It’s time to retire the word “racist”. It’s lost whatever original meaning it once had and is now freely applied, often as a straightforward attempt to “cancel” or delegitimise someone or something.
I now prefer the word “prejudiced”. One can be prejudiced against black people, white people, Muslims, Scotsmen, accordion-players, Tory MPs, and Cheshire-based PB posters.
We are all, in fact, somewhat prejudiced. It is a human failing against which we must constantly check ourselves. Being “prejudiced” therefore is a hopefully temporary state of sin, capable of correction, whereas “racist” is used now to significantly a permanent state of moral perdition.
When I lived in NZ 3 decades ago there was a great euphemism in use. If someone made a racist comment etc they would be asked "don't you think that is a bit culturally insensitive?".
Far less confrontational than calling someone racist, and it did require people to examine their attitudes.
I think "culturally insensitive" is a very useful phrase still.
Well with all due respect, as one example, after the killing of the aid workers you said it was deliberate and that they'd not apologised.
Despite the fact they immediately apologised and said it immediately was a tragic mistake.
They've now not just apologised and promised an investigation, but sacked those behind the mistake.
Do you accept it was a tragic mistake, or do you still insist it was deliberate? We have made mistakes in wars in the past, in the fog of war everyone does.
I am sure Alan Duncan's comments will have a week of daily headlines, because everyone knows anti-Semitism is treated equally whether you are a Labour or Tory MP.
Duncan is alleging that Senior politicians in the Lords and Commons are bidding for an overseas Government. I don't believe he is remotely anti-Semitic but he calls into question domestic corruption.
I agree with this. His comments are criticising the Nethanyahu regime and our govts closeness to it which is fair comment. There may be other stuff he has said that was not quoted but from what I have seen I think this issue is artificial offence.
Of course we have the Israeli ultras here who think any criticism of Israel and its govt is also anti semitic.
Criticism of the Israeli government is entirely legitimate.
Holding them to standards you wouldn't hold any other nation is not.
True and neither is giving them a free pass on things you wouldn’t give a free pass to other nations on either.
I am sure Alan Duncan's comments will have a week of daily headlines, because everyone knows anti-Semitism is treated equally whether you are a Labour or Tory MP.
Alan Duncan rightly criticized Israel's long policies of colonization of Palestinian land. Jeremy Corbyn openly praised murals of money-grabbing, big-nosed Jews crushing the world's poor. What a ridiculous comparison.
The papers gave a lot of attention to a Labour MP that said "fucking Israel".
On Corbyn they had a point.
Sometimes these racist pictures are subtle enough to go over your head unless you are racist in the first place. Often in the case of Jews I am blissfully unaware the person being attacked is Jewish in the first place, whereas an anti-Semite probably will be. That was true for me regarding Howard and Letwin before they were attacked. Didn't cross my mind they were Jewish and didn't care.
However in the case of the Corbyn mural controversy your racist radar would have to be switched off entirely and buried 12 feet underground not to spot that was an attack on Jews.
I do believe Corbyn is anti-Semitic. Having been down the rabbit hole, I am afraid cults are very real.
How do you know you are not down a rabbit hole now.
FPT - my sense is Israel won't take the gloves off until all the hostages are released and Hamas are destroyed. And since the hostages are basically the only leverage Hamas still has they won't release them.
Israel is (still) very, very angry. They have little respect for the Palestinians anyway - who they probably hold collectively culpable for Hamas being ensconced in Gaza in the first place - and it blinds them to any recklessness in their actions. And they don't care because they don't think they should have been there in the first place, and now they've attacked them they will experience their full unchained wrath in all its hideous glory and any amd all consequences are entirely on them.
Unfortunately, this has now gotten so severe that it's changed my mind on the issue. Dropping targeted ordinance on aid workers on a safe route and engineering famine as a weapon of war is not ok. And I talk as someone who holds no candle whatsoever for the Palestinians or the assortment of Islamists, Marxists and socialist workers who associate with them. They've lost their sense of proportion. They've lost their friends. Yes, there is antisemitism around but that's not a free pass to rebut any and all criticism of their state policy and military actions, particularly when it comes from their friends.
