"No state is ever denied the right to defend itself". Absolutely, but with strict UN rules of engagement. I would suggest Bibi is probably not following those rules.
You never have but I wasn’t suggesting you were. I was suggesting by not calling me one you were wrong. I absolutely was in my support of Corbyn. He was and is a racist and I was a racist for supporting him. That’s a matter of great shame to me but at least I am honest enough to admit it. So many others have not.
Can Palestinians conceive a state that doesn't want to destroy its neighbour?
Vile but not unsurprising. Imagine replacing that for Jews and you would rightly be calling me racist.
That’s a line crossed for me. You’re out.
The Israelis gave they keys to the Gazans nearly twenty ago
Sorry if this is teaching Granny, but I have a tip for the Yorkshire Pudding.
Sift the plain flour through a sieve into the bowl, but when you do so, hold the sieve well above the bowl. This is not to remove lumps from the flour (you don't get any these days) but it allows air into it. The result is a light, airy pudding which rises pleasantly and gives that neat crust that is to die for.
Apologies if you knew this already.
PS. And don't forget the pinch of salt.
I’ve not tried that. Will do so. I do always use the salt as that makes the surface glossy.
My trick is basically as many eggs as humanly possible, plus one for luck.
What recipe do you follow ?
I do Mary Berry.
35g flour 1 egg 75ml milk
Proportionally.
TimS “cooking for boys”. I use 6 eggs, a bit of water and a bit of milk, and bung in some flour with a pinch of salt.
I use soda water, as it makes for a light batter that rises well. Beat in plenty of air and let the mixture rest for a while before using it too, it improves the structure.
Important to have the oil in the baking tray as hot as possible before adding the batter, almost at smoke point.
Fearnley-Whiiingstalls trick of adding chunks of onion and apple to a toad in the hole is a good twist, if non-canonical.
I'm curious how @AverageNinja reconciles the legitimate objective of destroying Hamas with desire to end the conflict.
Israel doesn't need to end the conflict, it needs to win the conflict, that means nowhere in land they control should be safe harbour for Hamas. Not Rafah, not anywhere.
If people want safe refuge away from the conflict, it needs to be outside the warzone. Same as every other war in history.
The conflict will not end long term until Palestine is established, I cannot see how that can possibly be disputed by anyone?
You are absolutely right about Hamas but everything else I think you’re wrong. When David Cameron wants to establish Palestine but not the current Israeli government. Which is why I said that they are not really interested in actually ending the conflict.
Destroying Hamas yes, ending it and ensuring peace, no. Don’t see what is controversial about that.
You may have missed Sky's report tonight that a ceasefire deal has been agreed by all parties but Netanyahu refuses to agree as it would be the end of him
A two state solution is the only answer but unfortunately it seems further away then ever but to be fair Sunak and Cameron are very much in favour of this answer
It is up the Israeli's to deal with Netanyahu as any outside intervention, other than through diplomacy will only end in more tears
How could it have been agreed by all parties when the leader of the nation that was attacked hasn't agreed? Isn't the county that was attacked a party to the conflict and doesn't their elected leader get a say on whether an agreement is reached or not?
Considering Hamas hasn't been destroyed yet and the hostages haven't been released yet, it would be very weak of Netanyahu to end the conflict prematurely.
According to Sky it has been agreed, including by many Israeli's, but Netanyahu is scared of his right wing and will not agree
This is a very volatile position for Netanyahu to be in, and I expect the US and UK and others to lean heavily on him, not least in views of Sunak and Cameron's comments today
So its not been agreed then.
Agreed is when Israel agrees, following its democratic institutions, not when some Israelis agree.
Israel is a democracy and it has an elected government, saying that Israel agrees to something because some Israelis agree is like saying in 2019 the UK agreed to remain in the EU because that's what Starmer, Swinson and Grieve wanted.
"No state is ever denied the right to defend itself". Absolutely, but with strict UN rules of engagement. I would suggest Bibi is probably not following those rules.
Everyone here knows they aren't.
Bullshit.
They are.
Name one rule of engagement being broken. Name one rule of engagement saying Hamas can't be targeted in Rafah. Name one more proportional way of destroying Hamas before this conflict ends than what Israel is doing.
"No state is ever denied the right to defend itself". Absolutely, but with strict UN rules of engagement. I would suggest Bibi is probably not following those rules.
I'm curious how @AverageNinja reconciles the legitimate objective of destroying Hamas with desire to end the conflict.
Israel doesn't need to end the conflict, it needs to win the conflict, that means nowhere in land they control should be safe harbour for Hamas. Not Rafah, not anywhere.
If people want safe refuge away from the conflict, it needs to be outside the warzone. Same as every other war in history.
The conflict will not end long term until Palestine is established, I cannot see how that can possibly be disputed by anyone?
You are absolutely right about Hamas but everything else I think you’re wrong. When David Cameron wants to establish Palestine but not the current Israeli government. Which is why I said that they are not really interested in actually ending the conflict.
Destroying Hamas yes, ending it and ensuring peace, no. Don’t see what is controversial about that.
You may have missed Sky's report tonight that a ceasefire deal has been agreed by all parties but Netanyahu refuses to agree as it would be the end of him
A two state solution is the only answer but unfortunately it seems further away then ever but to be fair Sunak and Cameron are very much in favour of this answer
It is up the Israeli's to deal with Netanyahu as any outside intervention, other than through diplomacy will only end in more tears
How could it have been agreed by all parties when the leader of the nation that was attacked hasn't agreed? Isn't the county that was attacked a party to the conflict and doesn't their elected leader get a say on whether an agreement is reached or not?
Considering Hamas hasn't been destroyed yet and the hostages haven't been released yet, it would be very weak of Netanyahu to end the conflict prematurely.
According to Sky it has been agreed, including by many Israeli's, but Netanyahu is scared of his right wing and will not agree
This is a very volatile position for Netanyahu to be in, and I expect the US and UK and others to lean heavily on him, not least in views of Sunak and Cameron's comments today
So its not been agreed then.
Agreed is when Israel agrees, following its democratic institutions, not when some Israelis agree.
Israel is a democracy and it has an elected government, saying that Israel agrees to something because some Israelis agree is like saying in 2019 the UK agreed to remain in the EU because that's what Starmer, Swinson and Grieve wanted.
Netanyahu is the one blocking a deal and it is upto Israel's allies to continue diplomatic means to make him see sense
"We're standing by our candidate who said some terrible things"
What? Really?
"Well no, not really."
So we now have a Parliamentary by election that Labour should walk without a candidate who the party itself can support. Careless would be an extremely generous description. Following on from the Green £28bn it is starting look Starmer really doesn't know what he is doing. And he's not even PM yet.
He's blundering from one U-turn to the next, calculating along the way what decision he thinks is most likely to get him into power. He's not at all bothered about what policies he does or doesn't ditch, or whatever new ones he might make up on the hoof, along the way - and there's no particular reason to suppose he'll be any different as Prime Minister. Just the same as the one we have at the moment, actually. Careering about like a wobbly shopping trolley, with no interest in anything at all except squatting uselessly in Downing Street for as long as possible. It's just about being Prime Minister for the sake of it. Existing, but doing nothing of any conceivable worth.
I don't know what motivates these people, I can only imagine that being Prime Minister is the summit of a political career and they're satisfied with just having made it, seeing how long they can sit there and which of their predecessors they can outlast before getting the boot, and then retiring to write a vacuous and pathetic memoir. Neither use nor ornament, the lot of them.
"No state is ever denied the right to defend itself". Absolutely, but with strict UN rules of engagement. I would suggest Bibi is probably not following those rules.
Everyone here knows they aren't.
Bullshit.
They are.
Name one rule of engagement being broken. Name one rule of engagement saying Hamas can't be targeted in Rafah. Name one more proportional way of destroying Hamas before this conflict ends than what Israel is doing.
I'm curious how @AverageNinja reconciles the legitimate objective of destroying Hamas with desire to end the conflict.
Israel doesn't need to end the conflict, it needs to win the conflict, that means nowhere in land they control should be safe harbour for Hamas. Not Rafah, not anywhere.
If people want safe refuge away from the conflict, it needs to be outside the warzone. Same as every other war in history.
The conflict will not end long term until Palestine is established, I cannot see how that can possibly be disputed by anyone?
You are absolutely right about Hamas but everything else I think you’re wrong. When David Cameron wants to establish Palestine but not the current Israeli government. Which is why I said that they are not really interested in actually ending the conflict.
Destroying Hamas yes, ending it and ensuring peace, no. Don’t see what is controversial about that.
You may have missed Sky's report tonight that a ceasefire deal has been agreed by all parties but Netanyahu refuses to agree as it would be the end of him
A two state solution is the only answer but unfortunately it seems further away then ever but to be fair Sunak and Cameron are very much in favour of this answer
It is up the Israeli's to deal with Netanyahu as any outside intervention, other than through diplomacy will only end in more tears
How could it have been agreed by all parties when the leader of the nation that was attacked hasn't agreed? Isn't the county that was attacked a party to the conflict and doesn't their elected leader get a say on whether an agreement is reached or not?
