is what a lot of the current pro-Palestinian angst is about.
I've looked at your definition of fascism, and Israel simply doesn't meet it. And as you've shown, you have to twist facts - e.g. LGBT rights - to get some of them to fit. Why? Why don't you just say "Israel has forward-looking LGBT rights, especially compared to its neighbours", rather than just saying "the west makes them do it!"