Israel might not care but they need to be made to care for their own sake: when you have clear splits at the top of the Tory party, Biden dropping ultimatums and calling for a ceasefire and even Trump telling you to pack it in you know you have a problem.
I still find it difficult to believe that an aid convoy of foreign nationals would be deliberately targeted by the Israelis at the top level, precisely because of the international reaction they would know it would bring.
I’m sure there have also been a number of war crimes committed by Ukranians in the last couple of years, but it doesn’t mean their overall aims are not just or that we should stop supporting them.
War is horrible, but also something that thankfully few of us in the West have experienced in our lives. But for some people in the world, most obviously the Ukranians and Israelis at the moment, it’s an existential threat.
Of course, it might just be that the Israelis have ceased to care what anyone else thinks, and are going to make life utter Hell for Hamas-controlled areas until they surrender and hand over their hostages and weapons. We already know that the Russians and Hamas don’t care what the rest of the world thinks about their behaviour, and see local civilians as fair game in their wars despite international agreements and understandings on such things.
I’m sure Casino meant to say ‘put the gloves on’ rather than take them off; at least, I hope he did!
The tragedy is that the country’s international reputation is being trashed to try and save the career of its PM, who probably faces jail when this whole story ends, anyway, and for a strategy that won’t work on its own terms, has sown the discord that will fuel another generation of conflict, and still has the capacity to spiral into a wider conflict.
A part of the problem is that a chunk of Israeli society has reacted to decades of Death To Israel by believing that the answer is Death To Them. That the answer is to become like their opponents. Then to surpass them. To be perfectly ruthless.
That spiral doesn’t end.
It can but it shows once again what a truly remarkable figure Mandela was. It requires something like that, someone who can inspire and lead to grace and forgiveness. I don't currently see anyone of that ilk in Israel and, even if there was, I am not detecting much inclination on the part of the population to vote for them.
I should say, closer to home, Martin McGuiness and the late Dr Rev Ian Paisley deserve honourable mentions in this context as well.
McGuiness and Paisley honourable?
They were the two men most responsible for the orgy of violence NI endured for nearly 30 years. That they only ended it when they could get their mitts on power makes them grade "A" *****! Not fit to lick Mandela's boots.
True, but both had seen that they were perpetuating an endless cycle of violence.
You don't make peace by talking to your friends, you do it by talking to your enemies.
Yes, but you should not laud people for doing the right thing only after they have tried every other alternative, and caused thousands of people fear, pain or death.
Why not? People are not 100% good or evil. They have done evil things but McGuiness and Paisley also did a surprising and great thing too that has changed lots of lives for the better since. Happy to give them plenty of credit for that.
People are indeed not 100% good or evil. But these gentlemen are far, far nearer the evil end of that scale than the 'good' end. If Hitler had recanted at the end and gone for peace, say in 1944, should we have said: "Well, that's all okay then?"
Well they weren't Hitler either. Had a mid level Nazi successfully overthrown Hitler, renounced the Nazi state and started a peace process, yes that person should have got a fair amount of credit.
We also seem to have swept Mandela's own violent acts conveniently under a rug. Far more violent than anything done by Rev. Paisley.
The question has often come up 'why vote for the reform party'. Another reason is to register a protest at the conduct of the Civil Service. The way Dominic Raab was bought down by the civil service shows that politicians cannot run anything anymore. A large number of civil servants made allegations against Raab that were not proven in the Inquiry (report linked to below) even on the very low test applied, but faced no adverse consequence at all, were repeatedly praised in the report. However one finding of workplace bullying, a highly subjective test, did Raab in. The whole situation is laughable but it is the conservative government, beholden to its own civil servants, who are presiding over the mess. People keep saying it is impossible to vote for Donald Trump but the situation that exists at the moment has just failed completely and he is offering something different. See also what Dominic Cummings has been saying for years.
Donald Trump is not offering something different with respect to the British Civil Service. I'm unclear why you're referenced Trump.
Trump has made suggestions viz-a-viz the US civil service. I am unconvinced that his proposals would be effective. They appear to consist of making him immune from all crimes and only employing people who worship him. Neither of these seem good for the country.