Considering Hamas hasn't been destroyed yet and the hostages haven't been released yet, it would be very weak of Netanyahu to end the conflict prematurely.
According to Sky it has been agreed, including by many Israeli's, but Netanyahu is scared of his right wing and will not agree
This is a very volatile position for Netanyahu to be in, and I expect the US and UK and others to lean heavily on him, not least in views of Sunak and Cameron's comments today
So its not been agreed then.
Agreed is when Israel agrees, following its democratic institutions, not when some Israelis agree.
Israel is a democracy and it has an elected government, saying that Israel agrees to something because some Israelis agree is like saying in 2019 the UK agreed to remain in the EU because that's what Starmer, Swinson and Grieve wanted.
Netanyahu is the one blocking a deal and it is upto Israel's allies to continue diplomatic means to make him see sense
Netanyahu's objective is to destroy Hamas.
The fact Hamas hasn't been destroyed yet blocks a deal.
I am no fan of Netanyahu, and want him gone, but there is not a snowballs chance in hell he should agree to a deal as long as a single Hamas fighter or supporter still lives and fights or supports Hamas in the whole of Gaza unless or until they surrender unconditionally.
Which is the same of what we demanded of the Germans and Japanese. Unconditional surrender.
"No state is ever denied the right to defend itself". Absolutely, but with strict UN rules of engagement. I would suggest Bibi is probably not following those rules.
Everyone here knows they aren't.
Bullshit.
They are.
Name one rule of engagement being broken. Name one rule of engagement saying Hamas can't be targeted in Rafah. Name one more proportional way of destroying Hamas before this conflict ends than what Israel is doing.
You are being a dick Bart.
He's got a massive blind-spot. To not be able to call out Netanyahu's appalling actions over many years is enough evidence of that.
Not a problem for me, he's appalling, Hamas are appalling. Hamas more appalling.
I'm curious how @AverageNinja reconciles the legitimate objective of destroying Hamas with desire to end the conflict.
Israel doesn't need to end the conflict, it needs to win the conflict, that means nowhere in land they control should be safe harbour for Hamas. Not Rafah, not anywhere.
If people want safe refuge away from the conflict, it needs to be outside the warzone. Same as every other war in history.
The conflict will not end long term until Palestine is established, I cannot see how that can possibly be disputed by anyone?
You are absolutely right about Hamas but everything else I think you’re wrong. When David Cameron wants to establish Palestine but not the current Israeli government. Which is why I said that they are not really interested in actually ending the conflict.
Destroying Hamas yes, ending it and ensuring peace, no. Don’t see what is controversial about that.
You may have missed Sky's report tonight that a ceasefire deal has been agreed by all parties but Netanyahu refuses to agree as it would be the end of him
A two state solution is the only answer but unfortunately it seems further away then ever but to be fair Sunak and Cameron are very much in favour of this answer
It is up the Israeli's to deal with Netanyahu as any outside intervention, other than through diplomacy will only end in more tears
How could it have been agreed by all parties when the leader of the nation that was attacked hasn't agreed? Isn't the county that was attacked a party to the conflict and doesn't their elected leader get a say on whether an agreement is reached or not?
Considering Hamas hasn't been destroyed yet and the hostages haven't been released yet, it would be very weak of Netanyahu to end the conflict prematurely.
According to Sky it has been agreed, including by many Israeli's, but Netanyahu is scared of his right wing and will not agree
This is a very volatile position for Netanyahu to be in, and I expect the US and UK and others to lean heavily on him, not least in views of Sunak and Cameron's comments today
So its not been agreed then.
Agreed is when Israel agrees, following its democratic institutions, not when some Israelis agree.
Israel is a democracy and it has an elected government, saying that Israel agrees to something because some Israelis agree is like saying in 2019 the UK agreed to remain in the EU because that's what Starmer, Swinson and Grieve wanted.
Netanyahu is the one blocking a deal and it is upto Israel's allies to continue diplomatic means to make him see sense
Trouble is that Netanyahu seeing sense is the end of his politcal career, at best. And the worst case scenario involves a long visit to one of those funny hotels with bars on the windows.
Strong incentive not to see sense under those circumstances.
Sorry if this is teaching Granny, but I have a tip for the Yorkshire Pudding.
Sift the plain flour through a sieve into the bowl, but when you do so, hold the sieve well above the bowl. This is not to remove lumps from the flour (you don't get any these days) but it allows air into it. The result is a light, airy pudding which rises pleasantly and gives that neat crust that is to die for.
Apologies if you knew this already.
PS. And don't forget the pinch of salt.
I’ve not tried that. Will do so. I do always use the salt as that makes the surface glossy.
My trick is basically as many eggs as humanly possible, plus one for luck.
What recipe do you follow ?
I do Mary Berry.
35g flour 1 egg 75ml milk
Proportionally.
TimS “cooking for boys”. I use 6 eggs, a bit of water and a bit of milk, and bung in some flour with a pinch of salt.
I use soda water, as it makes for a light batter that rises well. Beat in plenty of air and let the mixture rest for a while before using it too, it improves the structure.
Important to have the oil in the baking tray as hot as possible before adding the batter, almost at smoke point.
Fearnley-Whiiingstalls trick of adding chunks of onion and apple to a toad in the hole is a good twist, if non-canonical.
6-egg hole mix ready for tomorrow (always good to leave it a day in the fridge). This is a mix of t65 and t45 flour.
Allergen-packed. I should really add some peanuts to go with the gluten, dairy and eggs.
"No state is ever denied the right to defend itself". Absolutely, but with strict UN rules of engagement. I would suggest Bibi is probably not following those rules.
Everyone here knows they aren't.
Bullshit.
They are.
Name one rule of engagement being broken. Name one rule of engagement saying Hamas can't be targeted in Rafah. Name one more proportional way of destroying Hamas before this conflict ends than what Israel is doing.
You are being a dick Bart.
Why?
Because you can't answer my questions? Because I speak an uncomfortable truth.
I have said from day one of this conflict that Hamas need to be destroyed and eliminated. That every Hamas fighter and supporter needs to be killed unless or until Hamas surrenders unconditionally. Just as has happened with prior existential conflicts.
Nothing has changed to make me waver from those principles.
Israel has an absolute right to follow through on those objectives in the most proportional way possible. They are doing so. As long as they continue to do so, as long as anyone still fights for or supports Hamas, then I will stand by that view.
"No state is ever denied the right to defend itself". Absolutely, but with strict UN rules of engagement. I would suggest Bibi is probably not following those rules.
Everyone here knows they aren't.
Bullshit.
They are.
Name one rule of engagement being broken. Name one rule of engagement saying Hamas can't be targeted in Rafah. Name one more proportional way of destroying Hamas before this conflict ends than what Israel is doing.
You are being a dick Bart.
Why?
Because you can't answer my questions? Because I speak an uncomfortable truth.
I have said from day one of this conflict that Hamas need to be destroyed and eliminated. That every Hamas fighter and supporter needs to be killed unless or until Hamas surrenders unconditionally. Just as has happened with prior existential conflicts.
Nothing has changed to make me waver from those principles.
Israel has an absolute right to follow through on those objectives in the most proportional way possible. They are doing so. As long as they continue to do so, as long as anyone still fights for or supports Hamas, then I will stand by that view.
You can say all of this and say that the Israeli Government is appalling. Literally nobody thinks they are anything but. Biden today called their leader an "asshole". He is right.
I'm curious how @AverageNinja reconciles the legitimate objective of destroying Hamas with desire to end the conflict.
Israel doesn't need to end the conflict, it needs to win the conflict, that means nowhere in land they control should be safe harbour for Hamas. Not Rafah, not anywhere.
If people want safe refuge away from the conflict, it needs to be outside the warzone. Same as every other war in history.
The conflict will not end long term until Palestine is established, I cannot see how that can possibly be disputed by anyone?
You are absolutely right about Hamas but everything else I think you’re wrong. When David Cameron wants to establish Palestine but not the current Israeli government. Which is why I said that they are not really interested in actually ending the conflict.
Destroying Hamas yes, ending it and ensuring peace, no. Don’t see what is controversial about that.
You may have missed Sky's report tonight that a ceasefire deal has been agreed by all parties but Netanyahu refuses to agree as it would be the end of him
A two state solution is the only answer but unfortunately it seems further away then ever but to be fair Sunak and Cameron are very much in favour of this answer
It is up the Israeli's to deal with Netanyahu as any outside intervention, other than through diplomacy will only end in more tears
How could it have been agreed by all parties when the leader of the nation that was attacked hasn't agreed? Isn't the county that was attacked a party to the conflict and doesn't their elected leader get a say on whether an agreement is reached or not?
Considering Hamas hasn't been destroyed yet and the hostages haven't been released yet, it would be very weak of Netanyahu to end the conflict prematurely.
According to Sky it has been agreed, including by many Israeli's, but Netanyahu is scared of his right wing and will not agree
This is a very volatile position for Netanyahu to be in, and I expect the US and UK and others to lean heavily on him, not least in views of Sunak and Cameron's comments today
So its not been agreed then.
Agreed is when Israel agrees, following its democratic institutions, not when some Israelis agree.
