Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Options

Starmer needs to go on a crusade – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 11,736
edited March 12 in General
Starmer needs to go on a crusade – politicalbetting.com

Few likewise see Rishi Sunak as doing well on Israel/Palestine, although 2019 Tory voters still tend to back himAll BritonsWell: 22% (-5 from Oct)Badly: 52% (+9)2019 Con votersWell: 40% (-9)Badly: 34% (+9)https://t.co/eH2tF6W0eT pic.twitter.com/rVqjncz05a

Read the full story here

«134

Comments

  • Options
    ClippPClippP Posts: 1,722
    First?????
  • Options
    OmniumOmnium Posts: 9,853
    ClippP said:

    First?????

    And with 15minutes to spare...
  • Options
    OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 15,246
    I suspect your hunch on Scotland is correct. In my experience there is greater sympathy for the Palestinians north of the border, a bit like in Ireland. I'm not totally sure why. Perjaps just a stronger tendency to root for the perceived underdog.
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,589
    As I said the other day this is a values question and the majority of those inclined to vote Labour do not share the values of Starmer on this question. They look at the current position so many months after the horrors of October 7th and are appalled. Starmer still seems to think that this fundamentally comes as a consequence of the right of any nation to self defence, even if he really wishes the Israelis would back off a bit.

    The best answer, in my view, is that of David Cameron. If Hamas wants the fighting and bombing to end they should surrender and give up the remaining hostages. But they are still in the field and the fight goes on.
  • Options
    MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 25,553
    DavidL said:

    As I said the other day this is a values question and the majority of those inclined to vote Labour do not share the values of Starmer on this question. They look at the current position so many months after the horrors of October 7th and are appalled. Starmer still seems to think that this fundamentally comes as a consequence of the right of any nation to self defence, even if he really wishes the Israelis would back off a bit.

    The best answer, in my view, is that of David Cameron. If Hamas wants the fighting and bombing to end they should surrender and give up the remaining hostages. But they are still in the field and the fight goes on.

    Is that Cameron's position? I suspect Cameron is more sophisticated in international affairs than that statement would suggest. That sounds more like Nick Ferrari diplomacy.
  • Options
    DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 24,753
    edited March 3
    Sounds about right. Conservatives and Labour are fighting over more or less the same ground, including the Middle East, with Labour's main offering being that the other lot are incompetent.

    Starmer's determination to upset no-one might prove counter-productive.
  • Options
    MightyAlexMightyAlex Posts: 1,474
    Things we are doing for Israel:

    1. Allowing the Americans access to our base in Cyprus to deliver weapons and support intelligence flights.
    2. Flying our own surveillance flights to help the Israelis and providing exported arms.
    3. There are chunks of the navy floating around the med for the benefit of Israel.

    Things we are doing for Gaza:

    1. Dropping a few tonnes of aid.
    2. Abstaining or vetoing UN votes.

    It might not be much but we are active in the razing of Gaza and thus complicit in potential war crimes. We could stop all active support and leave the fuckers to it. Yet, despite the polls it seems the leadership of both parties would rather we carried on. Galloway is what you get when you don't want to understand the public's mood.
  • Options
    OmniumOmnium Posts: 9,853

    DavidL said:

    As I said the other day this is a values question and the majority of those inclined to vote Labour do not share the values of Starmer on this question. They look at the current position so many months after the horrors of October 7th and are appalled. Starmer still seems to think that this fundamentally comes as a consequence of the right of any nation to self defence, even if he really wishes the Israelis would back off a bit.

    The best answer, in my view, is that of David Cameron. If Hamas wants the fighting and bombing to end they should surrender and give up the remaining hostages. But they are still in the field and the fight goes on.

    Is that Cameron's position? I suspect Cameron is more sophisticated in international affairs than that statement would suggest. That sounds more like Nick Ferrari diplomacy.
    Cameron is really first class. If I had to choose a PM it'd be him. Well, after me!

    Whatever ills Sunak has wrought, the repatriation of Cameron into the political fold is an unequivocally good decision.
  • Options
    williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 48,355
    Omnium said:

    DavidL said:

    As I said the other day this is a values question and the majority of those inclined to vote Labour do not share the values of Starmer on this question. They look at the current position so many months after the horrors of October 7th and are appalled. Starmer still seems to think that this fundamentally comes as a consequence of the right of any nation to self defence, even if he really wishes the Israelis would back off a bit.

    The best answer, in my view, is that of David Cameron. If Hamas wants the fighting and bombing to end they should surrender and give up the remaining hostages. But they are still in the field and the fight goes on.

    Is that Cameron's position? I suspect Cameron is more sophisticated in international affairs than that statement would suggest. That sounds more like Nick Ferrari diplomacy.
    Cameron is really first class. If I had to choose a PM it'd be him. Well, after me!

    Whatever ills Sunak has wrought, the repatriation of Cameron into the political fold is an unequivocally good decision.
    The dream team:

    Prime Minister: Theresa May
    Chancellor: Gordon Brown
    Foreign Secretary: David Cameron
    Home Secretary: Tony Blair
  • Options
    kjhkjh Posts: 10,736
    Thought it worth making a positive note re the NHS. My wife fell playing tennis and damaged her wrist. I took her to A&E and she was seen immediately and was out within the hour. I suppose it was Sunday but her experience of being a junior doctor in A&E many decades ago was it being filled with Sunday League footballers with broken legs and head injuries.
  • Options
    eekeek Posts: 25,147

    Omnium said:

    DavidL said:

    As I said the other day this is a values question and the majority of those inclined to vote Labour do not share the values of Starmer on this question. They look at the current position so many months after the horrors of October 7th and are appalled. Starmer still seems to think that this fundamentally comes as a consequence of the right of any nation to self defence, even if he really wishes the Israelis would back off a bit.

    The best answer, in my view, is that of David Cameron. If Hamas wants the fighting and bombing to end they should surrender and give up the remaining hostages. But they are still in the field and the fight goes on.

    Is that Cameron's position? I suspect Cameron is more sophisticated in international affairs than that statement would suggest. That sounds more like Nick Ferrari diplomacy.
    Cameron is really first class. If I had to choose a PM it'd be him. Well, after me!

    Whatever ills Sunak has wrought, the repatriation of Cameron into the political fold is an unequivocally good decision.
    The dream team:

    Prime Minister: Theresa May
    Chancellor: Gordon Brown
    Foreign Secretary: David Cameron
    Home Secretary: Tony Blair
    That's Gordon Brown where earlier today we were asking which mistake out of

    1) Merging Inland Revenue with HM Customs
    2) splitting the Bank of England into 2 with the FCA supervising things without knowing what was happening while the BoE knew but couldn't do anything up it
    3) giving the Bank of England independence so that Chancellors had no say in interest rates

    was the biggest mistake...
  • Options
    AverageNinjaAverageNinja Posts: 1,169

    Omnium said:

    DavidL said:

    As I said the other day this is a values question and the majority of those inclined to vote Labour do not share the values of Starmer on this question. They look at the current position so many months after the horrors of October 7th and are appalled. Starmer still seems to think that this fundamentally comes as a consequence of the right of any nation to self defence, even if he really wishes the Israelis would back off a bit.

    The best answer, in my view, is that of David Cameron. If Hamas wants the fighting and bombing to end they should surrender and give up the remaining hostages. But they are still in the field and the fight goes on.

    Is that Cameron's position? I suspect Cameron is more sophisticated in international affairs than that statement would suggest. That sounds more like Nick Ferrari diplomacy.
    Cameron is really first class. If I had to choose a PM it'd be him. Well, after me!

    Whatever ills Sunak has wrought, the repatriation of Cameron into the political fold is an unequivocally good decision.
    The dream team:

    Prime Minister: Theresa May
    Chancellor: Gordon Brown
    Foreign Secretary: David Cameron
    Home Secretary: Tony Blair
    Would be a lot better than what we’ve had. Bring Blair back as PM.

    Also, the Tories are now polling as badly as under Truss.
  • Options
    algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 10,752

    Omnium said:

    DavidL said:

    As I said the other day this is a values question and the majority of those inclined to vote Labour do not share the values of Starmer on this question. They look at the current position so many months after the horrors of October 7th and are appalled. Starmer still seems to think that this fundamentally comes as a consequence of the right of any nation to self defence, even if he really wishes the Israelis would back off a bit.

    The best answer, in my view, is that of David Cameron. If Hamas wants the fighting and bombing to end they should surrender and give up the remaining hostages. But they are still in the field and the fight goes on.

    Is that Cameron's position? I suspect Cameron is more sophisticated in international affairs than that statement would suggest. That sounds more like Nick Ferrari diplomacy.
    Cameron is really first class. If I had to choose a PM it'd be him. Well, after me!

    Whatever ills Sunak has wrought, the repatriation of Cameron into the political fold is an unequivocally good decision.
    The dream team:

    Prime Minister: Theresa May
    Chancellor: Gordon Brown
    Foreign Secretary: David Cameron
    Home Secretary: Tony Blair

    Prime Minister: Theresa May. A red white and blue Brexit.
    Chancellor: Gordon Brown. No more boom and bust
    Foreign Secretary: David Cameron. Resigned at exactly the moment it was essential to stay
    Home Secretary: Tony Blair. Iraq
  • Options
    MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 25,553

    Omnium said:

    DavidL said:

    As I said the other day this is a values question and the majority of those inclined to vote Labour do not share the values of Starmer on this question. They look at the current position so many months after the horrors of October 7th and are appalled. Starmer still seems to think that this fundamentally comes as a consequence of the right of any nation to self defence, even if he really wishes the Israelis would back off a bit.

    The best answer, in my view, is that of David Cameron. If Hamas wants the fighting and bombing to end they should surrender and give up the remaining hostages. But they are still in the field and the fight goes on.

    Is that Cameron's position? I suspect Cameron is more sophisticated in international affairs than that statement would suggest. That sounds more like Nick Ferrari diplomacy.
    Cameron is really first class. If I had to choose a PM it'd be him. Well, after me!

    Whatever ills Sunak has wrought, the repatriation of Cameron into the political fold is an unequivocally good decision.
    The dream team:

    Prime Minister: Theresa May
    Chancellor: Gordon Brown
    Foreign Secretary: David Cameron
    Home Secretary: Tony Blair
    Purser-Sunak
    Cruise Director-Johnson
    Captain of the Titanic-Truss
  • Options
    OmniumOmnium Posts: 9,853

    Omnium said:

    DavidL said:

    As I said the other day this is a values question and the majority of those inclined to vote Labour do not share the values of Starmer on this question. They look at the current position so many months after the horrors of October 7th and are appalled. Starmer still seems to think that this fundamentally comes as a consequence of the right of any nation to self defence, even if he really wishes the Israelis would back off a bit.

    The best answer, in my view, is that of David Cameron. If Hamas wants the fighting and bombing to end they should surrender and give up the remaining hostages. But they are still in the field and the fight goes on.

    Is that Cameron's position? I suspect Cameron is more sophisticated in international affairs than that statement would suggest. That sounds more like Nick Ferrari diplomacy.
    Cameron is really first class. If I had to choose a PM it'd be him. Well, after me!

    Whatever ills Sunak has wrought, the repatriation of Cameron into the political fold is an unequivocally good decision.
    The dream team:

    Prime Minister: Theresa May
    Chancellor: Gordon Brown
    Foreign Secretary: David Cameron
    Home Secretary: Tony Blair
    I wouldn't have Brown polish my shoes.

    Blair as home secretary and May as PM make a good deal of sense though.

    Brown? Really?
  • Options
    williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 48,355
    edited March 3
    eek said:

    Omnium said:

    DavidL said:

    As I said the other day this is a values question and the majority of those inclined to vote Labour do not share the values of Starmer on this question. They look at the current position so many months after the horrors of October 7th and are appalled. Starmer still seems to think that this fundamentally comes as a consequence of the right of any nation to self defence, even if he really wishes the Israelis would back off a bit.