How do you know you are not down a rabbit hole now.
Well, I can never know that for sure. I don't think you can either.
But I don't feel like I am. I'm quite aware of Starmer's flaws for example and I am quite prepared to vote Conservative if Labour ends up screwing up the country.
Well with all due respect, as one example, after the killing of the aid workers you said it was deliberate and that they'd not apologised.
Despite the fact they immediately apologised and said it immediately was a tragic mistake.
They've now not just apologised and promised an investigation, but sacked those behind the mistake.
Do you accept it was a tragic mistake, or do you still insist it was deliberate? We have made mistakes in wars in the past, in the fog of war everyone does.
How is any of this anti-Semitic?
It depends.
If you're consistent and would do the same with Britain and Russia and America and everyone else then it's not.
If you're holding them to separate standards because they're Jews and Jews can do no right, then it is.
I'm not saying you personally are. But I do think, with all due respect, you flirt with the edge and it's fuelled in part by innocently swallowing the propaganda of those who outright are.
He is not perfectly adequate. He’s a bed-blocker for someone who actually believes in London and is willing to use the admittedly-limited powers available to advance its cause.
That he is better than Hall is no recommendation.
In my darker moments, I fear that Starmer could be a kind of national Khan.
So who would you like to be Mayor?
Personally I would have voted for Rory Stewart.
Livingstone (First Term) and Johnson (First Term) were pretty good.
You want someone with a bit of urban passion who is willing to use the bully pulpit to influence broader stakeholders.
Not sure Rory’s got that either, to be honest.
Andy Birmingham and Andy Manchester both seems to do that pretty well. Who is there who is able (and, more importantly, willing) to do the same for London? Sadiq and Susan are meh-to-awful, but there's no obvious good alternatives that they have blocked.
(Part of Khan's problem is that he's had eight years, he's basically done what he set out to do in ULEZ, but there isn't a plausible successor who could let him retire, even if he wanted to.)
I think the key to being a good Mayor like Livingstone, Johnson, Burnham etc is to have charisma and vision, but also to have a personal hinterland in the city. As it is mostly a figurehead role competence in administration is of lesser importance.
I am sure Alan Duncan's comments will have a week of daily headlines, because everyone knows anti-Semitism is treated equally whether you are a Labour or Tory MP.
Alan Duncan isn’t a Tory MP.
The Conservative former minister Alan Duncan
Your original quote was about the differing attitudes towards antisemitism between Labour and Tory MPs.
Alan Duncan isn’t a Tory MP, in sharp contrast to Corbyn’s friends in years past, who were very much Labour MPs at the time, and many of them still are.
Those Labour MPs are scum, clearly.
But the way anti-Semitism is reported in the Tories vs Labour is different. Actually forget anti-Semitism, just racism in general, for example Islamophobia.
I don't think that is true. Alan Duncan is currently having completely legitimate criticism of Israel as being anti-Semitic. I don't know about the Labour MP you mentioned, but from your account of it, they were unfairly treated in exactly the same way Duncan is now.
Islamophobia is a separate issue. Islam is not an innate characteristic of people but a belief system. Criticism of its adherents, fair or ugly, should be treated and reported similar to criticism of socialists, nationalists or any other belief system.
As for racism, Diane Abbott remained part of Labour high office for years despite multiple flat-out racist comments.
Islamophobia is not a separate issue, that is something people that deny it exists. The motivation behind it is clearly racist.
It's sectarian not racist
I think it is more complicated than that. Clearly, strictly speaking, it is sectarian, but I am sure a lot of it is racist as well because the person is brown. Nish Kumar comments on the amount of anti islamic abuse he gets and he is a hindu. Admittedly this is probably mistaken identity but the abusers probably don't care because he is brown anyway and white followers of islam probably get off scott free, again mainly due to their lack of identity but I suspect the colour of their skin has something to do with it as well.
Why not just ignore all of this crap and treat people like people ?
That's what we should do. Clearly many people don't do that, and do treat people as being from certain minoritised groups. That's why we can't ignore this crap.