Israel is a democracy and it has an elected government, saying that Israel agrees to something because some Israelis agree is like saying in 2019 the UK agreed to remain in the EU because that's what Starmer, Swinson and Grieve wanted.
Netanyahu is the one blocking a deal and it is upto Israel's allies to continue diplomatic means to make him see sense
Trouble is that Netanyahu seeing sense is the end of his politcal career, at best. And the worst case scenario involves a long visit to one of those funny hotels with bars on the windows.
Strong incentive not to see sense under those circumstances.
Certainly that is true but it cannot continue indefinitely
"No state is ever denied the right to defend itself". Absolutely, but with strict UN rules of engagement. I would suggest Bibi is probably not following those rules.
Everyone here knows they aren't.
Bullshit.
They are.
Name one rule of engagement being broken. Name one rule of engagement saying Hamas can't be targeted in Rafah. Name one more proportional way of destroying Hamas before this conflict ends than what Israel is doing.
You are being a dick Bart.
He's got a massive blind-spot. To not be able to call out Netanyahu's appalling actions over many years is enough evidence of that.
Not a problem for me, he's appalling, Hamas are appalling. Hamas more appalling.
Excuse me.
I can and have called out Netanyahu's appalling actions over many years.
Doesn't mean he's wrong here though. Even a broken clock can be right.
Also doesn't mean that he's a fascist. I dislike him, but I'm not so juvenile as to call everyone I dislike a fascist.
Sorry if this is teaching Granny, but I have a tip for the Yorkshire Pudding.
Sift the plain flour through a sieve into the bowl, but when you do so, hold the sieve well above the bowl. This is not to remove lumps from the flour (you don't get any these days) but it allows air into it. The result is a light, airy pudding which rises pleasantly and gives that neat crust that is to die for.
Apologies if you knew this already.
PS. And don't forget the pinch of salt.
I’ve not tried that. Will do so. I do always use the salt as that makes the surface glossy.
My trick is basically as many eggs as humanly possible, plus one for luck.
What recipe do you follow ?
I do Mary Berry.
35g flour 1 egg 75ml milk
Proportionally.
TimS “cooking for boys”. I use 6 eggs, a bit of water and a bit of milk, and bung in some flour with a pinch of salt.
I use soda water, as it makes for a light batter that rises well. Beat in plenty of air and let the mixture rest for a while before using it too, it improves the structure.
Important to have the oil in the baking tray as hot as possible before adding the batter, almost at smoke point.
Fearnley-Whiiingstalls trick of adding chunks of onion and apple to a toad in the hole is a good twist, if non-canonical.
6-egg hole mix ready for tomorrow (always good to leave it a day in the fridge). This is a mix of t65 and t45 flour.
Allergen-packed. I should really add some peanuts to go with the gluten, dairy and eggs.
And tahini and fish.
Very glad not to be doing an allegen study any more.
"No state is ever denied the right to defend itself". Absolutely, but with strict UN rules of engagement. I would suggest Bibi is probably not following those rules.
Everyone here knows they aren't.
Bullshit.
They are.
Name one rule of engagement being broken. Name one rule of engagement saying Hamas can't be targeted in Rafah. Name one more proportional way of destroying Hamas before this conflict ends than what Israel is doing.
You are being a dick Bart.
He's got a massive blind-spot. To not be able to call out Netanyahu's appalling actions over many years is enough evidence of that.
Not a problem for me, he's appalling, Hamas are appalling. Hamas more appalling.
It's an equality of appalling. Hamas in terms of their butchery, Bibi by dint of sheer numbers.
"No state is ever denied the right to defend itself". Absolutely, but with strict UN rules of engagement. I would suggest Bibi is probably not following those rules.
Everyone here knows they aren't.
Bullshit.
They are.
Name one rule of engagement being broken. Name one rule of engagement saying Hamas can't be targeted in Rafah. Name one more proportional way of destroying Hamas before this conflict ends than what Israel is doing.
You are being a dick Bart.
Why?
Because you can't answer my questions? Because I speak an uncomfortable truth.
I have said from day one of this conflict that Hamas need to be destroyed and eliminated. That every Hamas fighter and supporter needs to be killed unless or until Hamas surrenders unconditionally. Just as has happened with prior existential conflicts.
Nothing has changed to make me waver from those principles.
Israel has an absolute right to follow through on those objectives in the most proportional way possible. They are doing so. As long as they continue to do so, as long as anyone still fights for or supports Hamas, then I will stand by that view.
You can say all of this and say that the Israeli Government is appalling. Literally nobody thinks they are anything but. Biden today called their leader an "asshole". He is right.
Netanyahu is an asshole.
Israel should continue fighting.
Hamas need to be destroyed.
Palestinians do not have a right to a state today.
All of these are true.
Hopefully in the future Israel will be led by a leader who's not an asshole.
Hopefully in the future Palestinians and Catalans and Kurds will have a state of their own.
But the immediate priority is the destruction of Hamas.
Sorry if this is teaching Granny, but I have a tip for the Yorkshire Pudding.
Sift the plain flour through a sieve into the bowl, but when you do so, hold the sieve well above the bowl. This is not to remove lumps from the flour (you don't get any these days) but it allows air into it. The result is a light, airy pudding which rises pleasantly and gives that neat crust that is to die for.
Apologies if you knew this already.
PS. And don't forget the pinch of salt.
I’ve not tried that. Will do so. I do always use the salt as that makes the surface glossy.
My trick is basically as many eggs as humanly possible, plus one for luck.
What recipe do you follow ?
I do Mary Berry.
35g flour 1 egg 75ml milk
Proportionally.
TimS “cooking for boys”. I use 6 eggs, a bit of water and a bit of milk, and bung in some flour with a pinch of salt.
"We're standing by our candidate who said some terrible things"
What? Really?
"Well no, not really."
So we now have a Parliamentary by election that Labour should walk without a candidate who the party itself can support. Careless would be an extremely generous description. Following on from the Green £28bn it is starting look Starmer really doesn't know what he is doing. And he's not even PM yet.
He's blundering from one U-turn to the next, calculating along the way what decision he thinks is most likely to get him into power. He's not at all bothered about what policies he does or doesn't ditch, or whatever new ones he might make up on the hoof, along the way - and there's no particular reason to suppose he'll be any different as Prime Minister. Just the same as the one we have at the moment, actually. Careering about like a wobbly shopping trolley, with no interest in anything at all except squatting uselessly in Downing Street for as long as possible. It's just about being Prime Minister for the sake of it. Existing, but doing nothing of any conceivable worth.
I don't know what motivates these people, I can only imagine that being Prime Minister is the summit of a political career and they're satisfied with just having made it, seeing how long they can sit there and which of their predecessors they can outlast before getting the boot, and then retiring to write a vacuous and pathetic memoir. Neither use nor ornament, the lot of them.
It's quite possible the LAB lead really falls away as people focus on the election. They will probably still win but could be as close as 38 - 32. There really is no real enthusiasm for LAB.
"No state is ever denied the right to defend itself". Absolutely, but with strict UN rules of engagement. I would suggest Bibi is probably not following those rules.
Everyone here knows they aren't.
Bullshit.
They are.
Name one rule of engagement being broken. Name one rule of engagement saying Hamas can't be targeted in Rafah. Name one more proportional way of destroying Hamas before this conflict ends than what Israel is doing.
You are being a dick Bart.
He's got a massive blind-spot. To not be able to call out Netanyahu's appalling actions over many years is enough evidence of that.
Not a problem for me, he's appalling, Hamas are appalling. Hamas more appalling.
Excuse me.
I can and have called out Netanyahu's appalling actions over many years.
Doesn't mean he's wrong here though. Even a broken clock can be right.
Also doesn't mean that he's a fascist. I dislike him, but I'm not so juvenile as to call everyone I dislike a fascist.
I don't call everyone I don't like a fascist. But he fulfils all the criteria for being one. He has the same tendencies as Putin.
I have not seen you once ever call out anything Netanyahu has done as bad in this conflict. Not one.
I'm curious how @AverageNinja reconciles the legitimate objective of destroying Hamas with desire to end the conflict.
Israel doesn't need to end the conflict, it needs to win the conflict, that means nowhere in land they control should be safe harbour for Hamas. Not Rafah, not anywhere.
If people want safe refuge away from the conflict, it needs to be outside the warzone. Same as every other war in history.
The conflict will not end long term until Palestine is established, I cannot see how that can possibly be disputed by anyone?
You are absolutely right about Hamas but everything else I think you’re wrong. When David Cameron wants to establish Palestine but not the current Israeli government. Which is why I said that they are not really interested in actually ending the conflict.
Destroying Hamas yes, ending it and ensuring peace, no. Don’t see what is controversial about that.
You may have missed Sky's report tonight that a ceasefire deal has been agreed by all parties but Netanyahu refuses to agree as it would be the end of him
A two state solution is the only answer but unfortunately it seems further away then ever but to be fair Sunak and Cameron are very much in favour of this answer
It is up the Israeli's to deal with Netanyahu as any outside intervention, other than through diplomacy will only end in more tears
How could it have been agreed by all parties when the leader of the nation that was attacked hasn't agreed? Isn't the county that was attacked a party to the conflict and doesn't their elected leader get a say on whether an agreement is reached or not?