    The best answer, in my view, is that of David Cameron. If Hamas wants the fighting and bombing to end they should surrender and give up the remaining hostages. But they are still in the field and the fight goes on.

    Is that Cameron's position? I suspect Cameron is more sophisticated in international affairs than that statement would suggest. That sounds more like Nick Ferrari diplomacy.
    Cameron is really first class. If I had to choose a PM it'd be him. Well, after me!

    Whatever ills Sunak has wrought, the repatriation of Cameron into the political fold is an unequivocally good decision.
    The dream team:

    Prime Minister: Theresa May
    Chancellor: Gordon Brown
    Foreign Secretary: David Cameron
    Home Secretary: Tony Blair
    That's Gordon Brown where earlier today we were asking which mistake out of

    1) Merging Inland Revenue with HM Customs
    2) splitting the Bank of England into 2 with the FCA supervising things without knowing what was happening while the BoE knew but couldn't do anything up it
    3) giving the Bank of England independence so that Chancellors had no say in interest rates

    was the biggest mistake...
    It was the dysfuntional relationship between Blair as PM and Brown as Chancellor that caused a lot of the problems.

    Perhaps replace Brown with Mandelson, but I wanted to make it all ex-PMs who have some level of respect.

    Edit: Or John Major would be better, but that would make it three Tories to one.
  • Options
    gettingbettergettingbetter Posts: 485
    eek said:

    Omnium said:

    DavidL said:

    As I said the other day this is a values question and the majority of those inclined to vote Labour do not share the values of Starmer on this question. They look at the current position so many months after the horrors of October 7th and are appalled. Starmer still seems to think that this fundamentally comes as a consequence of the right of any nation to self defence, even if he really wishes the Israelis would back off a bit.

    The best answer, in my view, is that of David Cameron. If Hamas wants the fighting and bombing to end they should surrender and give up the remaining hostages. But they are still in the field and the fight goes on.

    Is that Cameron's position? I suspect Cameron is more sophisticated in international affairs than that statement would suggest. That sounds more like Nick Ferrari diplomacy.
    Cameron is really first class. If I had to choose a PM it'd be him. Well, after me!

    Whatever ills Sunak has wrought, the repatriation of Cameron into the political fold is an unequivocally good decision.
    The dream team:

    Prime Minister: Theresa May
    Chancellor: Gordon Brown
    Foreign Secretary: David Cameron
    Home Secretary: Tony Blair
    That's Gordon Brown where earlier today we were asking which mistake out of

    1) Merging Inland Revenue with HM Customs
    2) splitting the Bank of England into 2 with the FCA supervising things without knowing what was happening while the BoE knew but couldn't do anything up it
    3) giving the Bank of England independence so that Chancellors had no say in interest rates

    was the biggest mistake...
    You forgot the PFIs which proved very expensive in the long term.
  • Options
    algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 10,752
    Disappointing stuff under the 'Crusade' headline. Very half hearted. What better moment would Starmer have than right now to lead an army to recover the Holy Places of Jerusalem for western Christendom?
  • Options
    OmniumOmnium Posts: 9,853

    eek said:

    Omnium said:

    DavidL said:

    As I said the other day this is a values question and the majority of those inclined to vote Labour do not share the values of Starmer on this question. They look at the current position so many months after the horrors of October 7th and are appalled. Starmer still seems to think that this fundamentally comes as a consequence of the right of any nation to self defence, even if he really wishes the Israelis would back off a bit.

    The best answer, in my view, is that of David Cameron. If Hamas wants the fighting and bombing to end they should surrender and give up the remaining hostages. But they are still in the field and the fight goes on.

    Is that Cameron's position? I suspect Cameron is more sophisticated in international affairs than that statement would suggest. That sounds more like Nick Ferrari diplomacy.
    Cameron is really first class. If I had to choose a PM it'd be him. Well, after me!

    Whatever ills Sunak has wrought, the repatriation of Cameron into the political fold is an unequivocally good decision.
    The dream team:

    Prime Minister: Theresa May
    Chancellor: Gordon Brown
    Foreign Secretary: David Cameron
    Home Secretary: Tony Blair
    That's Gordon Brown where earlier today we were asking which mistake out of

    1) Merging Inland Revenue with HM Customs
    2) splitting the Bank of England into 2 with the FCA supervising things without knowing what was happening while the BoE knew but couldn't do anything up it
    3) giving the Bank of England independence so that Chancellors had no say in interest rates

    was the biggest mistake...
    You forgot the PFIs which proved very expensive in the long term.
    Exactly that. Brown was all smoke and mirrors, and left a lumbering smelly residual.
  • Options
    AverageNinjaAverageNinja Posts: 1,169
    edited March 3

    That Conservative Party membership poll is scary.
    They’ve become a rump of extremists, riled up on a diet of GBNews.

    It bodes very ill for the party, and let’s be honest, for the country, if the right collapses down a rabbit hole.

    You've got to divorce the literal believe of supporting exactly what Lee Anderson said and how he said it from the sentiment: Islamist protestors are treated with kid gloves on Gaza by those in authority.
    This is the sort of thing people say about Trump.

    Your party is toileted. Get out while you still have your sanity.
    The fact it annoys The Libz is probably grist to the mill.

    They cannot help their erogenous zones being pressed by stuff like this, and it leads them to spectacularly miss the point.
    Can you kindly explain how saying Sadiq Khan is controlled by Islamists is anything but incorrect and offensive? What are we supposed to interpret this as meaning? It’s as bad as me saying Jews control the media.

    I think the reality is that you agree with Lee Anderson? You seem to be very carefully not saying what he said was completely wrong.

    It as wrong as what Ali said so this is not me playing politics. Both deserve to be thrown out of their parties.
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,589
    Cracking goal from Foden to match a Ronaldoesque goal from Rashford. There is a worrying amount of time left.
  • Options
    bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 21,935
    EU reinstates funding to UNRWA after suspending it due to Israeli lies.

    They’ve lied again & again, fabricating fake episodes to substantiate fake stories.

    Meanwhile, Gaza continues to starve
  • Options
    CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 40,193

    eek said:

    Omnium said:

    DavidL said:

    As I said the other day this is a values question and the majority of those inclined to vote Labour do not share the values of Starmer on this question. They look at the current position so many months after the horrors of October 7th and are appalled. Starmer still seems to think that this fundamentally comes as a consequence of the right of any nation to self defence, even if he really wishes the Israelis would back off a bit.

    The best answer, in my view, is that of David Cameron. If Hamas wants the fighting and bombing to end they should surrender and give up the remaining hostages. But they are still in the field and the fight goes on.

    Is that Cameron's position? I suspect Cameron is more sophisticated in international affairs than that statement would suggest. That sounds more like Nick Ferrari diplomacy.
    Cameron is really first class. If I had to choose a PM it'd be him. Well, after me!

    Whatever ills Sunak has wrought, the repatriation of Cameron into the political fold is an unequivocally good decision.
    The dream team:

    Prime Minister: Theresa May
    Chancellor: Gordon Brown
    Foreign Secretary: David Cameron
    Home Secretary: Tony Blair
    That's Gordon Brown where earlier today we were asking which mistake out of

    1) Merging Inland Revenue with HM Customs
    2) splitting the Bank of England into 2 with the FCA supervising things without knowing what was happening while the BoE knew but couldn't do anything up it
    3) giving the Bank of England independence so that Chancellors had no say in interest rates

    was the biggest mistake...
    You forgot the PFIs which proved very expensive in the long term.
    Initiated by Mr Major and the C&UP, though, tbf to Mr Brown.
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,589
    edited March 3
    Omnium said:

    eek said:

    Omnium said:

    DavidL said:

    As I said the other day this is a values question and the majority of those inclined to vote Labour do not share the values of Starmer on this question. They look at the current position so many months after the horrors of October 7th and are appalled. Starmer still seems to think that this fundamentally comes as a consequence of the right of any nation to self defence, even if he really wishes the Israelis would back off a bit.

    The best answer, in my view, is that of David Cameron. If Hamas wants the fighting and bombing to end they should surrender and give up the remaining hostages. But they are still in the field and the fight goes on.

    Is that Cameron's position? I suspect Cameron is more sophisticated in international affairs than that statement would suggest. That sounds more like Nick Ferrari diplomacy.
    Cameron is really first class. If I had to choose a PM it'd be him. Well, after me!

    Whatever ills Sunak has wrought, the repatriation of Cameron into the political fold is an unequivocally good decision.
    The dream team:

    Prime Minister: Theresa May
    Chancellor: Gordon Brown
    Foreign Secretary: David Cameron
    Home Secretary: Tony Blair
    That's Gordon Brown where earlier today we were asking which mistake out of

    1) Merging Inland Revenue with HM Customs
    2) splitting the Bank of England into 2 with the FCA supervising things without knowing what was happening while the BoE knew but couldn't do anything up it
    3) giving the Bank of England independence so that Chancellors had no say in interest rates

    was the biggest mistake...
    You forgot the PFIs which proved very expensive in the long term.
    Exactly that. Brown was all smoke and mirrors, and left a lumbering smelly residual.
    He had the exact opposite of the Midas touch. He sold our gold on the cheap.
  • Options
    OmniumOmnium Posts: 9,853

    That Conservative Party membership poll is scary.
    They’ve become a rump of extremists, riled up on a diet of GBNews.

    It bodes very ill for the party, and let’s be honest, for the country, if the right collapses down a rabbit hole.

    You've got to divorce the literal believe of supporting exactly what Lee Anderson said and how he said it from the sentiment: Islamist protestors are treated with kid gloves on Gaza by those in authority.
    This is the sort of thing people say about Trump.

    Your party is toileted. Get out while you still have your sanity.
    The fact it annoys The Libz is probably grist to the mill.

    They cannot help their erogenous zones being pressed by stuff like this, and it leads them to spectacularly miss the point.
    Can you kindly explain how saying Sadiq Khan is controlled by Islamists is anything but incorrect and offensive? What are we supposed to interpret this as meaning? It’s as bad as me saying Jews control the media.

    I think the reality is that you agree with Lee Anderson? You seem to be very carefully not saying what he said was completely wrong.

    It as wrong as what Ali said so this is not me playing politics. Both deserve to be thrown out of their parties.
    Probably just incorrect.
  • Options
    OmniumOmnium Posts: 9,853
    DavidL said:

    Omnium said:

    eek said:

    Omnium said:

    DavidL said:

    As I said the other day this is a values question and the majority of those inclined to vote Labour do not share the values of Starmer on this question. They look at the current position so many months after the horrors of October 7th and are appalled. Starmer still seems to think that this fundamentally comes as a consequence of the right of any nation to self defence, even if he really wishes the Israelis would back off a bit.

    The best answer, in my view, is that of David Cameron. If Hamas wants the fighting and bombing to end they should surrender and give up the remaining hostages. But they are still in the field and the fight goes on.

    Is that Cameron's position? I suspect Cameron is more sophisticated in international affairs than that statement would suggest. That sounds more like Nick Ferrari diplomacy.
    Cameron is really first class. If I had to choose a PM it'd be him. Well, after me!

    Whatever ills Sunak has wrought, the repatriation of Cameron into the political fold is an unequivocally good decision.
    The dream team:

    Prime Minister: Theresa May
    Chancellor: Gordon Brown
    Foreign Secretary: David Cameron
    Home Secretary: Tony Blair
    That's Gordon Brown where earlier today we were asking which mistake out of

    1) Merging Inland Revenue with HM Customs
    2) splitting the Bank of England into 2 with the FCA supervising things without knowing what was happening while the BoE knew but couldn't do anything up it
    3) giving the Bank of England independence so that Chancellors had no say in interest rates

    was the biggest mistake...
    You forgot the PFIs which proved very expensive in the long term.
    Exactly that. Brown was all smoke and mirrors, and left a lumbering smelly residual.
    He had the exact opposite of the Midas touch. He sold our gold on the cheap;
    The decision to sell some of the gold reserve was a bit strange, but that was one of his better ones.