I am sure Alan Duncan's comments will have a week of daily headlines, because everyone knows anti-Semitism is treated equally whether you are a Labour or Tory MP.
Alan Duncan rightly criticized Israel's long policies of colonization of Palestinian land. Jeremy Corbyn openly praised murals of money-grabbing, big-nosed Jews crushing the world's poor. What a ridiculous comparison.
The papers gave a lot of attention to a Labour MP that said "fucking Israel".
On Corbyn they had a point.
Sometimes these racist pictures are subtle enough to go over your head unless you are racist in the first place. Often in the case of Jews I am blissfully unaware the person being attacked is Jewish in the first place, whereas an anti-Semite probably will be. That was true for me regarding Howard and Letwin before they were attacked. Didn't cross my mind they were Jewish and didn't care.
However in the case of the Corbyn mural controversy your racist radar would have to be switched off entirely and buried 12 feet underground not to spot that was an attack on Jews.
I do believe Corbyn is anti-Semitic. Having been down the rabbit hole, I am afraid cults are very real.
@BatteryCorrectHorse - You say you have been down that rabbit hole? Have you? I am fascinated how that happens. People who appear perfectly sane who just flip and fall into cults or conspiracies. I just don't get it, but it happens. We had it here with Plato. David Icke is an extreme example. The Liberals and Greens had near misses with him when he appeared quite sane before he went weird.
How does it happen?
There's a Cult in America that has about 30 million members - pretty worrying given a common characteristic of people who succumb to Cults is some sort of mental infirmity.
This must win lefty, Guardian-reading, blinkered bien-pensant post of the year.
30 million people have some sort of mental infirmity.
I am sure Alan Duncan's comments will have a week of daily headlines, because everyone knows anti-Semitism is treated equally whether you are a Labour or Tory MP.
Alan Duncan rightly criticized Israel's long policies of colonization of Palestinian land. Jeremy Corbyn openly praised murals of money-grabbing, big-nosed Jews crushing the world's poor. What a ridiculous comparison.
The papers gave a lot of attention to a Labour MP that said "fucking Israel".
On Corbyn they had a point.
Sometimes these racist pictures are subtle enough to go over your head unless you are racist in the first place. Often in the case of Jews I am blissfully unaware the person being attacked is Jewish in the first place, whereas an anti-Semite probably will be. That was true for me regarding Howard and Letwin before they were attacked. Didn't cross my mind they were Jewish and didn't care.
However in the case of the Corbyn mural controversy your racist radar would have to be switched off entirely and buried 12 feet underground not to spot that was an attack on Jews.
I do believe Corbyn is anti-Semitic. Having been down the rabbit hole, I am afraid cults are very real.
@BatteryCorrectHorse - You say you have been down that rabbit hole? Have you? I am fascinated how that happens. People who appear perfectly sane who just flip and fall into cults or conspiracies. I just don't get it, but it happens. We had it here with Plato. David Icke is an extreme example. The Liberals and Greens had near misses with him when he appeared quite sane before he went weird.
How does it happen?
There's a Cult in America that has about 30 million members - pretty worrying given a common characteristic of people who succumb to Cults is some sort of mental infirmity.
This must win lefty, Guardian-reading, blinkered bien-pensant post of the year.
30 million people have some sort of mental infirmity.
How is that letter-writing campaign.
I would say that the level of support for QAnon in the USA is such that 30 million cultists is probably an underestimate.
He is not perfectly adequate. He’s a bed-blocker for someone who actually believes in London and is willing to use the admittedly-limited powers available to advance its cause.
That he is better than Hall is no recommendation.
In my darker moments, I fear that Starmer could be a kind of national Khan.
So who would you like to be Mayor?
Personally I would have voted for Rory Stewart.
Livingstone (First Term) and Johnson (First Term) were pretty good.
You want someone with a bit of urban passion who is willing to use the bully pulpit to influence broader stakeholders.
Not sure Rory’s got that either, to be honest.
Andy Birmingham and Andy Manchester both seems to do that pretty well. Who is there who is able (and, more importantly, willing) to do the same for London? Sadiq and Susan are meh-to-awful, but there's no obvious good alternatives that they have blocked.