Considering Hamas hasn't been destroyed yet and the hostages haven't been released yet, it would be very weak of Netanyahu to end the conflict prematurely.
According to Sky it has been agreed, including by many Israeli's, but Netanyahu is scared of his right wing and will not agree
This is a very volatile position for Netanyahu to be in, and I expect the US and UK and others to lean heavily on him, not least in views of Sunak and Cameron's comments today
So its not been agreed then.
Agreed is when Israel agrees, following its democratic institutions, not when some Israelis agree.
Israel is a democracy and it has an elected government, saying that Israel agrees to something because some Israelis agree is like saying in 2019 the UK agreed to remain in the EU because that's what Starmer, Swinson and Grieve wanted.
Netanyahu is the one blocking a deal and it is upto Israel's allies to continue diplomatic means to make him see sense
Trouble is that Netanyahu seeing sense is the end of his politcal career, at best. And the worst case scenario involves a long visit to one of those funny hotels with bars on the windows.
Strong incentive not to see sense under those circumstances.
Certainly that is true but it cannot continue indefinitely
"No state is ever denied the right to defend itself". Absolutely, but with strict UN rules of engagement. I would suggest Bibi is probably not following those rules.
Everyone here knows they aren't.
Bullshit.
They are.
Name one rule of engagement being broken. Name one rule of engagement saying Hamas can't be targeted in Rafah. Name one more proportional way of destroying Hamas before this conflict ends than what Israel is doing.
You are being a dick Bart.
He's got a massive blind-spot. To not be able to call out Netanyahu's appalling actions over many years is enough evidence of that.
Not a problem for me, he's appalling, Hamas are appalling. Hamas more appalling.
Excuse me.
I can and have called out Netanyahu's appalling actions over many years.
Doesn't mean he's wrong here though. Even a broken clock can be right.
Also doesn't mean that he's a fascist. I dislike him, but I'm not so juvenile as to call everyone I dislike a fascist.
I don't call everyone I don't like a fascist. But he fulfils all the criteria for being one. He has the same tendencies as Putin.
I have not seen you once ever call out anything Netanyahu has done as bad in this conflict. Not one.
He's done bad things prior to this conflict and I wanted him to lose the last election.
I don't think he's done bad things in this conflict so have had nothing to call out. That's like demanding I call out Zelensky. What for?
Palestinians do not have a right to a state today.
All of these are true.
Hopefully in the future Israel will be led by a leader who's not an asshole.
Hopefully in the future Palestinians and Catalans and Kurds will have a state of their own.
But the immediate priority is the destruction of Hamas.
I think they absolutely do. Not with Hamas involved of course but it is essential that they be allowed to have a state of their own.
Why?
Do the Kurds? Do the Basques? Do the Tamils? Do the Catalans?
Or is it only the Palestinians?
I think the conflict will only end with the establishment of a Palestinian state. That much was clear before Hamas's terrible actions.
Right now the Israeli Government are creating more death, more destruction in the long term by denying their right to ever exist.
I definitely have to wonder how many terrorists/freedom fighters are being created by Israel’s actions now. Was there another way? There had to be something better than this.
We're back onto beergate levels of "this is the end of Keir Starmer" I see.
It was disappointing, though not surprising - cos that's what party leaders do - that his first instinct was to support him. But fair play, he's not-too-belatedly done the right thing here. Corbyn wouldn't have done.
Palestinians do not have a right to a state today.
All of these are true.
Hopefully in the future Israel will be led by a leader who's not an asshole.
Hopefully in the future Palestinians and Catalans and Kurds will have a state of their own.
But the immediate priority is the destruction of Hamas.
I think they absolutely do. Not with Hamas involved of course but it is essential that they be allowed to have a state of their own.
Why?
Do the Kurds? Do the Basques? Do the Tamils? Do the Catalans?
Or is it only the Palestinians?
I think the conflict will only end with the establishment of a Palestinian state. That much was clear before Hamas's terrible actions.
Right now the Israeli Government are creating more death, more destruction in the long term by denying their right to ever exist.
I definitely have to wonder how many terrorists/freedom fighters are being created by Israel’s actions now. Was there another way? There had to be something better than this.
I absolutely think the actions they have taken will in the long term create far more problems than this terrible conflict. Their strategy is entirely self-defeating. But Netanyahu seems a bit thick.
We're back onto beergate levels of "this is the end of Keir Starmer" I see.
It was disappointing, though not surprising - cos that's what party leaders do - that his first instinct was to support him. But fair play, he's not-too-belatedly done the right thing here. Corbyn wouldn't have done.
To be honest, I feel like Sir Keir has been MIA during this whole thing. Has he personally said anything?
Although Andy Haldane is wrong about ploughing on with a £140B of green investment that is unaffordable right now, I am more favourable about of his idea’s of splitting the Treasury in two.
Public finances separate from staying course on long term planning and investment is the gist of it.
I think it’s wrong that it was too easy for Sunak to scrap HS2. If it’s wrong for governments to have control of interest rates, and so can cut them in run up to elections, it had to be equally wrong that cross party policy built up over decades, and supported by local leaders of all political persuasions, can be victim to an unpopular Prime Minister and the clique of advisors and image consultants around him.
Split the treasury. Create a growth and long term plan body, include local and regional leaders in the long term plan entity AND remove some power from government and Downing Street into that entity too.
“Andy Haldane would do if he ran the government, he tells Sophy Ridge he'd "split the Treasury in two". Half of it would manage the public finances, and the other would be a "separate economic or growth ministry". "We need a singular focus now on growth," he says. "And that means a ministerial singular focus on growth. "And that will mean doing something different at the Treasury than is the case currently." He would also seek to give more power to local leaders to let them "become masters of their own destiny". "That, I think, is where the energy is in the country right now," he says. "And that's where the potential is greatest to unlock people, unlock communities, and to grow them in the national economy."
“Just heard an update from the Rochdale Lib Dem campaign HQ... The campaign is ramping up, some interesting canvassing returns so far and this will really make this a free-for-all. Remember it's historically a Lab/Lib marginal.”
"No state is ever denied the right to defend itself". Absolutely, but with strict UN rules of engagement. I would suggest Bibi is probably not following those rules.
Everyone here knows they aren't.
Bullshit.
They are.
Name one rule of engagement being broken. Name one rule of engagement saying Hamas can't be targeted in Rafah. Name one more proportional way of destroying Hamas before this conflict ends than what Israel is doing.
You are being a dick Bart.
He's got a massive blind-spot. To not be able to call out Netanyahu's appalling actions over many years is enough evidence of that.
Not a problem for me, he's appalling, Hamas are appalling. Hamas more appalling.
Excuse me.
I can and have called out Netanyahu's appalling actions over many years.
Doesn't mean he's wrong here though. Even a broken clock can be right.
Also doesn't mean that he's a fascist. I dislike him, but I'm not so juvenile as to call everyone I dislike a fascist.
It's an uncomfortable label to pin on an Israeli Prime Minister, even a maverick one. We might see over the next months whether Bibi ticks all the boxes, or not.
Can we place Rochdale Labour in the By-elections hall of fame for poor choices of candidate. Had they all just transferred from Sheffield Hallam or something?
I thought Rochdale was tricky for them. Now I suppose they can try to wave off a defeat as 'exceptional circumstances'. Not sure I accept that. Meanwhile, on a probable very low turnout, if Galloway can get his people to turn out then who knows?
Galloway has won a by election in the past. I wouldn't rule out him doing it again. Sadly
The voters are in a mood to kick against the pricks whoever they are. Starmer risks being treated as the incumbent even before he enters No 10. That's his problem - he really doesnt look like a positive change candidate in the way that Tony Blair did.
We're back onto beergate levels of "this is the end of Keir Starmer" I see.
No, he'll probably be the next Prime Minister. Likely another completely useless one, but he'll get to play with the train set for a bit, which is the aim of the exercise.
"We're standing by our candidate who said some terrible things"
What? Really?
"Well no, not really."
So we now have a Parliamentary by election that Labour should walk without a candidate who the party itself can support. Careless would be an extremely generous description. Following on from the Green £28bn it is starting look Starmer really doesn't know what he is doing. And he's not even PM yet.
He's blundering from one U-turn to the next, calculating along the way what decision he thinks is most likely to get him into power. He's not at all bothered about what policies he does or doesn't ditch, or whatever new ones he might make up on the hoof, along the way - and there's no particular reason to suppose he'll be any different as Prime Minister. Just the same as the one we have at the moment, actually. Careering about like a wobbly shopping trolley, with no interest in anything at all except squatting uselessly in Downing Street for as long as possible. It's just about being Prime Minister for the sake of it. Existing, but doing nothing of any conceivable worth.
I don't know what motivates these people, I can only imagine that being Prime Minister is the summit of a political career and they're satisfied with just having made it, seeing how long they can sit there and which of their predecessors they can outlast before getting the boot, and then retiring to write a vacuous and pathetic memoir. Neither use nor ornament, the lot of them.
It's quite possible the LAB lead really falls away as people focus on the election. They will probably still win but could be as close as 38 - 32. There really is no real enthusiasm for LAB.