    We'd never survive another spell with a Chancellor like Brown.

    Happily Reeves seems to be far. far better.
  • Options
    FishingFishing Posts: 4,566
    DavidL said:

    Omnium said:

    eek said:

    Omnium said:

    DavidL said:

    As I said the other day this is a values question and the majority of those inclined to vote Labour do not share the values of Starmer on this question. They look at the current position so many months after the horrors of October 7th and are appalled. Starmer still seems to think that this fundamentally comes as a consequence of the right of any nation to self defence, even if he really wishes the Israelis would back off a bit.

    The best answer, in my view, is that of David Cameron. If Hamas wants the fighting and bombing to end they should surrender and give up the remaining hostages. But they are still in the field and the fight goes on.

    Is that Cameron's position? I suspect Cameron is more sophisticated in international affairs than that statement would suggest. That sounds more like Nick Ferrari diplomacy.
    Cameron is really first class. If I had to choose a PM it'd be him. Well, after me!

    Whatever ills Sunak has wrought, the repatriation of Cameron into the political fold is an unequivocally good decision.
    The dream team:

    Prime Minister: Theresa May
    Chancellor: Gordon Brown
    Foreign Secretary: David Cameron
    Home Secretary: Tony Blair
    That's Gordon Brown where earlier today we were asking which mistake out of

    1) Merging Inland Revenue with HM Customs
    2) splitting the Bank of England into 2 with the FCA supervising things without knowing what was happening while the BoE knew but couldn't do anything up it
    3) giving the Bank of England independence so that Chancellors had no say in interest rates

    was the biggest mistake...
    You forgot the PFIs which proved very expensive in the long term.
    Exactly that. Brown was all smoke and mirrors, and left a lumbering smelly residual.
    He had the exact opposite of the Midas touch. He sold our gold on the cheap.
    Those are all minor matters compared with buggering up the pensions system through hidden tax changes. We will be paying for that for the next fifty years at least.

    But perhaps the worst thing he did was not to reform the planning system to build many more houses while the government let in huge numbers of migrants, so that a generation have been priced out of owning a decent sized house. Of course that was politically to his advantage, as the under-housed and renters are much more likely to vote Labour.
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,589
    Omnium said:

    DavidL said:

    Omnium said:

    eek said:

    Omnium said:

    DavidL said:

    As I said the other day this is a values question and the majority of those inclined to vote Labour do not share the values of Starmer on this question. They look at the current position so many months after the horrors of October 7th and are appalled. Starmer still seems to think that this fundamentally comes as a consequence of the right of any nation to self defence, even if he really wishes the Israelis would back off a bit.

    The best answer, in my view, is that of David Cameron. If Hamas wants the fighting and bombing to end they should surrender and give up the remaining hostages. But they are still in the field and the fight goes on.

    Is that Cameron's position? I suspect Cameron is more sophisticated in international affairs than that statement would suggest. That sounds more like Nick Ferrari diplomacy.
    Cameron is really first class. If I had to choose a PM it'd be him. Well, after me!

    Whatever ills Sunak has wrought, the repatriation of Cameron into the political fold is an unequivocally good decision.
    The dream team:

    Prime Minister: Theresa May
    Chancellor: Gordon Brown
    Foreign Secretary: David Cameron
    Home Secretary: Tony Blair
    That's Gordon Brown where earlier today we were asking which mistake out of

    1) Merging Inland Revenue with HM Customs
    2) splitting the Bank of England into 2 with the FCA supervising things without knowing what was happening while the BoE knew but couldn't do anything up it
    3) giving the Bank of England independence so that Chancellors had no say in interest rates

    was the biggest mistake...
    You forgot the PFIs which proved very expensive in the long term.
    Exactly that. Brown was all smoke and mirrors, and left a lumbering smelly residual.
    He had the exact opposite of the Midas touch. He sold our gold on the cheap;
    The decision to sell some of the gold reserve was a bit strange, but that was one of his better ones.

    We'd never survive another spell with a Chancellor like Brown.

    Happily Reeves seems to be far. far better.
    I remain to be convinced by Reeves. She is instinctively ultra cautious. Not the worst trait in a Chancellor but it can go too far. It is a dangerous combination with Starmer who is also small "c" conservative. Sometimes you have to roll the dice a little as Chancellor. I don't think she will.
  • Options
    DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 24,753
    Is this sudden outbreak of anti-Brown posts due to CCHQ kite-flying?
  • Options
    geoffwgeoffw Posts: 8,197
    Crusade? To be inflammatory … or to inflame a Tory?
    Starmer should go on a crusade to reassure the voters that he is on their side on this issue
    Which side is that?
  • Options
    Jim_MillerJim_Miller Posts: 2,561
    On topic, indirectly: Too bad about the loss of the Rubymar: "A British cargo ship sank in the Red Sea after an attack by Houthi militants, taking some 21,000 metric tons of fertilizer down with it, posing a significant environmental risk to one of the world’s busiest waterways and the home of many coral reefs.

    The Rubymar was struck by an anti-ballistic missile fired by the Iranian-backed Houthis on Feb. 18 and sank early Saturday after “slowly taking on water” since the attack, U.S. Central Command said on social media early Sunday local time."
    source$: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2024/03/03/rubymar-houthi-attack-red-sea/

    Apparently there were no casualties, for which we may be grateful. The ship was "was heading to Belarus from the United Arab Emirates when it was targeted".

    That much fertilizer could have helped feed hundreds of thousands, perhaps even millions.

  • Options
    JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 39,327
    Carnyx said:

    eek said:

    Omnium said:

    DavidL said:

    As I said the other day this is a values question and the majority of those inclined to vote Labour do not share the values of Starmer on this question. They look at the current position so many months after the horrors of October 7th and are appalled. Starmer still seems to think that this fundamentally comes as a consequence of the right of any nation to self defence, even if he really wishes the Israelis would back off a bit.

    The best answer, in my view, is that of David Cameron. If Hamas wants the fighting and bombing to end they should surrender and give up the remaining hostages. But they are still in the field and the fight goes on.

    Is that Cameron's position? I suspect Cameron is more sophisticated in international affairs than that statement would suggest. That sounds more like Nick Ferrari diplomacy.
    Cameron is really first class. If I had to choose a PM it'd be him. Well, after me!

    Whatever ills Sunak has wrought, the repatriation of Cameron into the political fold is an unequivocally good decision.
    The dream team:

    Prime Minister: Theresa May
    Chancellor: Gordon Brown
    Foreign Secretary: David Cameron
    Home Secretary: Tony Blair
    That's Gordon Brown where earlier today we were asking which mistake out of

    1) Merging Inland Revenue with HM Customs
    2) splitting the Bank of England into 2 with the FCA supervising things without knowing what was happening while the BoE knew but couldn't do anything up it
    3) giving the Bank of England independence so that Chancellors had no say in interest rates

    was the biggest mistake...
    You forgot the PFIs which proved very expensive in the long term.
    Initiated by Mr Major and the C&UP, though, tbf to Mr Brown.
    There is nothing wrong with PFIs for certain projects, if well written. For things like roads, they should be easy to define and manage. Things like schools get more complex; but PFI for entities like hospitals are a really, really bad idea.

    AIUI most of Major's PFI schemes were at the 'simpler' end of the scale. Brown's issue was in the massive expansion of PFI-style schemes to projects that did not suit them, with poorly-written contracts, all because he wanted to cook the books.
  • Options
    Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 25,707

    Omnium said:

    DavidL said:

    As I said the other day this is a values question and the majority of those inclined to vote Labour do not share the values of Starmer on this question. They look at the current position so many months after the horrors of October 7th and are appalled. Starmer still seems to think that this fundamentally comes as a consequence of the right of any nation to self defence, even if he really wishes the Israelis would back off a bit.

    The best answer, in my view, is that of David Cameron. If Hamas wants the fighting and bombing to end they should surrender and give up the remaining hostages. But they are still in the field and the fight goes on.

    Is that Cameron's position? I suspect Cameron is more sophisticated in international affairs than that statement would suggest. That sounds more like Nick Ferrari diplomacy.
    Cameron is really first class. If I had to choose a PM it'd be him. Well, after me!

    Whatever ills Sunak has wrought, the repatriation of Cameron into the political fold is an unequivocally good decision.
    The dream team:

    Prime Minister: Theresa May
    Chancellor: Gordon Brown
    Foreign Secretary: David Cameron
    Home Secretary: Tony Blair
    The Cabinet of none of the talents.
  • Options
    eekeek Posts: 25,147

    Is this sudden outbreak of anti-Brown posts due to CCHQ kite-flying?

    Hardly - it kicked off from a @ydoethur reply to a comment from me that HMRC are overworked and understaffed..

    interestingly I note that the Government is talking about £1.8bn of efficiency savings without highlighting how they would occur and without providing the money now that would allow the automation required to make those savings plausible...
  • Options
    Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,869
    Israel/Palestine is potentially catastrophic for Starmer and it's a trap he could easily fall into.

    He could get out of it with a bold speech, as intimated in the header, but since that'd actually require strong leadership rather than tedious tactical triangulation it might be beyond him.
  • Options
    DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 24,753
    Body Shop stores close despite being profitable
    Collapsed retailer to shut 82 stores but documents show just eight of its 206 UK outlets were loss-making last year

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/body-shop-stores-close-despite-profitable-latest-t8vf0nf0k (£££)

    Adam Smith, please explain.
  • Options
    Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,869

    That Conservative Party membership poll is scary.
    They’ve become a rump of extremists, riled up on a diet of GBNews.

    It bodes very ill for the party, and let’s be honest, for the country, if the right collapses down a rabbit hole.

    You've got to divorce the literal believe of supporting exactly what Lee Anderson said and how he said it from the sentiment: Islamist protestors are treated with kid gloves on Gaza by those in authority.
    This is the sort of thing people say about Trump.

    Your party is toileted. Get out while you still have your sanity.
    The fact it annoys The Libz is probably grist to the mill.

    They cannot help their erogenous zones being pressed by stuff like this, and it leads them to spectacularly miss the point.
    Can you kindly explain how saying Sadiq Khan is controlled by Islamists is anything but incorrect and offensive? What are we supposed to interpret this as meaning? It’s as bad as me saying Jews control the media.

    I think the reality is that you agree with Lee Anderson? You seem to be very carefully not saying what he said was completely wrong.

    It as wrong as what Ali said so this is not me playing politics. Both deserve to be thrown out of their parties.
    I don't agree with what Lee Anderson said. It's made it much much harder to have the difficult conversation about Islamism in this country that needs to be had.

    This board has got to get beyond people trying to explain how some people might see a position/point of view being challenged as being identical to secretly sympathising with it.
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,589

    Body Shop stores close despite being profitable
    Collapsed retailer to shut 82 stores but documents show just eight of its 206 UK outlets were loss-making last year

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/body-shop-stores-close-despite-profitable-latest-t8vf0nf0k (£££)

    Adam Smith, please explain.

    The profitability of the branches very much depends on their share of overhead from head office costs. Was the business as a whole profitable? If not, failure is inevitable.
  • Options
    DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 24,753
    Ruth Henig, Lancaster university historian and Labour politician involved with policing – obituary
    Lady Henig wrote books on the League of Nations, the Weimar Republic and the origins of the world wars and captained the Lords bridge team

    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/ruth-henig-lancaster-university-historian-and-labour-politician-involved-with-policing-obituary/ar-BB1jfZt7

    Bloody refugees, coming here, captaining our bridge teams...

  • Options
    eekeek Posts: 25,147

    Israel/Palestine is potentially catastrophic for Starmer and it's a trap he could easily fall into.

    He could get out of it with a bold speech, as intimated in the header, but since that'd actually require strong leadership rather than tedious tactical triangulation it might be beyond him.

    I'm not sure how he comes up with a speech that doesn't upset one side of the people he needs to keep happy...
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,653

    Omnium said:

    DavidL said:

    As I said the other day this is a values question and the majority of those inclined to vote Labour do not share the values of Starmer on this question. They look at the current position so many months after the horrors of October 7th and are appalled. Starmer still seems to think that this fundamentally comes as a consequence of the right of any nation to self defence, even if he really wishes the Israelis would back off a bit.