(Part of Khan's problem is that he's had eight years, he's basically done what he set out to do in ULEZ, but there isn't a plausible successor who could let him retire, even if he wanted to.)
He is not perfectly adequate. He’s a bed-blocker for someone who actually believes in London and is willing to use the admittedly-limited powers available to advance its cause.
That he is better than Hall is no recommendation.
In my darker moments, I fear that Starmer could be a kind of national Khan.
So who would you like to be Mayor?
Personally I would have voted for Rory Stewart.
Livingstone (First Term) and Johnson (First Term) were pretty good.
You want someone with a bit of urban passion who is willing to use the bully pulpit to influence broader stakeholders.
Not sure Rory’s got that either, to be honest.
(a pedant writes: the term "bully pulpit" was IIUC coined by Theodore Roosevelt who used the word "bully" in his period's sense, which is to say expansive, loud, and wonderful. We'd use "awesome" today. The meaning of the word has changed over the years and become an insult)
I am sure Alan Duncan's comments will have a week of daily headlines, because everyone knows anti-Semitism is treated equally whether you are a Labour or Tory MP.
Duncan is alleging that Senior politicians in the Lords and Commons are bidding for an overseas Government. I don't believe he is remotely anti-Semitic but he calls into question domestic corruption.
I agree with this. His comments are criticising the Nethanyahu regime and our govts closeness to it which is fair comment. There may be other stuff he has said that was not quoted but from what I have seen I think this issue is artificial offence.
Of course we have the Israeli ultras here who think any criticism of Israel and its govt is also anti semitic.
Criticism of the Israeli government is entirely legitimate.
Holding them to standards you wouldn't hold any other nation is not.
I don't think anyone here is doing that. Do you?
Yes.
So would you like to name the people?
Well with all due respect, as one example, after the killing of the aid workers you said it was deliberate and that they'd not apologised.
Despite the fact they immediately apologised and said it immediately was a tragic mistake.
They've now not just apologised and promised an investigation, but sacked those behind the mistake.
Do you accept it was a tragic mistake, or do you still insist it was deliberate? We have made mistakes in wars in the past, in the fog of war everyone does.
They have apologised. They did not immediately apologise.
What counts as deliberate versus a tragic mistake? I think it's possible for both to be true at different levels. Some people in the IDF deliberately targeted those vehicles. They weren't accidentally hit when a drone was targetting something else. It is unclear why, so that targetting decision may have been a tragic mistake. Ergo, something can be deliberate but also a mistake, IYSWIM.
I am sure Alan Duncan's comments will have a week of daily headlines, because everyone knows anti-Semitism is treated equally whether you are a Labour or Tory MP.
Duncan is alleging that Senior politicians in the Lords and Commons are bidding for an overseas Government. I don't believe he is remotely anti-Semitic but he calls into question domestic corruption.
I agree with this. His comments are criticising the Nethanyahu regime and our govts closeness to it which is fair comment. There may be other stuff he has said that was not quoted but from what I have seen I think this issue is artificial offence.
Of course we have the Israeli ultras here who think any criticism of Israel and its govt is also anti semitic.
Criticism of the Israeli government is entirely legitimate.
Holding them to standards you wouldn't hold any other nation is not.
I don't think anyone here is doing that. Do you?
You very openly have described your rabbit hole and cult susceptibility.
Criticism of Israel is entirely legitimate (if it is genuine criticism of Israel; it is not always) but if you also look at some of your comments on the Israeli actions and government you will see that you use hugely emotive language and terms that suggest an extreme of emotion over rationality.
Corby wasn't scum. AFAICS he was a run of the mill lefty, redistributive, anti-semite of which there are zillions around, even on well-respected internet chat rooms. Likewise, the Israeli government are not scum. They are fighting a war. Is Netanyahu scum? I don't follow it that closely to know what he has or hasn't done but I doubt it. I loathe BoJo but I wouldn't call him scum.
He is not perfectly adequate. He’s a bed-blocker for someone who actually believes in London and is willing to use the admittedly-limited powers available to advance its cause.
That he is better than Hall is no recommendation.