Yep, low turnout (which strongly favours the Tories as it'll drive the median age of the electorate up even more,) resulting in a hung parliament. The Conservatives are so useless that it'll most likely persuade enough of their backers to switch sides or stay at home to rob them of a majority, but there exists no positive reason to endorse any of the alternatives. Except for voters in Scotland minded to pull the plug on Britain, who can always stick with the equally useless SNP to protest the fact.
Labour 300, Con 260, SNP 40, LD 25. One term of total non-achievement, followed by a prompt return to Toryism.
“Just heard an update from the Rochdale Lib Dem campaign HQ... The campaign is ramping up, some interesting canvassing returns so far and this will really make this a free-for-all. Remember it's historically a Lab/Lib marginal.”
Can we place Rochdale Labour in the By-elections hall of fame for poor choices of candidate. Had they all just transferred from Sheffield Hallam or something?
I thought Rochdale was tricky for them. Now I suppose they can try to wave off a defeat as 'exceptional circumstances'. Not sure I accept that. Meanwhile, on a probable very low turnout, if Galloway can get his people to turn out then who knows?
Galloway has won a by election in the past. I wouldn't rule out him doing it again. Sadly
The voters are in a mood to kick against the pricks whoever they are. Starmer risks being treated as the incumbent even before he enters No 10. That's his problem - he really doesnt look like a positive change candidate in the way that Tony Blair did.
That's because he's an empty shell and a total do-nothing. Labour are in it for the salaries and the limos, nothing more.
We're back onto beergate levels of "this is the end of Keir Starmer" I see.
No, he'll probably be the next Prime Minister. Likely another completely useless one, but he'll get to play with the train set for a bit, which is the aim of the exercise.
"We're standing by our candidate who said some terrible things"
What? Really?
"Well no, not really."
So we now have a Parliamentary by election that Labour should walk without a candidate who the party itself can support. Careless would be an extremely generous description. Following on from the Green £28bn it is starting look Starmer really doesn't know what he is doing. And he's not even PM yet.
He's blundering from one U-turn to the next, calculating along the way what decision he thinks is most likely to get him into power. He's not at all bothered about what policies he does or doesn't ditch, or whatever new ones he might make up on the hoof, along the way - and there's no particular reason to suppose he'll be any different as Prime Minister. Just the same as the one we have at the moment, actually. Careering about like a wobbly shopping trolley, with no interest in anything at all except squatting uselessly in Downing Street for as long as possible. It's just about being Prime Minister for the sake of it. Existing, but doing nothing of any conceivable worth.
I don't know what motivates these people, I can only imagine that being Prime Minister is the summit of a political career and they're satisfied with just having made it, seeing how long they can sit there and which of their predecessors they can outlast before getting the boot, and then retiring to write a vacuous and pathetic memoir. Neither use nor ornament, the lot of them.
It's quite possible the LAB lead really falls away as people focus on the election. They will probably still win but could be as close as 38 - 32. There really is no real enthusiasm for LAB.
Yep, low turnout (which strongly favours the Tories as it'll drive the median age of the electorate up even more,) resulting in a hung parliament. The Conservatives are so useless that it'll most likely persuade enough of their backers to switch sides or stay at home to rob them of a majority, but there exists no positive reason to endorse any of the alternatives. Except for voters in Scotland minded to pull the plug on Britain, who can always stick with the equally useless SNP to protest the fact.
Labour 300, Con 260, SNP 40, LD 25. One term of total non-achievement, followed by a prompt return to Toryism.
38 - 32 is rather possible, but I’m still raotflmfao at your 300-260 seat numbers from 38-32.
38-32 would deliver an eighty Starmer majority and Tories below 200 seats with the amount of tactical vote in addition to that swing.
Can we place Rochdale Labour in the By-elections hall of fame for poor choices of candidate. Had they all just transferred from Sheffield Hallam or something?
I thought Rochdale was tricky for them. Now I suppose they can try to wave off a defeat as 'exceptional circumstances'. Not sure I accept that. Meanwhile, on a probable very low turnout, if Galloway can get his people to turn out then who knows?
Galloway has won a by election in the past. I wouldn't rule out him doing it again. Sadly
The voters are in a mood to kick against the pricks whoever they are. Starmer risks being treated as the incumbent even before he enters No 10. That's his problem - he really doesnt look like a positive change candidate in the way that Tony Blair did.
That's because he's an empty shell and a total do-nothing. Labour are in it for the salaries and the limos, nothing more.
Which is true for the Tories too.
And time for a change means Labour will win. Probably rightly so.
Despite Starmer being an unprincipled shit. Or because he is.
We're back onto beergate levels of "this is the end of Keir Starmer" I see.
It was disappointing, though not surprising - cos that's what party leaders do - that his first instinct was to support him. But fair play, he's not-too-belatedly done the right thing here. Corbyn wouldn't have done.
To be honest, I feel like Sir Keir has been MIA during this whole thing. Has he personally said anything?
We're back onto beergate levels of "this is the end of Keir Starmer" I see.
No, he'll probably be the next Prime Minister. Likely another completely useless one, but he'll get to play with the train set for a bit, which is the aim of the exercise.
"We're standing by our candidate who said some terrible things"
What? Really?
"Well no, not really."
So we now have a Parliamentary by election that Labour should walk without a candidate who the party itself can support. Careless would be an extremely generous description. Following on from the Green £28bn it is starting look Starmer really doesn't know what he is doing. And he's not even PM yet.
He's blundering from one U-turn to the next, calculating along the way what decision he thinks is most likely to get him into power. He's not at all bothered about what policies he does or doesn't ditch, or whatever new ones he might make up on the hoof, along the way - and there's no particular reason to suppose he'll be any different as Prime Minister. Just the same as the one we have at the moment, actually. Careering about like a wobbly shopping trolley, with no interest in anything at all except squatting uselessly in Downing Street for as long as possible. It's just about being Prime Minister for the sake of it. Existing, but doing nothing of any conceivable worth.
I don't know what motivates these people, I can only imagine that being Prime Minister is the summit of a political career and they're satisfied with just having made it, seeing how long they can sit there and which of their predecessors they can outlast before getting the boot, and then retiring to write a vacuous and pathetic memoir. Neither use nor ornament, the lot of them.
It's quite possible the LAB lead really falls away as people focus on the election. They will probably still win but could be as close as 38 - 32. There really is no real enthusiasm for LAB.
Yep, low turnout (which strongly favours the Tories as it'll drive the median age of the electorate up even more,) resulting in a hung parliament. The Conservatives are so useless that it'll most likely persuade enough of their backers to switch sides or stay at home to rob them of a majority, but there exists no positive reason to endorse any of the alternatives. Except for voters in Scotland minded to pull the plug on Britain, who can always stick with the equally useless SNP to protest the fact.
Labour 300, Con 260, SNP 40, LD 25. One term of total non-achievement, followed by a prompt return to Toryism.
38 - 32 is rather possible, but I’m still raotflmfao at your 300-260 seat numbers from 38-32.
38-32 would deliver an eighty Starmer majority and Tories below 200 seats with the amount of tactical vote in addition to that swing.
You seem to be assuming an immense amount of tactical voting. Why would there be? Some grand alliance of progressive voters all so desperate to be rid of the Tories that they'll troop down to the polling stations in their droves to back a unity candidate? No, not when there is zero enthusiasm for the alternative.
Low turnout, apathy, and Green voters in particular sticking to their guns rather than endorsing continuity Conservatism. That's what we can expect from the next election.
“Just heard an update from the Rochdale Lib Dem campaign HQ... The campaign is ramping up, some interesting canvassing returns so far and this will really make this a free-for-all. Remember it's historically a Lab/Lib marginal.”
No brainer. They really have to chuck the kitchen sink at this one.
Excellent news and well done Israel. How many more hostages have been taken to Rafah.
To everyone who is against Israel having free operational room to go into Rafah, what should have happened to these hostages? Should they not have been rescued.
There must be no safe harbour for Hamas anywhere in Gaza. There must be nowhere Hamas can take Israelis to in Gaza that they can't be rescued from.
If civilians want safe harbour, that's outside of the conflict zone, or nowhere.
“Just heard an update from the Rochdale Lib Dem campaign HQ... The campaign is ramping up, some interesting canvassing returns so far and this will really make this a free-for-all. Remember it's historically a Lab/Lib marginal.”
No brainer. They really have to chuck the kitchen sink at this one.
Confirms what I’ve been saying - that it’s entirely Biden’s decision.
… there is a path that enables him to leave with dignity and on his terms. It begins with letting the Democratic primary campaign run its course, ending June 4, the date the last group of states holds its primaries. Biden would finish as the undisputed victor, with far more than the 1,968 pledged delegate votes necessary to claim the nomination.
And then Biden would announce he would not accept the nomination and release his delegates to back a different nominee. He could insist he’s still fit to serve out another term but that he accepts the public’s concerns with a president who would be 86 at the end of a second term. He could remind voters that he has always said he was a bridge to a future generation of Democratic leaders. The economy is on track, he could note, and argue that he defeated Trump once and protected American democracy. He met his duty.