    The best answer, in my view, is that of David Cameron. If Hamas wants the fighting and bombing to end they should surrender and give up the remaining hostages. But they are still in the field and the fight goes on.

    Is that Cameron's position? I suspect Cameron is more sophisticated in international affairs than that statement would suggest. That sounds more like Nick Ferrari diplomacy.
    Cameron is really first class. If I had to choose a PM it'd be him. Well, after me!

    Whatever ills Sunak has wrought, the repatriation of Cameron into the political fold is an unequivocally good decision.
    The dream team:

    Prime Minister: Theresa May
    Chancellor: Gordon Brown
    Foreign Secretary: David Cameron
    Home Secretary: Tony Blair
    What sort of dream? A cheese dream? An alcohol fuelled dream?
  • Options
    Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 25,707

    That Conservative Party membership poll is scary.
    They’ve become a rump of extremists, riled up on a diet of GBNews.

    It bodes very ill for the party, and let’s be honest, for the country, if the right collapses down a rabbit hole.

    You've got to divorce the literal believe of supporting exactly what Lee Anderson said and how he said it from the sentiment: Islamist protestors are treated with kid gloves on Gaza by those in authority.
    This is the sort of thing people say about Trump.

    Your party is toileted. Get out while you still have your sanity.
    The fact it annoys The Libz is probably grist to the mill.

    They cannot help their erogenous zones being pressed by stuff like this, and it leads them to spectacularly miss the point.
    Can you kindly explain how saying Sadiq Khan is controlled by Islamists is anything but incorrect and offensive? What are we supposed to interpret this as meaning? It’s as bad as me saying Jews control the media.

    I think the reality is that you agree with Lee Anderson? You seem to be very carefully not saying what he said was completely wrong.

    It as wrong as what Ali said so this is not me playing politics. Both deserve to be thrown out of their parties.
    I don't agree with what Lee Anderson said. It's made it much much harder to have the difficult conversation about Islamism in this country that needs to be had.

    This board has got to get beyond people trying to explain how some people might see a position/point of view being challenged as being identical to secretly sympathising with it.
    I feel the same. Anderson failed to establish a link between Sadiq Khan's religion and his treatment of protestors. I have a lot more sympathy for Paul Scully (was that his name?) with his no go areas comment. The statistics supported what he said.
  • Options
    williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 48,355
    eek said:

    Israel/Palestine is potentially catastrophic for Starmer and it's a trap he could easily fall into.

    He could get out of it with a bold speech, as intimated in the header, but since that'd actually require strong leadership rather than tedious tactical triangulation it might be beyond him.

    I'm not sure how he comes up with a speech that doesn't upset one side of the people he needs to keep happy...
    He could embrace a one-state solution, but leave it up to interpretation about what kind of state he envisages.
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,653

    Omnium said:

    DavidL said:

    As I said the other day this is a values question and the majority of those inclined to vote Labour do not share the values of Starmer on this question. They look at the current position so many months after the horrors of October 7th and are appalled. Starmer still seems to think that this fundamentally comes as a consequence of the right of any nation to self defence, even if he really wishes the Israelis would back off a bit.

    The best answer, in my view, is that of David Cameron. If Hamas wants the fighting and bombing to end they should surrender and give up the remaining hostages. But they are still in the field and the fight goes on.

    Is that Cameron's position? I suspect Cameron is more sophisticated in international affairs than that statement would suggest. That sounds more like Nick Ferrari diplomacy.
    Cameron is really first class. If I had to choose a PM it'd be him. Well, after me!

    Whatever ills Sunak has wrought, the repatriation of Cameron into the political fold is an unequivocally good decision.
    The dream team:

    Prime Minister: Theresa May
    Chancellor: Gordon Brown
    Foreign Secretary: David Cameron
    Home Secretary: Tony Blair
    The Cabinet of none of the talents.
    Gordon Brown certainly ended up with 0 talents...
  • Options
    Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 49,653

    That Conservative Party membership poll is scary.
    They’ve become a rump of extremists, riled up on a diet of GBNews.

    It bodes very ill for the party, and let’s be honest, for the country, if the right collapses down a rabbit hole.

    You've got to divorce the literal believe of supporting exactly what Lee Anderson said and how he said it from the sentiment: Islamist protestors are treated with kid gloves on Gaza by those in authority.
    This is the sort of thing people say about Trump.

    Your party is toileted. Get out while you still have your sanity.
    The fact it annoys The Libz is probably grist to the mill.

    They cannot help their erogenous zones being pressed by stuff like this, and it leads them to spectacularly miss the point.
    Can you kindly explain how saying Sadiq Khan is controlled by Islamists is anything but incorrect and offensive? What are we supposed to interpret this as meaning? It’s as bad as me saying Jews control the media.

    I think the reality is that you agree with Lee Anderson? You seem to be very carefully not saying what he said was completely wrong.

    It as wrong as what Ali said so this is not me playing politics. Both deserve to be thrown out of their parties.
    I don't agree with what Lee Anderson said. It's made it much much harder to have the difficult conversation about Islamism in this country that needs to be had.

    This board has got to get beyond people trying to explain how some people might see a position/point of view being challenged as being identical to secretly sympathising with it.
    I feel the same. Anderson failed to establish a link between Sadiq Khan's religion and his treatment of protestors. I have a lot more sympathy for Paul Scully (was that his name?) with his no go areas comment. The statistics supported what he said.
    Which no-go areas?
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,653

    eek said:

    Israel/Palestine is potentially catastrophic for Starmer and it's a trap he could easily fall into.

    He could get out of it with a bold speech, as intimated in the header, but since that'd actually require strong leadership rather than tedious tactical triangulation it might be beyond him.

    I'm not sure how he comes up with a speech that doesn't upset one side of the people he needs to keep happy...
    He could embrace a one-state solution, but leave it up to interpretation about what kind of state he envisages.
    It's already in quite a state.

    More seriously, I think one other advantage of a ceasefire - albeit quite far down the list of priorities - is it will give those politicians who *are* suffering because they see nuance in this situation and aren't full bloodedly calling for the mass extermination of of Israelis some breathing space.

    That's particularly important for Biden, as he both needs it to stop his base freaking out and re-electing the Orangutan and so he can start to glue the pieces back together by trying to restart* the peace process. But it would help Starmer too.

    It also, of course removes the distraction from the war in Ukraine (which TBF is probably the reason Hamas attacked in the first place, given who their ultimate backer is) and allows for us to resume our focus there.

    *Assuming it had ever started, of course.
  • Options
    Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 8,890
    Omnium said:

    Omnium said:

    DavidL said:

    As I said the other day this is a values question and the majority of those inclined to vote Labour do not share the values of Starmer on this question. They look at the current position so many months after the horrors of October 7th and are appalled. Starmer still seems to think that this fundamentally comes as a consequence of the right of any nation to self defence, even if he really wishes the Israelis would back off a bit.

    The best answer, in my view, is that of David Cameron. If Hamas wants the fighting and bombing to end they should surrender and give up the remaining hostages. But they are still in the field and the fight goes on.

    Is that Cameron's position? I suspect Cameron is more sophisticated in international affairs than that statement would suggest. That sounds more like Nick Ferrari diplomacy.
    Cameron is really first class. If I had to choose a PM it'd be him. Well, after me!

    Whatever ills Sunak has wrought, the repatriation of Cameron into the political fold is an unequivocally good decision.
    The dream team:

    Prime Minister: Theresa May
    Chancellor: Gordon Brown
    Foreign Secretary: David Cameron
    Home Secretary: Tony Blair
    I wouldn't have Brown polish my shoes.

    Blair as home secretary and May as PM make a good deal of sense though.

    Brown? Really?
    really 90 days retention without trial and id cards blair as home secretary how about just no!
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,653
    stodge said:

    Afternoon all :)

    Vaguely on topic, I'm not sure what a policy on Gaza which would satisfy most voters looks like.

    We can but hope some kind of ceasefire will be initiated, respected and take hold but that's all we can do and to be honest I suspect a lot of the dissatisfaction comes from the sentiment "Britain must do something" when the truth is there's very little we can do.

    Contrast with Ukraine where there was a strong, bold response from Boris Johnson (yes, we must give him credit for that). There was little or no potential ramification at home to such a policy - the pro-Russian lobby could grumble but not much else and for many historical reasons Ukraine enjoyed a lot of support.

    Gaza is different - both the original atrocity and the Israeli response have been viewed as offensive and inflamatory by different sections of British society. Trying to thread the needle between them has proved impossible (as it often does). The problem comes when politicians, who are after all representatives, take a line which is not widely supported within their constituency. The risk is the electorate voice their dissatisfaction by voting against you at the next election.

    That's easy for me to say sitting here in an area with a strong Muslim minority, some of whom are clearly incensed by events and may well have family in Gaza. When you have that kind of emotional capital invested, it's impossible not to get passionate about it.

    Is it worth me trying to find time to do a thread header on the links between the conflict in Gaza and the conflict in Ukraine?

    (And even if I find time to write it, how many would have the time to read it?)
  • Options
    Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,869
    eek said:

    Israel/Palestine is potentially catastrophic for Starmer and it's a trap he could easily fall into.

    He could get out of it with a bold speech, as intimated in the header, but since that'd actually require strong leadership rather than tedious tactical triangulation it might be beyond him.

    I'm not sure how he comes up with a speech that doesn't upset one side of the people he needs to keep happy...
    You know who'd have had no problem whatever with a speech like this?

    Tony Blair.
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,653

    eek said:

    Israel/Palestine is potentially catastrophic for Starmer and it's a trap he could easily fall into.

    He could get out of it with a bold speech, as intimated in the header, but since that'd actually require strong leadership rather than tedious tactical triangulation it might be beyond him.

    I'm not sure how he comes up with a speech that doesn't upset one side of the people he needs to keep happy...
    You know who'd have had no problem whatever with a speech like this?

    Tony Blair.
    Iraq suggests otherwise.
  • Options
    stodgestodge Posts: 12,950
    ydoethur said:

    stodge said:

    Afternoon all :)

    Vaguely on topic, I'm not sure what a policy on Gaza which would satisfy most voters looks like.

    We can but hope some kind of ceasefire will be initiated, respected and take hold but that's all we can do and to be honest I suspect a lot of the dissatisfaction comes from the sentiment "Britain must do something" when the truth is there's very little we can do.

    Contrast with Ukraine where there was a strong, bold response from Boris Johnson (yes, we must give him credit for that). There was little or no potential ramification at home to such a policy - the pro-Russian lobby could grumble but not much else and for many historical reasons Ukraine enjoyed a lot of support.

    Gaza is different - both the original atrocity and the Israeli response have been viewed as offensive and inflamatory by different sections of British society. Trying to thread the needle between them has proved impossible (as it often does). The problem comes when politicians, who are after all representatives, take a line which is not widely supported within their constituency. The risk is the electorate voice their dissatisfaction by voting against you at the next election.

    That's easy for me to say sitting here in an area with a strong Muslim minority, some of whom are clearly incensed by events and may well have family in Gaza. When you have that kind of emotional capital invested, it's impossible not to get passionate about it.

    Is it worth me trying to find time to do a thread header on the links between the conflict in Gaza and the conflict in Ukraine?

    (And even if I find time to write it, how many would have the time to read it?)
    Do you mean "links" in terms of an active co-ordination of events - the implication being Hamas timed their attack based on "instruction" from a third party (Iran? Russia?) or the nuances of impact and how Britain responded along with sentiment among British people?

    An example - very few if anyone objected to local Councils flying the Ukrainian flag in the immediate aftermath of the Russian attack. Was there an instruction given to fly the Israeli flag? If so, why was it withdrawn and when? What about the Palestinian flag?