In my darker moments, I fear that Starmer could be a kind of national Khan.
So who would you like to be Mayor?
Personally I would have voted for Rory Stewart.
Livingstone (First Term) and Johnson (First Term) were pretty good.
You want someone with a bit of urban passion who is willing to use the bully pulpit to influence broader stakeholders.
Not sure Rory’s got that either, to be honest.
(a pedant writes: the term "bully pulpit" was IIUC coined by Theodore Roosevelt who used the word "bully" in his period's sense, which is to say expansive, loud, and wonderful. We'd use "awesome" today. The meaning of the word has changed over the years and become an insult)
The word bully has changed. The term bully pulpit has not…?
He is not perfectly adequate. He’s a bed-blocker for someone who actually believes in London and is willing to use the admittedly-limited powers available to advance its cause.
That he is better than Hall is no recommendation.
In my darker moments, I fear that Starmer could be a kind of national Khan.
So who would you like to be Mayor?
Personally I would have voted for Rory Stewart.
Livingstone (First Term) and Johnson (First Term) were pretty good.
You want someone with a bit of urban passion who is willing to use the bully pulpit to influence broader stakeholders.
Not sure Rory’s got that either, to be honest.
Andy Birmingham and Andy Manchester both seems to do that pretty well. Who is there who is able (and, more importantly, willing) to do the same for London? Sadiq and Susan are meh-to-awful, but there's no obvious good alternatives that they have blocked.
(Part of Khan's problem is that he's had eight years, he's basically done what he set out to do in ULEZ, but there isn't a plausible successor who could let him retire, even if he wanted to.)
He is not perfectly adequate. He’s a bed-blocker for someone who actually believes in London and is willing to use the admittedly-limited powers available to advance its cause.
That he is better than Hall is no recommendation.
In my darker moments, I fear that Starmer could be a kind of national Khan.
So who would you like to be Mayor?
Personally I would have voted for Rory Stewart.
Livingstone (First Term) and Johnson (First Term) were pretty good.
You want someone with a bit of urban passion who is willing to use the bully pulpit to influence broader stakeholders.
Not sure Rory’s got that either, to be honest.
(a pedant writes: the term "bully pulpit" was IIUC coined by Theodore Roosevelt who used the word "bully" in his period's sense, which is to say expansive, loud, and wonderful. We'd use "awesome" today. The meaning of the word has changed over the years and become an insult)
I am sure Alan Duncan's comments will have a week of daily headlines, because everyone knows anti-Semitism is treated equally whether you are a Labour or Tory MP.
Alan Duncan isn’t a Tory MP.
The Conservative former minister Alan Duncan
Your original quote was about the differing attitudes towards antisemitism between Labour and Tory MPs.
Alan Duncan isn’t a Tory MP, in sharp contrast to Corbyn’s friends in years past, who were very much Labour MPs at the time, and many of them still are.
Those Labour MPs are scum, clearly.
But the way anti-Semitism is reported in the Tories vs Labour is different. Actually forget anti-Semitism, just racism in general, for example Islamophobia.
I don't think that is true. Alan Duncan is currently having completely legitimate criticism of Israel as being anti-Semitic. I don't know about the Labour MP you mentioned, but from your account of it, they were unfairly treated in exactly the same way Duncan is now.
Islamophobia is a separate issue. Islam is not an innate characteristic of people but a belief system. Criticism of its adherents, fair or ugly, should be treated and reported similar to criticism of socialists, nationalists or any other belief system.
As for racism, Diane Abbott remained part of Labour high office for years despite multiple flat-out racist comments.
Islamophobia is not a separate issue, that is something people that deny it exists. The motivation behind it is clearly racist.
It's sectarian not racist
I think it is more complicated than that. Clearly, strictly speaking, it is sectarian, but I am sure a lot of it is racist as well because the person is brown. Nish Kumar comments on the amount of anti islamic abuse he gets and he is a hindu. Admittedly this is probably mistaken identity but the abusers probably don't care because he is brown anyway and white followers of islam probably get off scott free, again mainly due to their lack of identity but I suspect the colour of their skin has something to do with it as well.