At that point, the scramble would begin among potential successors. Not long after Biden’s announcement, a spate of private polls testing various candidates in the general election would suddenly be floated to establish different figures’ Trump-slaying credentials. Between June 4 and Aug. 19, when the party’s convention begins in Chicago, senior Democrats would jockey for position to replace Biden in the kind of battle not seen in decades in American politics...
I'm curious how @AverageNinja reconciles the legitimate objective of destroying Hamas with desire to end the conflict.
Israel doesn't need to end the conflict, it needs to win the conflict, that means nowhere in land they control should be safe harbour for Hamas. Not Rafah, not anywhere.
If people want safe refuge away from the conflict, it needs to be outside the warzone. Same as every other war in history.
The conflict will not end long term until Palestine is established, I cannot see how that can possibly be disputed by anyone?
You are absolutely right about Hamas but everything else I think you’re wrong. When David Cameron wants to establish Palestine but not the current Israeli government. Which is why I said that they are not really interested in actually ending the conflict.
Destroying Hamas yes, ending it and ensuring peace, no. Don’t see what is controversial about that.
You may have missed Sky's report tonight that a ceasefire deal has been agreed by all parties but Netanyahu refuses to agree as it would be the end of him
A two state solution is the only answer but unfortunately it seems further away then ever but to be fair Sunak and Cameron are very much in favour of this answer
It is up the Israeli's to deal with Netanyahu as any outside intervention, other than through diplomacy will only end in more tears
How could it have been agreed by all parties when the leader of the nation that was attacked hasn't agreed? Isn't the county that was attacked a party to the conflict and doesn't their elected leader get a say on whether an agreement is reached or not?
Considering Hamas hasn't been destroyed yet and the hostages haven't been released yet, it would be very weak of Netanyahu to end the conflict prematurely.
According to Sky it has been agreed, including by many Israeli's, but Netanyahu is scared of his right wing and will not agree
This is a very volatile position for Netanyahu to be in, and I expect the US and UK and others to lean heavily on him, not least in views of Sunak and Cameron's comments today
So its not been agreed then.
Agreed is when Israel agrees, following its democratic institutions, not when some Israelis agree.
Israel is a democracy and it has an elected government, saying that Israel agrees to something because some Israelis agree is like saying in 2019 the UK agreed to remain in the EU because that's what Starmer, Swinson and Grieve wanted.
Netanyahu is the one blocking a deal and it is upto Israel's allies to continue diplomatic means to make him see sense
Trouble is that Netanyahu seeing sense is the end of his politcal career, at best. And the worst case scenario involves a long visit to one of those funny hotels with bars on the windows.
Strong incentive not to see sense under those circumstances.
Certainly that is true but it cannot continue indefinitely
I agree with you all - what’s obvious today is Netanyahu doesn’t accept his political career is over and ending in ignominy. Soon as he does, he can start making smarter decisions for the long term of his country.
Palestinians do not have a right to a state today.
All of these are true.
Hopefully in the future Israel will be led by a leader who's not an asshole.
Hopefully in the future Palestinians and Catalans and Kurds will have a state of their own.
But the immediate priority is the destruction of Hamas.
I think they absolutely do. Not with Hamas involved of course but it is essential that they be allowed to have a state of their own.
Why?
Do the Kurds? Do the Basques? Do the Tamils? Do the Catalans?
Or is it only the Palestinians?
I think the conflict will only end with the establishment of a Palestinian state. That much was clear before Hamas's terrible actions.
Right now the Israeli Government are creating more death, more destruction in the long term by denying their right to ever exist.
The Palestinians were given (the makings of) a state nearly 20 years ago. Settlers were dragged literally kicking and screaming out of Gaza and the keys were handed over to the Palestinians.
Imagine what would have happened to the region if the then government of Gaza had worked with the then willing Israeli government to make Gaza a success. For the Palestinians living there, for its neighbour Israel, for broader geopolitics in the region.
But no. The Gazans elected Hamas to power and Hamas had the stated intention of destroying Israel.
It has now started a war with Israel and is currently engaged in that war. Wars are ugly but Israel is simply prosecuting the war. Are there war crimes? Not that are immediately apparent but no doubt that will be decided by some court or other in time to come. Meanwhile, Israel believes it is fighting for its life so is unlikely to amend its war aims too readily.
The Trump filing to the Supreme Court is in. He's asking them to temporarily block that unanimous decision from the DC Circuit that outright rejected his claims of broad immunity.
Excellent news and well done Israel. How many more hostages have been taken to Rafah.
To everyone who is against Israel having free operational room to go into Rafah, what should have happened to these hostages? Should they not have been rescued.
There must be no safe harbour for Hamas anywhere in Gaza. There must be nowhere Hamas can take Israelis to in Gaza that they can't be rescued from.
If civilians want safe harbour, that's outside of the conflict zone, or nowhere.
It involved 55 civilians getting killed. Quite a price unless you put very little value on Palestinian civilians.
Tucker Carlson: "It was a shock to me that Moscow, where I had never been before, the largest European city with 13 million people, was much nicer than any city in my country. I had no idea about that. It is much cleaner, safer, and prettier aesthetically. Its architecture, food, services are better than any city in the United States."
Moscow is the only city in Europe where I've had to bribe some police officers to allow me to continue going about my business.
Excellent news and well done Israel. How many more hostages have been taken to Rafah.
To everyone who is against Israel having free operational room to go into Rafah, what should have happened to these hostages? Should they not have been rescued.
There must be no safe harbour for Hamas anywhere in Gaza. There must be nowhere Hamas can take Israelis to in Gaza that they can't be rescued from.
If civilians want safe harbour, that's outside of the conflict zone, or nowhere.
It involved 55 civilians getting killed. Quite a price unless you put very little value on Palestinian civilians.
That's Hamas's fault.
Every Palestinian casualty is Hamas's fault every bit as much as every Israeli casualty. They shouldn't have started this fight.
However the enemies civilians being used as human shields never has and never will be a reason not to fight a war, and yes it is proportionate to kill 55 of the enemies civilians (if they even were civilians) if its the only way of getting 2 of your own back.
In war, your own civilians are worth more than your enemies. Always have been, always will be.
'I am doing everything in my political power to achieve this.'
Former Israeli PM Ehud Olmert tells @AndrewMarr9 that 'change will happen sooner than people think' regarding Benjamin Netanyahu's tenure in charge of Israel.
Replying to @fleetstreetfox It's like we are in a toxic relationship with Sunak. We've told him we are leaving, his bags are packed, it's him not us, it's over, we are done. He's asking us where we want to go on holiday in the summer.
Can we place Rochdale Labour in the By-elections hall of fame for poor choices of candidate. Had they all just transferred from Sheffield Hallam or something?
I thought Rochdale was tricky for them. Now I suppose they can try to wave off a defeat as 'exceptional circumstances'. Not sure I accept that. Meanwhile, on a probable very low turnout, if Galloway can get his people to turn out then who knows?
Galloway has won a by election in the past. I wouldn't rule out him doing it again. Sadly
The voters are in a mood to kick against the pricks whoever they are. Starmer risks being treated as the incumbent even before he enters No 10. That's his problem - he really doesnt look like a positive change candidate in the way that Tony Blair did.
LOL. "Positive change candidate"?
I think he buried that this weekend when he scuttled his own flagship.
Can we place Rochdale Labour in the By-elections hall of fame for poor choices of candidate. Had they all just transferred from Sheffield Hallam or something?
I thought Rochdale was tricky for them. Now I suppose they can try to wave off a defeat as 'exceptional circumstances'. Not sure I accept that. Meanwhile, on a probable very low turnout, if Galloway can get his people to turn out then who knows?
Galloway has won a by election in the past. I wouldn't rule out him doing it again. Sadly
The voters are in a mood to kick against the pricks whoever they are. Starmer risks being treated as the incumbent even before he enters No 10. That's his problem - he really doesnt look like a positive change candidate in the way that Tony Blair did.
LOL. "Positive change candidate"?
I think he buried that this weekend when he scuttled his own flagship.
Do you honestly think this is the thing to move the dial?
Gastronomic question for British (English, Scottish, Welsh or indeed N Irish) patriots.
Our French neighbour and her little girl are coming for dinner tomorrow and I’ve promised some classic British cooking. Main course and pudding are easy: I’m going toad in the hole (with a nod to it being shrove Tuesday) and some sort of nursery pudding. But what about a starter? I’m stuck.
All I can think of is seafood options but I’m not a fan of prawn cocktail, sceptical I’ll find any brown shrimps to “pot”, certainly won’t track down kippers or cockles. Or there are other non fishy things that won’t be found down the local Carrefour market like haggis or game pie. And Welsh rarebit has been blatantly culturally appropriated by the French as “le Welsh” and presented as a speciality of the Ch’tis.
'I am doing everything in my political power to achieve this.'
Former Israeli PM Ehud Olmert tells @AndrewMarr9 that 'change will happen sooner than people think' regarding Benjamin Netanyahu's tenure in charge of Israel.
Winning the war didn't keep Churchill in office, and Netanyahu is no Churchill.
More than one thing can be true simultaneously.