    I'm minded of the concept free speech means the right to offend and to be offended but it also means the right not to offend. The problem then becomes if you try to please everyone you end up pleasing no one as the thread poll suggests.
  • Options
    CatManCatMan Posts: 2,822
    Pagan2 said:

    Omnium said:

    Omnium said:

    DavidL said:

    As I said the other day this is a values question and the majority of those inclined to vote Labour do not share the values of Starmer on this question. They look at the current position so many months after the horrors of October 7th and are appalled. Starmer still seems to think that this fundamentally comes as a consequence of the right of any nation to self defence, even if he really wishes the Israelis would back off a bit.

    The best answer, in my view, is that of David Cameron. If Hamas wants the fighting and bombing to end they should surrender and give up the remaining hostages. But they are still in the field and the fight goes on.

    Is that Cameron's position? I suspect Cameron is more sophisticated in international affairs than that statement would suggest. That sounds more like Nick Ferrari diplomacy.
    Cameron is really first class. If I had to choose a PM it'd be him. Well, after me!

    Whatever ills Sunak has wrought, the repatriation of Cameron into the political fold is an unequivocally good decision.
    The dream team:

    Prime Minister: Theresa May
    Chancellor: Gordon Brown
    Foreign Secretary: David Cameron
    Home Secretary: Tony Blair
    I wouldn't have Brown polish my shoes.

    Blair as home secretary and May as PM make a good deal of sense though.

    Brown? Really?
    really 90 days retention without trial and id cards blair as home secretary how about just no!
    Funnily enough ID Cards were originally introduced in a 10 minute rule bill, by a very obscure Labour MP called "Nick Palmer". Wonder what he's up to these days...
  • Options
    AverageNinjaAverageNinja Posts: 1,169
    edited March 3

    don't agree with what Lee Anderson said. It's made it much much harder to have the difficult conversation about Islamism in this country that needs to be had.

    This board has got to get beyond people trying to explain how some people might see a position/point of view being challenged as being identical to secretly sympathising with it.

    What is the problem of Islamism in this country as you see it? And what does Sadiq Khan have to do with it or were you tying to say Lee Anderson was wrong about that too?
  • Options
    AverageNinjaAverageNinja Posts: 1,169
    CatMan said:

    Funnily enough ID Cards were originally introduced in a 10 minute rule bill, by a very obscure Labour MP called "Nick Palmer". Wonder what he's up to these days...

    @NickPalmer can you justify this one?
  • Options
    viewcodeviewcode Posts: 19,244
    CatMan said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Omnium said:

    Omnium said:

    DavidL said:

    As I said the other day this is a values question and the majority of those inclined to vote Labour do not share the values of Starmer on this question. They look at the current position so many months after the horrors of October 7th and are appalled. Starmer still seems to think that this fundamentally comes as a consequence of the right of any nation to self defence, even if he really wishes the Israelis would back off a bit.

    The best answer, in my view, is that of David Cameron. If Hamas wants the fighting and bombing to end they should surrender and give up the remaining hostages. But they are still in the field and the fight goes on.

    Is that Cameron's position? I suspect Cameron is more sophisticated in international affairs than that statement would suggest. That sounds more like Nick Ferrari diplomacy.
    Cameron is really first class. If I had to choose a PM it'd be him. Well, after me!

    Whatever ills Sunak has wrought, the repatriation of Cameron into the political fold is an unequivocally good decision.
    The dream team:

    Prime Minister: Theresa May
    Chancellor: Gordon Brown
    Foreign Secretary: David Cameron
    Home Secretary: Tony Blair
    I wouldn't have Brown polish my shoes.

    Blair as home secretary and May as PM make a good deal of sense though.

    Brown? Really?
    really 90 days retention without trial and id cards blair as home secretary how about just no!
    Funnily enough ID Cards were originally introduced in a 10 minute rule bill, by a very obscure Labour MP called "Nick Palmer". Wonder what he's up to these days...
    Perhaps he was distracted by two other people
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,653
    stodge said:

    ydoethur said:

    stodge said:

    Afternoon all :)

    Vaguely on topic, I'm not sure what a policy on Gaza which would satisfy most voters looks like.

    We can but hope some kind of ceasefire will be initiated, respected and take hold but that's all we can do and to be honest I suspect a lot of the dissatisfaction comes from the sentiment "Britain must do something" when the truth is there's very little we can do.

    Contrast with Ukraine where there was a strong, bold response from Boris Johnson (yes, we must give him credit for that). There was little or no potential ramification at home to such a policy - the pro-Russian lobby could grumble but not much else and for many historical reasons Ukraine enjoyed a lot of support.

    Gaza is different - both the original atrocity and the Israeli response have been viewed as offensive and inflamatory by different sections of British society. Trying to thread the needle between them has proved impossible (as it often does). The problem comes when politicians, who are after all representatives, take a line which is not widely supported within their constituency. The risk is the electorate voice their dissatisfaction by voting against you at the next election.

    That's easy for me to say sitting here in an area with a strong Muslim minority, some of whom are clearly incensed by events and may well have family in Gaza. When you have that kind of emotional capital invested, it's impossible not to get passionate about it.

    Is it worth me trying to find time to do a thread header on the links between the conflict in Gaza and the conflict in Ukraine?

    (And even if I find time to write it, how many would have the time to read it?)
    Do you mean "links" in terms of an active co-ordination of events - the implication being Hamas timed their attack based on "instruction" from a third party (Iran? Russia?) or the nuances of impact and how Britain responded along with sentiment among British people?

    An example - very few if anyone objected to local Councils flying the Ukrainian flag in the immediate aftermath of the Russian attack. Was there an instruction given to fly the Israeli flag? If so, why was it withdrawn and when? What about the Palestinian flag?

    I'm minded of the concept free speech means the right to offend and to be offended but it also means the right not to offend. The problem then becomes if you try to please everyone you end up pleasing no one as the thread poll suggests.
    The likelihood is that it was on indirect instructions from Russia. That's the link I was referring to.

    Crudely, Hamas is controlled by Iran, which is if not a client state in the classic sense certainly a close ally of Russia. They were in need of urgent distractions due to disasters elsewhere - both in Ukraine and Nagorno-Karabakh.
  • Options
    BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 18,824
    Credit to Starmer and Sunak for not pandering to the hate-filled extremists in the far-left and far-right.

    Israel has the right and responsibility for self-defence from the monsters that are Hamas who must be destroyed, which is not yet accomplished. Israel needs to go into Rafah and anywhere else that Hamas might be hiding.

    If Hamas want an end to the war, they can release all hostages, disband and relinquish their arms.
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,653
    CatMan said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Omnium said:

    Omnium said:

    DavidL said:

    As I said the other day this is a values question and the majority of those inclined to vote Labour do not share the values of Starmer on this question. They look at the current position so many months after the horrors of October 7th and are appalled. Starmer still seems to think that this fundamentally comes as a consequence of the right of any nation to self defence, even if he really wishes the Israelis would back off a bit.

    The best answer, in my view, is that of David Cameron. If Hamas wants the fighting and bombing to end they should surrender and give up the remaining hostages. But they are still in the field and the fight goes on.

    Is that Cameron's position? I suspect Cameron is more sophisticated in international affairs than that statement would suggest. That sounds more like Nick Ferrari diplomacy.
    Cameron is really first class. If I had to choose a PM it'd be him. Well, after me!

    Whatever ills Sunak has wrought, the repatriation of Cameron into the political fold is an unequivocally good decision.
    The dream team:

    Prime Minister: Theresa May
    Chancellor: Gordon Brown
    Foreign Secretary: David Cameron
    Home Secretary: Tony Blair
    I wouldn't have Brown polish my shoes.

    Blair as home secretary and May as PM make a good deal of sense though.

    Brown? Really?
    really 90 days retention without trial and id cards blair as home secretary how about just no!
    Funnily enough ID Cards were originally introduced in a 10 minute rule bill, by a very obscure Labour MP called "Nick Palmer". Wonder what he's up to these days...
    Well, it can't be more exciting than what he used to get up to in the old days...
  • Options
    DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 24,753
    CatMan said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Omnium said:

    Omnium said:

    DavidL said:

    As I said the other day this is a values question and the majority of those inclined to vote Labour do not share the values of Starmer on this question. They look at the current position so many months after the horrors of October 7th and are appalled. Starmer still seems to think that this fundamentally comes as a consequence of the right of any nation to self defence, even if he really wishes the Israelis would back off a bit.

    The best answer, in my view, is that of David Cameron. If Hamas wants the fighting and bombing to end they should surrender and give up the remaining hostages. But they are still in the field and the fight goes on.

    Is that Cameron's position? I suspect Cameron is more sophisticated in international affairs than that statement would suggest. That sounds more like Nick Ferrari diplomacy.
    Cameron is really first class. If I had to choose a PM it'd be him. Well, after me!

    Whatever ills Sunak has wrought, the repatriation of Cameron into the political fold is an unequivocally good decision.
    The dream team:

    Prime Minister: Theresa May
    Chancellor: Gordon Brown
    Foreign Secretary: David Cameron
    Home Secretary: Tony Blair
    I wouldn't have Brown polish my shoes.

    Blair as home secretary and May as PM make a good deal of sense though.

    Brown? Really?
    really 90 days retention without trial and id cards blair as home secretary how about just no!
    Funnily enough ID Cards were originally introduced in a 10 minute rule bill, by a very obscure Labour MP called "Nick Palmer". Wonder what he's up to these days...
    He spends most of his time reading about AI and holidays.
  • Options
    Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 25,707
    edited March 3

    That Conservative Party membership poll is scary.
    They’ve become a rump of extremists, riled up on a diet of GBNews.

    It bodes very ill for the party, and let’s be honest, for the country, if the right collapses down a rabbit hole.

    You've got to divorce the literal believe of supporting exactly what Lee Anderson said and how he said it from the sentiment: Islamist protestors are treated with kid gloves on Gaza by those in authority.
    This is the sort of thing people say about Trump.

    Your party is toileted. Get out while you still have your sanity.
    The fact it annoys The Libz is probably grist to the mill.

    They cannot help their erogenous zones being pressed by stuff like this, and it leads them to spectacularly miss the point.
    Can you kindly explain how saying Sadiq Khan is controlled by Islamists is anything but incorrect and offensive? What are we supposed to interpret this as meaning? It’s as bad as me saying Jews control the media.

    I think the reality is that you agree with Lee Anderson? You seem to be very carefully not saying what he said was completely wrong.

    It as wrong as what Ali said so this is not me playing politics. Both deserve to be thrown out of their parties.
    I don't agree with what Lee Anderson said. It's made it much much harder to have the difficult conversation about Islamism in this country that needs to be had.

    This board has got to get beyond people trying to explain how some people might see a position/point of view being challenged as being identical to secretly sympathising with it.
    I feel the same. Anderson failed to establish a link between Sadiq Khan's religion and his treatment of protestors. I have a lot more sympathy for Paul Scully (was that his name?) with his no go areas comment. The statistics supported what he said.
    Which no-go areas?
    The areas to which he alluded had far higher than average levels of homophobic crimes. The attacks on him from various gammons of the left were pathetic opportunism.
  • Options
    algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 10,752
    eek said:

    Israel/Palestine is potentially catastrophic for Starmer and it's a trap he could easily fall into.

    He could get out of it with a bold speech, as intimated in the header, but since that'd actually require strong leadership rather than tedious tactical triangulation it might be beyond him.

    I'm not sure how he comes up with a speech that doesn't upset one side of the people he needs to keep happy...
    The group Starmer needs is the centrist swing voter. My suggestion is that this group actively supports neither Hamas not the current Israel government nor its military. But it does sympathise with good ordinary people on both/all sides and wants peace, prosperity and opportunity for them; however that opinion is also aware that without substantial change no settlement is possible.