Why not just ignore all of this crap and treat people like people ?
That's what we should do. Clearly many people don't do that, and do treat people as being from certain minoritised groups. That's why we can't ignore this crap.
You can and should ignore it, forcing difference upon people helps no-one.
He is not perfectly adequate. He’s a bed-blocker for someone who actually believes in London and is willing to use the admittedly-limited powers available to advance its cause.
That he is better than Hall is no recommendation.
In my darker moments, I fear that Starmer could be a kind of national Khan.
So who would you like to be Mayor?
Personally I would have voted for Rory Stewart.
Livingstone (First Term) and Johnson (First Term) were pretty good.
You want someone with a bit of urban passion who is willing to use the bully pulpit to influence broader stakeholders.
Not sure Rory’s got that either, to be honest.
Andy Birmingham and Andy Manchester both seems to do that pretty well. Who is there who is able (and, more importantly, willing) to do the same for London? Sadiq and Susan are meh-to-awful, but there's no obvious good alternatives that they have blocked.
(Part of Khan's problem is that he's had eight years, he's basically done what he set out to do in ULEZ, but there isn't a plausible successor who could let him retire, even if he wanted to.)
I think the key to being a good Mayor like Livingstone, Johnson, Burnham etc is to have charisma and vision, but also to have a personal hinterland in the city. As it is mostly a figurehead role competence in administration is of lesser importance.
Agree about the hinterland thing. One of the things my dad absolutely loved about being civic mayor of a small Hampshire town was projecting that hinterland about a place where he had spent pretty much all of his life.
But it's harder in London, because so many of its residents are transients. Which is part of what some residents of Romford fear about Londonisation.
Ken had it, but he was odd. Boris had a different version of it, which was only partly fake. Sadiq has a low key version of it. But it's much harder to put your finger on.
I am sure Alan Duncan's comments will have a week of daily headlines, because everyone knows anti-Semitism is treated equally whether you are a Labour or Tory MP.
Duncan is alleging that Senior politicians in the Lords and Commons are bidding for an overseas Government. I don't believe he is remotely anti-Semitic but he calls into question domestic corruption.
I agree with this. His comments are criticising the Nethanyahu regime and our govts closeness to it which is fair comment. There may be other stuff he has said that was not quoted but from what I have seen I think this issue is artificial offence.
Of course we have the Israeli ultras here who think any criticism of Israel and its govt is also anti semitic.
Criticism of the Israeli government is entirely legitimate.
Holding them to standards you wouldn't hold any other nation is not.
I don't think anyone here is doing that. Do you?
Yes.
So would you like to name the people?
Well with all due respect, as one example, after the killing of the aid workers you said it was deliberate and that they'd not apologised.
Despite the fact they immediately apologised and said it immediately was a tragic mistake.
They've now not just apologised and promised an investigation, but sacked those behind the mistake.
Do you accept it was a tragic mistake, or do you still insist it was deliberate? We have made mistakes in wars in the past, in the fog of war everyone does.
The point is not that it isn't a mistake - it was - but that the rules of engagement which are evidently in operation mean that such mistakes are very common.
I am sure Alan Duncan's comments will have a week of daily headlines, because everyone knows anti-Semitism is treated equally whether you are a Labour or Tory MP.
Duncan is alleging that Senior politicians in the Lords and Commons are bidding for an overseas Government. I don't believe he is remotely anti-Semitic but he calls into question domestic corruption.
I agree with this. His comments are criticising the Nethanyahu regime and our govts closeness to it which is fair comment. There may be other stuff he has said that was not quoted but from what I have seen I think this issue is artificial offence.
Of course we have the Israeli ultras here who think any criticism of Israel and its govt is also anti semitic.
Criticism of the Israeli government is entirely legitimate.
Holding them to standards you wouldn't hold any other nation is not.
I don't think anyone here is doing that. Do you?
Yes.
So would you like to name the people?
Well with all due respect, as one example, after the killing of the aid workers you said it was deliberate and that they'd not apologised.
Despite the fact they immediately apologised and said it immediately was a tragic mistake.
They've now not just apologised and promised an investigation, but sacked those behind the mistake.