The war should be over when Israel wins unconditionally (just like we demanded the unconditional surrender of Germany) - and Netanyahu should be out of office soon after.
If I've got this right this initially goes to John Roberts, who can either decide it on his own or (more likely) put it to a vote. Then it needs 5 justices to agree that the trial should be paused while they decide whether to hear the case, then hear the case if that's what they decide. This is one more than you need to subsequently agree to actually hear the case, but I guess if there are four of them saying they'll probably want to hear it then there would be one more who would vote for the pause.
We're back onto beergate levels of "this is the end of Keir Starmer" I see.
No, he'll probably be the next Prime Minister. Likely another completely useless one, but he'll get to play with the train set for a bit, which is the aim of the exercise.
"We're standing by our candidate who said some terrible things"
What? Really?
"Well no, not really."
So we now have a Parliamentary by election that Labour should walk without a candidate who the party itself can support. Careless would be an extremely generous description. Following on from the Green £28bn it is starting look Starmer really doesn't know what he is doing. And he's not even PM yet.
He's blundering from one U-turn to the next, calculating along the way what decision he thinks is most likely to get him into power. He's not at all bothered about what policies he does or doesn't ditch, or whatever new ones he might make up on the hoof, along the way - and there's no particular reason to suppose he'll be any different as Prime Minister. Just the same as the one we have at the moment, actually. Careering about like a wobbly shopping trolley, with no interest in anything at all except squatting uselessly in Downing Street for as long as possible. It's just about being Prime Minister for the sake of it. Existing, but doing nothing of any conceivable worth.
I don't know what motivates these people, I can only imagine that being Prime Minister is the summit of a political career and they're satisfied with just having made it, seeing how long they can sit there and which of their predecessors they can outlast before getting the boot, and then retiring to write a vacuous and pathetic memoir. Neither use nor ornament, the lot of them.
It's quite possible the LAB lead really falls away as people focus on the election. They will probably still win but could be as close as 38 - 32. There really is no real enthusiasm for LAB.
Yep, low turnout (which strongly favours the Tories as it'll drive the median age of the electorate up even more,) resulting in a hung parliament. The Conservatives are so useless that it'll most likely persuade enough of their backers to switch sides or stay at home to rob them of a majority, but there exists no positive reason to endorse any of the alternatives. Except for voters in Scotland minded to pull the plug on Britain, who can always stick with the equally useless SNP to protest the fact.
Labour 300, Con 260, SNP 40, LD 25. One term of total non-achievement, followed by a prompt return to Toryism.
38 - 32 is rather possible, but I’m still raotflmfao at your 300-260 seat numbers from 38-32.
38-32 would deliver an eighty Starmer majority and Tories below 200 seats with the amount of tactical vote in addition to that swing.
You seem to be assuming an immense amount of tactical voting. Why would there be? Some grand alliance of progressive voters all so desperate to be rid of the Tories that they'll troop down to the polling stations in their droves to back a unity candidate? No, not when there is zero enthusiasm for the alternative.
Low turnout, apathy, and Green voters in particular sticking to their guns rather than endorsing continuity Conservatism. That's what we can expect from the next election.
🤣 you seem to be assuming NO tactical voting to get 300-260 from 38-32.
But my straightforward answer to you is yes, with LLG still over 60, and demonstrating voting tactically with razor precision in local elections and by elections for years now, we should all be expecting a large amount of razor sharp tactical voting butchering the Tory seat total come the General Election. That LLG is huge, there’s plenty of evidence of tactical voting in recent elections, and the main appetite and enthusiasm that is out there amongst the electorate is get Sunak out.
Gastronomic question for British (English, Scottish, Welsh or indeed N Irish) patriots.
Our French neighbour and her little girl are coming for dinner tomorrow and I’ve promised some classic British cooking. Main course and pudding are easy: I’m going toad in the hole (with a nod to it being shrove Tuesday) and some sort of nursery pudding. But what about a starter? I’m stuck.
All I can think of is seafood options but I’m not a fan of prawn cocktail, sceptical I’ll find any brown shrimps to “pot”, certainly won’t track down kippers or cockles. Or there are other non fishy things that won’t be found down the local Carrefour market like haggis or game pie. And Welsh rarebit has been blatantly culturally appropriated by the French as “le Welsh” and presented as a speciality of the Ch’tis.
Rochdale: Labour ex candidate disgraced Green ex candidate disgraced RefUK candidate disgraced Galloway - meow Tory candidate whose party is a disgrace
Or do as the town has done so often, vote Liberal Democrat.
Glen O'Hara @gsoh31 · 56m Just like conservatives in the US Republican Party, Sunak will find you can't ride the angry and conspiracist tiger. It just turns round and eats you.
Rochdale: Labour ex candidate disgraced Green ex candidate disgraced RefUK candidate disgraced Galloway - meow Tory candidate whose party is a disgrace
Or do as the town has done so often, vote Liberal Democrat.
Did we ever find out what the Green had done?
All I know he is something about past social media comments.
Honestly, why does anyone in public life go on social media?
Gastronomic question for British (English, Scottish, Welsh or indeed N Irish) patriots.
Our French neighbour and her little girl are coming for dinner tomorrow and I’ve promised some classic British cooking. Main course and pudding are easy: I’m going toad in the hole (with a nod to it being shrove Tuesday) and some sort of nursery pudding. But what about a starter? I’m stuck.
All I can think of is seafood options but I’m not a fan of prawn cocktail, sceptical I’ll find any brown shrimps to “pot”, certainly won’t track down kippers or cockles. Or there are other non fishy things that won’t be found down the local Carrefour market like haggis or game pie. And Welsh rarebit has been blatantly culturally appropriated by the French as “le Welsh” and presented as a speciality of the Ch’tis.
Gastronomic question for British (English, Scottish, Welsh or indeed N Irish) patriots.
Our French neighbour and her little girl are coming for dinner tomorrow and I’ve promised some classic British cooking. Main course and pudding are easy: I’m going toad in the hole (with a nod to it being shrove Tuesday) and some sort of nursery pudding. But what about a starter? I’m stuck.
All I can think of is seafood options but I’m not a fan of prawn cocktail, sceptical I’ll find any brown shrimps to “pot”, certainly won’t track down kippers or cockles. Or there are other non fishy things that won’t be found down the local Carrefour market like haggis or game pie. And Welsh rarebit has been blatantly culturally appropriated by the French as “le Welsh” and presented as a speciality of the Ch’tis.
Please advise. And don’t say melon and ham.
Waldorf salad.
Sorry, we’re all out of Waldorfs.
Where’s Waldorf?
With Statler, in the box seats at the Muppet Theatre.
Rochdale: Labour ex candidate disgraced Green ex candidate disgraced RefUK candidate disgraced Galloway - meow Tory candidate whose party is a disgrace
Or do as the town has done so often, vote Liberal Democrat.
Late Liberal MP disgraced.
Paul Waugh ( Starmer's man) may be the Labour candidate come the election.
Comments
They voted for the jew killing terrorists
What makes the next Palestinian state different?
Important to have the oil in the baking tray as hot as possible before adding the batter, almost at smoke point.
Fearnley-Whiiingstalls trick of adding chunks of onion and apple to a toad in the hole is a good twist, if non-canonical.
Agreed is when Israel agrees, following its democratic institutions, not when some Israelis agree.
Israel is a democracy and it has an elected government, saying that Israel agrees to something because some Israelis agree is like saying in 2019 the UK agreed to remain in the EU because that's what Starmer, Swinson and Grieve wanted.
They are.
Name one rule of engagement being broken.
Name one rule of engagement saying Hamas can't be targeted in Rafah.
Name one more proportional way of destroying Hamas before this conflict ends than what Israel is doing.
I don't know what motivates these people, I can only imagine that being Prime Minister is the summit of a political career and they're satisfied with just having made it, seeing how long they can sit there and which of their predecessors they can outlast before getting the boot, and then retiring to write a vacuous and pathetic memoir. Neither use nor ornament, the lot of them.
The fact Hamas hasn't been destroyed yet blocks a deal.
I am no fan of Netanyahu, and want him gone, but there is not a snowballs chance in hell he should agree to a deal as long as a single Hamas fighter or supporter still lives and fights or supports Hamas in the whole of Gaza unless or until they surrender unconditionally.
Which is the same of what we demanded of the Germans and Japanese. Unconditional surrender.
Not a problem for me, he's appalling, Hamas are appalling. Hamas more appalling.
Strong incentive not to see sense under those circumstances.
Allergen-packed. I should really add some peanuts to go with the gluten, dairy and eggs.
Because you can't answer my questions?
Because I speak an uncomfortable truth.
I have said from day one of this conflict that Hamas need to be destroyed and eliminated. That every Hamas fighter and supporter needs to be killed unless or until Hamas surrenders unconditionally. Just as has happened with prior existential conflicts.
Nothing has changed to make me waver from those principles.
Israel has an absolute right to follow through on those objectives in the most proportional way possible. They are doing so. As long as they continue to do so, as long as anyone still fights for or supports Hamas, then I will stand by that view.
I can and have called out Netanyahu's appalling actions over many years.
Doesn't mean he's wrong here though. Even a broken clock can be right.