    Starmer should currently back: An unconditional Hamas ceasefire (because they have lost the War of 2023-4), return of the hostages, an Israeli ceasefire and a multi agency permanent negotiation process backed by the UN, USA, EU, UK, Turkey, Saudi, Egypt, Gulf States and Jordan until a comprehensive settlement is agreed. (As this has been unresolved since 1948 it is not a problem if it takes 6 weeks or 15 years).
  • Options
    AverageNinjaAverageNinja Posts: 1,169
    edited March 3

    Credit to Starmer and Sunak for not pandering to the hate-filled extremists in the far-left and far-right.

    Israel has the right and responsibility for self-defence from the monsters that are Hamas who must be destroyed, which is not yet accomplished. Israel needs to go into Rafah and anywhere else that Hamas might be hiding.

    If Hamas want an end to the war, they can release all hostages, disband and relinquish their arms.

    The fact you are so willing to see so many people killed is really sad.

    (And before you try and make out that I don't want to see Hamas removed as you did last time, the answer is still, they should be removed.)
  • Options
    OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 32,170
    CatMan said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Omnium said:

    Omnium said:

    DavidL said:

    As I said the other day this is a values question and the majority of those inclined to vote Labour do not share the values of Starmer on this question. They look at the current position so many months after the horrors of October 7th and are appalled. Starmer still seems to think that this fundamentally comes as a consequence of the right of any nation to self defence, even if he really wishes the Israelis would back off a bit.

    The best answer, in my view, is that of David Cameron. If Hamas wants the fighting and bombing to end they should surrender and give up the remaining hostages. But they are still in the field and the fight goes on.

    Is that Cameron's position? I suspect Cameron is more sophisticated in international affairs than that statement would suggest. That sounds more like Nick Ferrari diplomacy.
    Cameron is really first class. If I had to choose a PM it'd be him. Well, after me!

    Whatever ills Sunak has wrought, the repatriation of Cameron into the political fold is an unequivocally good decision.
    The dream team:

    Prime Minister: Theresa May
    Chancellor: Gordon Brown
    Foreign Secretary: David Cameron
    Home Secretary: Tony Blair
    I wouldn't have Brown polish my shoes.

    Blair as home secretary and May as PM make a good deal of sense though.

    Brown? Really?
    really 90 days retention without trial and id cards blair as home secretary how about just no!
    Funnily enough ID Cards were originally introduced in a 10 minute rule bill, by a very obscure Labour MP called "Nick Palmer". Wonder what he's up to these days...
    Originally as a good Liberal (not necessarily LibDem) I was opposed to ID cards. Now I’m not so sure, given all the issues we have nowadays.
  • Options
    AverageNinjaAverageNinja Posts: 1,169
    algarkirk said:

    eek said:

    Israel/Palestine is potentially catastrophic for Starmer and it's a trap he could easily fall into.

    He could get out of it with a bold speech, as intimated in the header, but since that'd actually require strong leadership rather than tedious tactical triangulation it might be beyond him.

    I'm not sure how he comes up with a speech that doesn't upset one side of the people he needs to keep happy...
    The group Starmer needs is the centrist swing voter. My suggestion is that this group actively supports neither Hamas not the current Israel government nor its military. But it does sympathise with good ordinary people on both/all sides and wants peace, prosperity and opportunity for them; however that opinion is also aware that without substantial change no settlement is possible.

    Starmer should currently back: An unconditional Hamas ceasefire (because they have lost the War of 2023-4), return of the hostages, an Israeli ceasefire and a multi agency permanent negotiation process backed by the UN, USA, EU, UK, Turkey, Saudi, Egypt, Gulf States and Jordan until a comprehensive settlement is agreed. (As this has been unresolved since 1948 it is not a problem if it takes 6 weeks or 15 years).
    I completely agree 100%.
  • Options
    BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 18,824

    Credit to Starmer and Sunak for not pandering to the hate-filled extremists in the far-left and far-right.

    Israel has the right and responsibility for self-defence from the monsters that are Hamas who must be destroyed, which is not yet accomplished. Israel needs to go into Rafah and anywhere else that Hamas might be hiding.

    If Hamas want an end to the war, they can release all hostages, disband and relinquish their arms.

    The fact you are so willing to see so many people killed is really sad.

    (And before you try and make out that I don't want to see Hamas removed as you did last time, the answer is still, they should be removed.)
    War is sad I agree, its not my fault that there's a war happening just because I want to see the war resolved with the right side victorious.

    Sometimes wars are worth fighting. Defeating the Nazis in WWII, defeating the Japanese in WWII, defeating the Russians in Ukraine and defeating Hamas in Gaza are all prime examples where evil authoritarians need to be defeated.

    You claim to want them removed in theory but oppose any necessary action to remove them in practice.
  • Options
    AverageNinjaAverageNinja Posts: 1,169

    Credit to Starmer and Sunak for not pandering to the hate-filled extremists in the far-left and far-right.

    Israel has the right and responsibility for self-defence from the monsters that are Hamas who must be destroyed, which is not yet accomplished. Israel needs to go into Rafah and anywhere else that Hamas might be hiding.

    If Hamas want an end to the war, they can release all hostages, disband and relinquish their arms.

    The fact you are so willing to see so many people killed is really sad.

    (And before you try and make out that I don't want to see Hamas removed as you did last time, the answer is still, they should be removed.)
    War is sad I agree, its not my fault that there's a war happening just because I want to see the war resolved with the right side victorious.

    Sometimes wars are worth fighting. Defeating the Nazis in WWII, defeating the Japanese in WWII, defeating the Russians in Ukraine and defeating Hamas in Gaza are all prime examples where evil authoritarians need to be defeated.

    You claim to want them removed in theory but oppose any necessary action to remove them in practice.
    Since when did I oppose Israel removing Hamas with deadly force?

    I just don't believe that destroying Rafah and killing potentially thousands of women and children is a response that helps anyone. It's not like it's controversial to say that.
  • Options
    NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,380

    CatMan said:

    Funnily enough ID Cards were originally introduced in a 10 minute rule bill, by a very obscure Labour MP called "Nick Palmer". Wonder what he's up to these days...

    @NickPalmer can you justify this one?
    Glad to try! I mostly grew up in Denmark and lived for many years in Switzerland, both of which have ID cards for everyone. A Communist in my early days and always on the left, I mixed with all kinds of people who were generally wary of the establishment and critical of authoritarian measures, but I never once encountered anyone who objected to ID cards - they simply made life easier. When I returned to Britain I was bemused to find the business about producing a utility bill and a council or bank statement every time I wantd to prove who I was - it just seemed a bureaucratic nuisance.

    I put the proposal up to have an interesting debate (10 Minute Rule Bills rarely become law), and got a friend to oppose it so we could have a proper presentation of the arguments on both sides (the LibDem spokesman supported me, incidentally). The case against seems to come down to authoritarian misuse - essentially the argument that if the authorities don't know who you are, it's easier to avoid them mistreating you. I'm afraid that is an illusion - in practice, if the authorities want to identify you, they have numerous ways of doing it, and in addition everyone from supermarkets to political parties know far more about you than you might really want to disclose. The only person who really benefits from a simple way to prove identity is...you.
  • Options
    BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 18,824
    edited March 3

    Credit to Starmer and Sunak for not pandering to the hate-filled extremists in the far-left and far-right.

    Israel has the right and responsibility for self-defence from the monsters that are Hamas who must be destroyed, which is not yet accomplished. Israel needs to go into Rafah and anywhere else that Hamas might be hiding.

    If Hamas want an end to the war, they can release all hostages, disband and relinquish their arms.

    The fact you are so willing to see so many people killed is really sad.

    (And before you try and make out that I don't want to see Hamas removed as you did last time, the answer is still, they should be removed.)
    War is sad I agree, its not my fault that there's a war happening just because I want to see the war resolved with the right side victorious.

    Sometimes wars are worth fighting. Defeating the Nazis in WWII, defeating the Japanese in WWII, defeating the Russians in Ukraine and defeating Hamas in Gaza are all prime examples where evil authoritarians need to be defeated.

    You claim to want them removed in theory but oppose any necessary action to remove them in practice.
    Since when did I oppose Israel removing Hamas with deadly force?

    I just don't believe that destroying Rafah and killing potentially thousands of women and children is a response that helps anyone. It's not like it's controversial to say that.
    If Hamas are in Rafah then they need to be confronted there.

    How else can Hamas be destroyed, in practice?

    Not wishy washy intentions, practical alternative steps to vanquish them please.
  • Options
    RogerRoger Posts: 18,976
    edited March 3
    A 'like' for the header. Dismal leadership from both. If Trump becomes President and with the UK being outside the EU the lack of independent thought from our leaders is going to be very serious
  • Options
    TazTaz Posts: 11,483

    eek said:

    Omnium said:

    DavidL said:

    As I said the other day this is a values question and the majority of those inclined to vote Labour do not share the values of Starmer on this question. They look at the current position so many months after the horrors of October 7th and are appalled. Starmer still seems to think that this fundamentally comes as a consequence of the right of any nation to self defence, even if he really wishes the Israelis would back off a bit.

    The best answer, in my view, is that of David Cameron. If Hamas wants the fighting and bombing to end they should surrender and give up the remaining hostages. But they are still in the field and the fight goes on.

    Is that Cameron's position? I suspect Cameron is more sophisticated in international affairs than that statement would suggest. That sounds more like Nick Ferrari diplomacy.
    Cameron is really first class. If I had to choose a PM it'd be him. Well, after me!

    Whatever ills Sunak has wrought, the repatriation of Cameron into the political fold is an unequivocally good decision.
    The dream team:

    Prime Minister: Theresa May
    Chancellor: Gordon Brown
    Foreign Secretary: David Cameron
    Home Secretary: Tony Blair
    That's Gordon Brown where earlier today we were asking which mistake out of

    1) Merging Inland Revenue with HM Customs
    2) splitting the Bank of England into 2 with the FCA supervising things without knowing what was happening while the BoE knew but couldn't do anything up it
    3) giving the Bank of England independence so that Chancellors had no say in interest rates

    was the biggest mistake...
    You forgot the PFIs which proved very expensive in the long term.
    Or this.

    The man was utterly inept

    https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/comment/article-13041677/HAMISH-MCRAE-Time-fix-Gordon-Browns-pension-errors.html#:~:text=The tax was Gordon Brown's,be some sort of rebate.
  • Options
    TazTaz Posts: 11,483

    Credit to Starmer and Sunak for not pandering to the hate-filled extremists in the far-left and far-right.

    Israel has the right and responsibility for self-defence from the monsters that are Hamas who must be destroyed, which is not yet accomplished. Israel needs to go into Rafah and anywhere else that Hamas might be hiding.

    If Hamas want an end to the war, they can release all hostages, disband and relinquish their arms.

    The fact you are so willing to see so many people killed is really sad.

    (And before you try and make out that I don't want to see Hamas removed as you did last time, the answer is still, they should be removed.)
    Warmongers gonna warmonger. The man is obsessed although Ukraine seems to have fallen off the radar.
  • Options
    AverageNinjaAverageNinja Posts: 1,169

    If Hamas are in Rafah then they need to be confronted there.

    How else can Hamas be destroyed, in practice?

    Not wishy washy intentions, practical alternative steps to vanquish them please.

    So what you are saying is that killing thousands of women and children is worth it, potentially radicalising thousands more and destroying any chance of a peace process?

    Have you spoken with the international community, including, erh, the US? You're on your own.
  • Options
    AverageNinjaAverageNinja Posts: 1,169
    edited March 3
    Taz said:

    Credit to Starmer and Sunak for not pandering to the hate-filled extremists in the far-left and far-right.

    Israel has the right and responsibility for self-defence from the monsters that are Hamas who must be destroyed, which is not yet accomplished. Israel needs to go into Rafah and anywhere else that Hamas might be hiding.

    If Hamas want an end to the war, they can release all hostages, disband and relinquish their arms.

    The fact you are so willing to see so many people killed is really sad.