Also doesn't mean that he's a fascist. I dislike him, but I'm not so juvenile as to call everyone I dislike a fascist.
I ask again; how and by whom?
Very glad not to be doing an allegen study any more.
Israel should continue fighting.
Hamas need to be destroyed.
Palestinians do not have a right to a state today.
All of these are true.
Hopefully in the future Israel will be led by a leader who's not an asshole.
Hopefully in the future Palestinians and Catalans and Kurds will have a state of their own.
But the immediate priority is the destruction of Hamas.
I have not seen you once ever call out anything Netanyahu has done as bad in this conflict. Not one.
I don't think he's done bad things in this conflict so have had nothing to call out. That's like demanding I call out Zelensky. What for?
Do the Kurds?
Do the Basques?
Do the Tamils?
Do the Catalans?
Or is it only the Palestinians?
Right now the Israeli Government are creating more death, more destruction in the long term by denying their right to ever exist.
You said the Palestinians have a "right" to a state.
Do the Kurds have that same "right"? Do the Tamils?
Or is there something magically unique about the Palestinians? Or the Israelis?
Public finances separate from staying course on long term planning and investment is the gist of it.
I think it’s wrong that it was too easy for Sunak to scrap HS2. If it’s wrong for governments to have control of interest rates, and so can cut them in run up to elections, it had to be equally wrong that cross party policy built up over decades, and supported by local leaders of all political persuasions, can be victim to an unpopular Prime Minister and the clique of advisors and image consultants around him.
Split the treasury. Create a growth and long term plan body, include local and regional leaders in the long term plan entity AND remove some power from government and Downing Street into that entity too.
“Andy Haldane would do if he ran the government, he tells Sophy Ridge he'd "split the Treasury in two".
Half of it would manage the public finances, and the other would be a "separate economic or growth ministry".
"We need a singular focus now on growth," he says.
"And that means a ministerial singular focus on growth.
"And that will mean doing something different at the Treasury than is the case currently."
He would also seek to give more power to local leaders to let them "become masters of their own destiny".
"That, I think, is where the energy is in the country right now," he says.
"And that's where the potential is greatest to unlock people, unlock communities, and to grow them in the national economy."
There is an Israeli state. Existing states have a right to exist.
There is no Palestinian state. Potential future states have no right to exist, they are potential future states.
“Just heard an update from the Rochdale Lib Dem campaign HQ... The campaign is ramping up, some interesting canvassing returns so far and this will really make this a free-for-all. Remember it's historically a Lab/Lib marginal.”
Why won't they vote for leaders who will build rocket factories so that they can kill jews?
The Palestinians will not settle for less than From The River To The Sea
That mindset has been enabled through the UNRWA for more than three quarters of a century
Rishi Sunak confronted by angry audience members over adverse reactions to the COVID vaccine. #GBNews
Labour 300, Con 260, SNP 40, LD 25. One term of total non-achievement, followed by a prompt return to Toryism.
38-32 would deliver an eighty Starmer majority and Tories below 200 seats with the amount of tactical vote in addition to that swing.
And time for a change means Labour will win. Probably rightly so.
Despite Starmer being an unprincipled shit. Or because he is.
Unfortunately they do and the moderation of this debate is entirely contrary to the rules Ofcom have made. I use "moderation" very loosely.
Low turnout, apathy, and Green voters in particular sticking to their guns rather than endorsing continuity Conservatism. That's what we can expect from the next election.
Excellent news and well done Israel. How many more hostages have been taken to Rafah.
To everyone who is against Israel having free operational room to go into Rafah, what should have happened to these hostages? Should they not have been rescued.
There must be no safe harbour for Hamas anywhere in Gaza. There must be nowhere Hamas can take Israelis to in Gaza that they can't be rescued from.
If civilians want safe harbour, that's outside of the conflict zone, or nowhere.
Lowest Conservative % since Sunak became PM.
Just two points above lowest under Truss.
Westminster VI (11 Feb):
Labour 46% (+1)
Conservative 21% (-3)
Reform UK 12% (–)
Liberal Democrat 11% (+2)
Green 5% (+1)
SNP 3% (–)
Other 2% (–)
Changes +/- 4 Feb
https://x.com/RedfieldWilton/status/1757087174779183560
I'm on at 120/1
Democrats Might Need a Plan B. Here’s What It Looks Like.
The political and procedural steps for how to pick a new presidential nominee.
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2024/02/12/joe-biden-democrat-plan-b-nominee-00140790
Confirms what I’ve been saying - that it’s entirely Biden’s decision.
… there is a path that enables him to leave with dignity and on his terms. It begins with letting the Democratic primary campaign run its course, ending June 4, the date the last group of states holds its primaries. Biden would finish as the undisputed victor, with far more than the 1,968 pledged delegate votes necessary to claim the nomination.
And then Biden would announce he would not accept the nomination and release his delegates to back a different nominee. He could insist he’s still fit to serve out another term but that he accepts the public’s concerns with a president who would be 86 at the end of a second term. He could remind voters that he has always said he was a bridge to a future generation of Democratic leaders. The economy is on track, he could note, and argue that he defeated Trump once and protected American democracy. He met his duty.
At that point, the scramble would begin among potential successors. Not long after Biden’s announcement, a spate of private polls testing various candidates in the general election would suddenly be floated to establish different figures’ Trump-slaying credentials. Between June 4 and Aug. 19, when the party’s convention begins in Chicago, senior Democrats would jockey for position to replace Biden in the kind of battle not seen in decades in American politics...
If Sunak continues the way he has, it might even be with my vote.
Imagine what would have happened to the region if the then government of Gaza had worked with the then willing Israeli government to make Gaza a success. For the Palestinians living there, for its neighbour Israel, for broader geopolitics in the region.
But no. The Gazans elected Hamas to power and Hamas had the stated intention of destroying Israel.
It has now started a war with Israel and is currently engaged in that war. Wars are ugly but Israel is simply prosecuting the war. Are there war crimes? Not that are immediately apparent but no doubt that will be decided by some court or other in time to come. Meanwhile, Israel believes it is fighting for its life so is unlikely to amend its war aims too readily.
Sunak tells GB News audience in Newton Aycliffe it’s a choice between him and Starmer as PM
Bye, bye then...
The Trump filing to the Supreme Court is in. He's asking them to temporarily block that unanimous decision from the DC Circuit that outright rejected his claims of broad immunity.
Maybe this is gonna be more competitive than we think.
Sunak tells GB News audience in Newton Aycliffe it’s a choice between him and Starmer as PM
Every Palestinian casualty is Hamas's fault every bit as much as every Israeli casualty. They shouldn't have started this fight.
However the enemies civilians being used as human shields never has and never will be a reason not to fight a war, and yes it is proportionate to kill 55 of the enemies civilians (if they even were civilians) if its the only way of getting 2 of your own back.
In war, your own civilians are worth more than your enemies. Always have been, always will be.
Former Israeli PM Ehud Olmert tells
@AndrewMarr9
that 'change will happen sooner than people think' regarding Benjamin Netanyahu's tenure in charge of Israel.
https://x.com/LBC/status/1757121140626280608
Correct.
I'm saying it [Starmer's healthy majority win] might even be with my vote.
For the first time in twenty years I'm much more likely to vote Labour than Tory at the next election.
Replying to @fleetstreetfox
It's like we are in a toxic relationship with Sunak. We've told him we are leaving, his bags are packed, it's him not us, it's over, we are done. He's asking us where we want to go on holiday in the summer.
I think he buried that this weekend when he scuttled his own flagship.
This feels like beergate all over again to me.
More than one thing can be true simultaneously.
The war should be over when Israel wins unconditionally (just like we demanded the unconditional surrender of Germany) - and Netanyahu should be out of office soon after.
https://bsky.app/profile/bradheath.bsky.social/post/3klasfpiyno2o
If I've got this right this initially goes to John Roberts, who can either decide it on his own or (more likely) put it to a vote. Then it needs 5 justices to agree that the trial should be paused while they decide whether to hear the case, then hear the case if that's what they decide. This is one more than you need to subsequently agree to actually hear the case, but I guess if there are four of them saying they'll probably want to hear it then there would be one more who would vote for the pause.
But my straightforward answer to you is yes, with LLG still over 60, and demonstrating voting tactically with razor precision in local elections and by elections for years now, we should all be expecting a large amount of razor sharp tactical voting butchering the Tory seat total come the General Election. That LLG is huge, there’s plenty of evidence of tactical voting in recent elections, and the main appetite and enthusiasm that is out there amongst the electorate is get Sunak out.
Labour ex candidate disgraced
Green ex candidate disgraced
RefUK candidate disgraced
Galloway - meow
Tory candidate whose party is a disgrace
Or do as the town has done so often, vote Liberal Democrat.
Glen O'Hara
@gsoh31
·
56m
Just like conservatives in the US Republican Party, Sunak will find you can't ride the angry and conspiracist tiger. It just turns round and eats you.
https://twitter.com/gsoh31
All I know he is something about past social media comments.
Honestly, why does anyone in public life go on social media?
wtf is that all about.
Or Anglo-American politics, as it is also known.
Paul Waugh ( Starmer's man) may be the Labour candidate come the election.