    (And before you try and make out that I don't want to see Hamas removed as you did last time, the answer is still, they should be removed.)
    Warmongers gonna warmonger. The man is obsessed although Ukraine seems to have fallen off the radar.
    Are you talking to me again now? You seemed very angry the other day, hope you've calmed down now. More of a mental health check in than anything else.
  • Options
    TazTaz Posts: 11,483
    edited March 3

    Taz said:

    Credit to Starmer and Sunak for not pandering to the hate-filled extremists in the far-left and far-right.

    Israel has the right and responsibility for self-defence from the monsters that are Hamas who must be destroyed, which is not yet accomplished. Israel needs to go into Rafah and anywhere else that Hamas might be hiding.

    If Hamas want an end to the war, they can release all hostages, disband and relinquish their arms.

    The fact you are so willing to see so many people killed is really sad.

    (And before you try and make out that I don't want to see Hamas removed as you did last time, the answer is still, they should be removed.)
    Warmongers gonna warmonger. The man is obsessed although Ukraine seems to have fallen off the radar.
    Are you talking to me again now? You seemed very angry the other day, hope you've calmed down now. More of a mental health check in than anything else.
    No. Bart. He seems obsessed with war, it was Ukraine before this.

    Ethnic cleansing is also on the agenda.
  • Options
    AverageNinjaAverageNinja Posts: 1,169

    Which no-go areas?

    Exactly, where are these areas @Luckyguy1983?
  • Options
    StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 7,162

    On topic, indirectly: Too bad about the loss of the Rubymar: "A British cargo ship sank in the Red Sea after an attack by Houthi militants, taking some 21,000 metric tons of fertilizer down with it, posing a significant environmental risk to one of the world’s busiest waterways and the home of many coral reefs.

    The Rubymar was struck by an anti-ballistic missile fired by the Iranian-backed Houthis on Feb. 18 and sank early Saturday after “slowly taking on water” since the attack, U.S. Central Command said on social media early Sunday local time."
    source$: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2024/03/03/rubymar-houthi-attack-red-sea/

    Apparently there were no casualties, for which we may be grateful. The ship was "was heading to Belarus from the United Arab Emirates when it was targeted".

    That much fertilizer could have helped feed hundreds of thousands, perhaps even millions.

    How does a ship get to Belarus?

  • Options
    BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 18,824

    If Hamas are in Rafah then they need to be confronted there.

    How else can Hamas be destroyed, in practice?

    Not wishy washy intentions, practical alternative steps to vanquish them please.

    So what you are saying is that killing thousands of women and children is worth it, potentially radicalising thousands more and destroying any chance of a peace process?

    Have you spoken with the international community, including, erh, the US? You're on your own.
    I'm saying that Hamas need to be vanquished, wherever they are, whatever it takes.

    F**k the US if they disagree, they'd quite rightly do the same if they were faced with the same situation.

    What's the purpose of all that's happened for the last few months if Hamas are allowed to retreat to Rafah and then get away without being destroyed?

    If you're going to get rid of a cancer, you need to get all of it.
  • Options
    AverageNinjaAverageNinja Posts: 1,169
    Taz said:

    Taz said:

    Credit to Starmer and Sunak for not pandering to the hate-filled extremists in the far-left and far-right.

    Israel has the right and responsibility for self-defence from the monsters that are Hamas who must be destroyed, which is not yet accomplished. Israel needs to go into Rafah and anywhere else that Hamas might be hiding.

    If Hamas want an end to the war, they can release all hostages, disband and relinquish their arms.

    The fact you are so willing to see so many people killed is really sad.

    (And before you try and make out that I don't want to see Hamas removed as you did last time, the answer is still, they should be removed.)
    Warmongers gonna warmonger. The man is obsessed although Ukraine seems to have fallen off the radar.
    Are you talking to me again now? You seemed very angry the other day, hope you've calmed down now. More of a mental health check in than anything else.
    No. Bart. He seems obsessed with war, it was Ukraine before this.

    So you're not talking to me? That's a shame but hope whatever's going on you can sort out.
  • Options
    BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 18,824
    Taz said:

    Taz said:

    Credit to Starmer and Sunak for not pandering to the hate-filled extremists in the far-left and far-right.

    Israel has the right and responsibility for self-defence from the monsters that are Hamas who must be destroyed, which is not yet accomplished. Israel needs to go into Rafah and anywhere else that Hamas might be hiding.

    If Hamas want an end to the war, they can release all hostages, disband and relinquish their arms.

    The fact you are so willing to see so many people killed is really sad.

    (And before you try and make out that I don't want to see Hamas removed as you did last time, the answer is still, they should be removed.)
    Warmongers gonna warmonger. The man is obsessed although Ukraine seems to have fallen off the radar.
    Are you talking to me again now? You seemed very angry the other day, hope you've calmed down now. More of a mental health check in than anything else.
    No. Bart. He seems obsessed with war, it was Ukraine before this.

    Russia chose to attack Ukraine.
    Hamas chose to attack Israel.

    I fully support the victim of both attacks having the right of self-defence, absolutely.

    No apologies for that. If Russia and Hamas didn't do the attacks, there'd be no war.
  • Options
    AverageNinjaAverageNinja Posts: 1,169

    If Hamas are in Rafah then they need to be confronted there.

    How else can Hamas be destroyed, in practice?

    Not wishy washy intentions, practical alternative steps to vanquish them please.

    So what you are saying is that killing thousands of women and children is worth it, potentially radicalising thousands more and destroying any chance of a peace process?

    Have you spoken with the international community, including, erh, the US? You're on your own.
    I'm saying that Hamas need to be vanquished, wherever they are, whatever it takes.

    F**k the US if they disagree, they'd quite rightly do the same if they were faced with the same situation.

    What's the purpose of all that's happened for the last few months if Hamas are allowed to retreat to Rafah and then get away without being destroyed?

    If you're going to get rid of a cancer, you need to get all of it.
    You're talking like a serial killer. Distressing.

    Can you justify long term why creating a new generation of radicalised killers and murdering thousands of children and mothers is going to help destroy Hamas?
  • Options
    AverageNinjaAverageNinja Posts: 1,169

    Taz said:

    Taz said:

    Credit to Starmer and Sunak for not pandering to the hate-filled extremists in the far-left and far-right.

    Israel has the right and responsibility for self-defence from the monsters that are Hamas who must be destroyed, which is not yet accomplished. Israel needs to go into Rafah and anywhere else that Hamas might be hiding.

    If Hamas want an end to the war, they can release all hostages, disband and relinquish their arms.

    The fact you are so willing to see so many people killed is really sad.

    (And before you try and make out that I don't want to see Hamas removed as you did last time, the answer is still, they should be removed.)
    Warmongers gonna warmonger. The man is obsessed although Ukraine seems to have fallen off the radar.
    Are you talking to me again now? You seemed very angry the other day, hope you've calmed down now. More of a mental health check in than anything else.
    No. Bart. He seems obsessed with war, it was Ukraine before this.

    Russia chose to attack Ukraine.
    Hamas chose to attack Israel.

    I fully support the victim of both attacks having the right of self-defence, absolutely.

    No apologies for that. If Russia and Hamas didn't do the attacks, there'd be no war.
    There was ALREADY a war.
  • Options
    BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 18,824

    If Hamas are in Rafah then they need to be confronted there.

    How else can Hamas be destroyed, in practice?

    Not wishy washy intentions, practical alternative steps to vanquish them please.

    So what you are saying is that killing thousands of women and children is worth it, potentially radicalising thousands more and destroying any chance of a peace process?

    Have you spoken with the international community, including, erh, the US? You're on your own.
    I'm saying that Hamas need to be vanquished, wherever they are, whatever it takes.

    F**k the US if they disagree, they'd quite rightly do the same if they were faced with the same situation.

    What's the purpose of all that's happened for the last few months if Hamas are allowed to retreat to Rafah and then get away without being destroyed?

    If you're going to get rid of a cancer, you need to get all of it.
    You're talking like a serial killer. Distressing.

    Can you justify long term why creating a new generation of radicalised killers and murdering thousands of children and mothers is going to help destroy Hamas?
    Because if Hamas are destroyed it can create space for a post-Hamas free future for Gaza, which is impossible with them remaining present.

    If Hamas survive this and remain in charge of Gaza then Gaza will return to being an impoverished open air prison which has no chance whatsoever for development and will radicalise another generation come what may.

    Unconditional defeat of evil regimes allows a better chance for a future free from them.

    Defeating the Nazis allowed for a free Germany.
    Defeating Imperial Japan allowed for a free Japan.
    Defeat Hamas, no half measures, then hope for a free Palestine afterwards.
  • Options
    TazTaz Posts: 11,483

    Taz said:

    Taz said:

    Credit to Starmer and Sunak for not pandering to the hate-filled extremists in the far-left and far-right.

    Israel has the right and responsibility for self-defence from the monsters that are Hamas who must be destroyed, which is not yet accomplished. Israel needs to go into Rafah and anywhere else that Hamas might be hiding.

    If Hamas want an end to the war, they can release all hostages, disband and relinquish their arms.

    The fact you are so willing to see so many people killed is really sad.

    (And before you try and make out that I don't want to see Hamas removed as you did last time, the answer is still, they should be removed.)
    Warmongers gonna warmonger. The man is obsessed although Ukraine seems to have fallen off the radar.
    Are you talking to me again now? You seemed very angry the other day, hope you've calmed down now. More of a mental health check in than anything else.
    No. Bart. He seems obsessed with war, it was Ukraine before this.

    So you're not talking to me? That's a shame but hope whatever's going on you can sort out.
    Eh, whatever’s going on ? Haven’t got a clue what you are referring to.

    Nothing is going on. Life is just fine. I love this time of year.
  • Options
    viewcodeviewcode Posts: 19,244

    CatMan said:

    Funnily enough ID Cards were originally introduced in a 10 minute rule bill, by a very obscure Labour MP called "Nick Palmer". Wonder what he's up to these days...

    @NickPalmer can you justify this one?
    Glad to try! I mostly grew up in Denmark and lived for many years in Switzerland, both of which have ID cards for everyone. A Communist in my early days and always on the left, I mixed with all kinds of people who were generally wary of the establishment and critical of authoritarian measures, but I never once encountered anyone who objected to ID cards - they simply made life easier. When I returned to Britain I was bemused to find the business about producing a utility bill and a council or bank statement every time I wantd to prove who I was - it just seemed a bureaucratic nuisance.

    I put the proposal up to have an interesting debate (10 Minute Rule Bills rarely become law), and got a friend to oppose it so we could have a proper presentation of the arguments on both sides (the LibDem spokesman supported me, incidentally). The case against seems to come down to authoritarian misuse - essentially the argument that if the authorities don't know who you are, it's easier to avoid them mistreating you. I'm afraid that is an illusion - in practice, if the authorities want to identify you, they have numerous ways of doing it, and in addition everyone from supermarkets to political parties know far more about you than you might really want to disclose. The only person who really benefits from a simple way to prove identity is...you.
    If you give the government the authority to prove who you are, you give them the authority to disprove who you are. You were never anything other than a dinner-party revolutionary Nick :)
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,334
    Is there a swing back to SNP of much significance? The Survation poll still has the SNP down 7% on 2019 and a swing of 10.5% from SNP to Labour since the last UK general election
  • Options
    BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 18,824

    Taz said:

    Taz said:

    Credit to Starmer and Sunak for not pandering to the hate-filled extremists in the far-left and far-right.

    Israel has the right and responsibility for self-defence from the monsters that are Hamas who must be destroyed, which is not yet accomplished. Israel needs to go into Rafah and anywhere else that Hamas might be hiding.

    If Hamas want an end to the war, they can release all hostages, disband and relinquish their arms.

    The fact you are so willing to see so many people killed is really sad.

    (And before you try and make out that I don't want to see Hamas removed as you did last time, the answer is still, they should be removed.)
    Warmongers gonna warmonger. The man is obsessed although Ukraine seems to have fallen off the radar.
    Are you talking to me again now? You seemed very angry the other day, hope you've calmed down now. More of a mental health check in than anything else.
    No. Bart. He seems obsessed with war, it was Ukraine before this.

    Russia chose to attack Ukraine.
    Hamas chose to attack Israel.

    I fully support the victim of both attacks having the right of self-defence, absolutely.

    No apologies for that. If Russia and Hamas didn't do the attacks, there'd be no war.
    There was ALREADY a war.
    Yes I know, Israel was attacked in the past, however there was a ceasefire which Hamas broke - again.

    Getting another ceasefire without destroying Hamas will just guarantee another war down the line. Do you want another war down the line? I don't.
  • Options
    JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 39,327

    On topic, indirectly: Too bad about the loss of the Rubymar: "A British cargo ship sank in the Red Sea after an attack by Houthi militants, taking some 21,000 metric tons of fertilizer down with it, posing a significant environmental risk to one of the world’s busiest waterways and the home of many coral reefs.

    The Rubymar was struck by an anti-ballistic missile fired by the Iranian-backed Houthis on Feb. 18 and sank early Saturday after “slowly taking on water” since the attack, U.S. Central Command said on social media early Sunday local time."
    source$: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2024/03/03/rubymar-houthi-attack-red-sea/

    Apparently there were no casualties, for which we may be grateful. The ship was "was heading to Belarus from the United Arab Emirates when it was targeted".

    That much fertilizer could have helped feed hundreds of thousands, perhaps even millions.

    There's one PBer who'll be cheering on the ship sinking. It doesn't matter how many sailors die (*); how much prices go up for the poor in other countries, how many Yemenis his friends kill or what starvation is caused; as long as *his* cause is supported by the Houthi's actions...

    Which they are not.

    (*) Thankfully none in this case
  • Options
    AverageNinjaAverageNinja Posts: 1,169
    Taz said:

    Taz said:

    Taz said:

    Credit to Starmer and Sunak for not pandering to the hate-filled extremists in the far-left and far-right.

    Israel has the right and responsibility for self-defence from the monsters that are Hamas who must be destroyed, which is not yet accomplished. Israel needs to go into Rafah and anywhere else that Hamas might be hiding.

    If Hamas want an end to the war, they can release all hostages, disband and relinquish their arms.

    The fact you are so willing to see so many people killed is really sad.

    (And before you try and make out that I don't want to see Hamas removed as you did last time, the answer is still, they should be removed.)
    Warmongers gonna warmonger. The man is obsessed although Ukraine seems to have fallen off the radar.
    Are you talking to me again now? You seemed very angry the other day, hope you've calmed down now. More of a mental health check in than anything else.
    No. Bart. He seems obsessed with war, it was Ukraine before this.

    So you're not talking to me? That's a shame but hope whatever's going on you can sort out.
    Eh, whatever’s going on ? Haven’t got a clue what you are referring to.

    Nothing is going on. Life is just fine. I love this time of year.
    You were very angry the other day and I just wondered if you were okay. You seemed very angry with me certainly.

    If everything is fine I won’t mention it again.

    I personally don’t like this time of year at all but the secret trick I have is Vitamin D which makes a massive difference.
  • Options
    AverageNinjaAverageNinja Posts: 1,169

    Taz said:

    Taz said:

    Credit to Starmer and Sunak for not pandering to the hate-filled extremists in the far-left and far-right.

    Israel has the right and responsibility for self-defence from the monsters that are Hamas who must be destroyed, which is not yet accomplished. Israel needs to go into Rafah and anywhere else that Hamas might be hiding.

    If Hamas want an end to the war, they can release all hostages, disband and relinquish their arms.

    The fact you are so willing to see so many people killed is really sad.

    (And before you try and make out that I don't want to see Hamas removed as you did last time, the answer is still, they should be removed.)
    Warmongers gonna warmonger. The man is obsessed although Ukraine seems to have fallen off the radar.
    Are you talking to me again now? You seemed very angry the other day, hope you've calmed down now. More of a mental health check in than anything else.
    No. Bart. He seems obsessed with war, it was Ukraine before this.

    Russia chose to attack Ukraine.
    Hamas chose to attack Israel.

    I fully support the victim of both attacks having the right of self-defence, absolutely.

    No apologies for that. If Russia and Hamas didn't do the attacks, there'd be no war.
    There was ALREADY a war.
    Yes I know, Israel was attacked in the past, however there was a ceasefire which Hamas broke - again.

    Getting another ceasefire without destroying Hamas will just guarantee another war down the line. Do you want another war down the line? I don't.
    If you don’t want another war it’s an odd decision to create a whole generation of Hamas agents who would love to start another one. Your strategy is self-defeating.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,334
    edited March 3
    Roger said:

    A 'like' for the header. Dismal leadership from both. If Trump becomes President and with the UK being outside the EU the lack of independent thought from our leaders is going to be very serious

    It isn't, on Ukraine NATO is more important than the EU and we remain in that and on Israel and Palestine our position is largely neutral ie pushing for Hamas to release hostages and Israel to then agree a ceasefire like most European nations, Australia, the Biden US and Canada.

    Trump's US would be a relative outlier from us and the rest of the West ie more pro Netanyahu in the Middle East and even supporting his occupation of most of Palestine and less pro Zelensky and pushing for him to agree a deal with Putin
  • Options
    algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 10,752

    On topic, indirectly: Too bad about the loss of the Rubymar: "A British cargo ship sank in the Red Sea after an attack by Houthi militants, taking some 21,000 metric tons of fertilizer down with it, posing a significant environmental risk to one of the world’s busiest waterways and the home of many coral reefs.

    The Rubymar was struck by an anti-ballistic missile fired by the Iranian-backed Houthis on Feb. 18 and sank early Saturday after “slowly taking on water” since the attack, U.S. Central Command said on social media early Sunday local time."
    source$: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2024/03/03/rubymar-houthi-attack-red-sea/

    Apparently there were no casualties, for which we may be grateful. The ship was "was heading to Belarus from the United Arab Emirates when it was targeted".

    That much fertilizer could have helped feed hundreds of thousands, perhaps even millions.

    How does a ship get to Belarus?

    Though landlocked It has a number of ports. You ask Maersk for the details.
  • Options
    TazTaz Posts: 11,483
    Not fans of the Queen Vic. One has to ask where security are .

    https://x.com/thisis_rigged/status/1764275010795979202?s=61
  • Options
    viewcodeviewcode Posts: 19,244
    Taz said:

    Credit to Starmer and Sunak for not pandering to the hate-filled extremists in the far-left and far-right.

    Israel has the right and responsibility for self-defence from the monsters that are Hamas who must be destroyed, which is not yet accomplished. Israel needs to go into Rafah and anywhere else that Hamas might be hiding.

    If Hamas want an end to the war, they can release all hostages, disband and relinquish their arms.

    The fact you are so willing to see so many people killed is really sad.

    (And before you try and make out that I don't want to see Hamas removed as you did last time, the answer is still, they should be removed.)
    Warmongers gonna warmonger. The man is obsessed although Ukraine seems to have fallen off the radar.
    Speaking of which:

    "The Ukraine War in 2024 - The Military and Economic Balance of the Long War", Perun, YouTube, 2024/03/03, see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQLI8xnINqk

  • Options
    Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 9,348
    I wonder if the Tory Right are planning to go absolutely nuclear over race and Islam - something along the lines that every Muslim in Britain will have sign a pledge committing themselves unwaveringly to 'British Values' whilst repudiating anything deemed incompatible with 'Judeo-Christian' traditions, otherwise they face deportation or jail. (Rishi has got wind of this and has positioned himself in advance.) The likes of Anderson, Braverman and Truss do seem to be gearing up for something big.
  • Options
    BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 18,824

    Taz said:

    Taz said:

    Credit to Starmer and Sunak for not pandering to the hate-filled extremists in the far-left and far-right.

    Israel has the right and responsibility for self-defence from the monsters that are Hamas who must be destroyed, which is not yet accomplished. Israel needs to go into Rafah and anywhere else that Hamas might be hiding.

    If Hamas want an end to the war, they can release all hostages, disband and relinquish their arms.

    The fact you are so willing to see so many people killed is really sad.

    (And before you try and make out that I don't want to see Hamas removed as you did last time, the answer is still, they should be removed.)
    Warmongers gonna warmonger. The man is obsessed although Ukraine seems to have fallen off the radar.
    Are you talking to me again now? You seemed very angry the other day, hope you've calmed down now. More of a mental health check in than anything else.
    No. Bart. He seems obsessed with war, it was Ukraine before this.

    Russia chose to attack Ukraine.
    Hamas chose to attack Israel.

    I fully support the victim of both attacks having the right of self-defence, absolutely.

    No apologies for that. If Russia and Hamas didn't do the attacks, there'd be no war.
    There was ALREADY a war.
    Yes I know, Israel was attacked in the past, however there was a ceasefire which Hamas broke - again.

    Getting another ceasefire without destroying Hamas will just guarantee another war down the line. Do you want another war down the line? I don't.
    If you don’t want another war it’s an odd decision to create a whole generation of Hamas agents who would love to start another one. Your strategy is self-defeating.
    The way to avoid creating a whole generation of Hamas agents is to 100% destroy Hamas today, then afterwards have a post-Hamas reconstruction and development like the Marshal plan in Germany.

    Stick and carrot. Its worked before and can work again.

    Allow Hamas to survive this, have a meaningless "ceasefire" then have Gaza returned to being a blockaded hellhole that can't develop as Hamas are there and you just guarantee another generation of Hamas agents.

    You're advocating the latter, whether you understand it or not. Give peace a chance, vanquish Hamas then develop Gaza without them.
  • Options
    DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 24,753
    Queen Victoria's bust daubed with 'c**t' and covered in porridge in mad eco-protest
    https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/weird-news/queen-victorias-bust-daubed-ct-32262741

    This is Rigged are protesting against the SNP and rickets.
  • Options
    AverageNinjaAverageNinja Posts: 1,169
    edited March 3

    Taz said:

    Taz said:

    Credit to Starmer and Sunak for not pandering to the hate-filled extremists in the far-left and far-right.

    Israel has the right and responsibility for self-defence from the monsters that are Hamas who must be destroyed, which is not yet accomplished. Israel needs to go into Rafah and anywhere else that Hamas might be hiding.

    If Hamas want an end to the war, they can release all hostages, disband and relinquish their arms.

    The fact you are so willing to see so many people killed is really sad.

    (And before you try and make out that I don't want to see Hamas removed as you did last time, the answer is still, they should be removed.)
    Warmongers gonna warmonger. The man is obsessed although Ukraine seems to have fallen off the radar.
    Are you talking to me again now? You seemed very angry the other day, hope you've calmed down now. More of a mental health check in than anything else.
    No. Bart. He seems obsessed with war, it was Ukraine before this.

    Russia chose to attack Ukraine.
    Hamas chose to attack Israel.

    I fully support the victim of both attacks having the right of self-defence, absolutely.

    No apologies for that. If Russia and Hamas didn't do the attacks, there'd be no war.
    There was ALREADY a war.
    Yes I know, Israel was attacked in the past, however there was a ceasefire which Hamas broke - again.

    Getting another ceasefire without destroying Hamas will just guarantee another war down the line. Do you want another war down the line? I don't.
    If you don’t want another war it’s an odd decision to create a whole generation of Hamas agents who would love to start another one. Your strategy is self-defeating.
    The way to avoid creating a whole generation of Hamas agents is to 100% destroy Hamas today, then afterwards have a post-Hamas reconstruction and development like the Marshal plan in Germany.

    Stick and carrot. Its worked before and can work again.

    Allow Hamas to survive this, have a meaningless "ceasefire" then have Gaza returned to being a blockaded hellhole that can't develop as Hamas are there and you just guarantee another generation of Hamas agents.

    You're advocating the latter, whether you understand it or not. Give peace a chance, vanquish Hamas then develop Gaza without them.
    Are you seriously saying that by destroying Rafah Hamas will never start again? When has this EVER happened?

    Mark my words, destroying Rafah will set peace back. The US knows it. The UK knows it. Apparently you don’t.
This discussion has been closed.