Do you accept it was a tragic mistake, or do you still insist it was deliberate? We have made mistakes in wars in the past, in the fog of war everyone does.
They have apologised. They did not immediately apologise.
What counts as deliberate versus a tragic mistake? I think it's possible for both to be true at different levels. Some people in the IDF deliberately targeted those vehicles. They weren't accidentally hit when a drone was targetting something else. It is unclear why, so that targetting decision may have been a tragic mistake. Ergo, something can be deliberate but also a mistake, IYSWIM.
I'm not sure on the timescale differential for immediate but at the time we had the conversation it was within about 24 hours of the story breaking and they'd already apologised by that point.
I agree entirely with the rest of your post.
I would class shooting at a vehicle you believe to be used by militants but actually has aid workers as a mistake, even if hitting the vehicle was deliberate.
I would class shooting at a vehicle you know to be only aid workers because you want to kill aid workers to be deliberate.
I believe the former of the two happened. I'm not sure what horse thinks now.
I am sure Alan Duncan's comments will have a week of daily headlines, because everyone knows anti-Semitism is treated equally whether you are a Labour or Tory MP.
Duncan is alleging that Senior politicians in the Lords and Commons are bidding for an overseas Government. I don't believe he is remotely anti-Semitic but he calls into question domestic corruption.
I agree with this. His comments are criticising the Nethanyahu regime and our govts closeness to it which is fair comment. There may be other stuff he has said that was not quoted but from what I have seen I think this issue is artificial offence.
Of course we have the Israeli ultras here who think any criticism of Israel and its govt is also anti semitic.
Criticism of the Israeli government is entirely legitimate.
Holding them to standards you wouldn't hold any other nation is not.
I don't think anyone here is doing that. Do you?
Yes.
So would you like to name the people?
Well with all due respect, as one example, after the killing of the aid workers you said it was deliberate and that they'd not apologised.
Despite the fact they immediately apologised and said it immediately was a tragic mistake.
They've now not just apologised and promised an investigation, but sacked those behind the mistake.
Do you accept it was a tragic mistake, or do you still insist it was deliberate? We have made mistakes in wars in the past, in the fog of war everyone does.
The point is not that it isn't a mistake - it was - but that the rules of engagement which are evidently in operation mean that such mistakes are very common.
I am sure Alan Duncan's comments will have a week of daily headlines, because everyone knows anti-Semitism is treated equally whether you are a Labour or Tory MP.
Duncan is alleging that Senior politicians in the Lords and Commons are bidding for an overseas Government. I don't believe he is remotely anti-Semitic but he calls into question domestic corruption.
I agree with this. His comments are criticising the Nethanyahu regime and our govts closeness to it which is fair comment. There may be other stuff he has said that was not quoted but from what I have seen I think this issue is artificial offence.
Of course we have the Israeli ultras here who think any criticism of Israel and its govt is also anti semitic.
Criticism of the Israeli government is entirely legitimate.
Holding them to standards you wouldn't hold any other nation is not.
I don't think anyone here is doing that. Do you?
Yes.
So would you like to name the people?
Well with all due respect, as one example, after the killing of the aid workers you said it was deliberate and that they'd not apologised.
Despite the fact they immediately apologised and said it immediately was a tragic mistake.
They've now not just apologised and promised an investigation, but sacked those behind the mistake.
Do you accept it was a tragic mistake, or do you still insist it was deliberate? We have made mistakes in wars in the past, in the fog of war everyone does.
The point is not that it isn't a mistake - it was - but that the rules of engagement which are evidently in operation mean that such mistakes are very common.
Isn't that always the case when FIBUA?
Israel should and I believe is doing what it can to keep those mistakes to a minimum, without prejudicial the legitimate military objectives. That's the nature of proportionate warfare. It's the same when we fight a war in built up areas too and isn't helped by Hamas using others as human shields.
I am sure Alan Duncan's comments will have a week of daily headlines, because everyone knows anti-Semitism is treated equally whether you are a Labour or Tory MP.
Duncan is alleging that Senior politicians in the Lords and Commons are bidding for an overseas Government. I don't believe he is remotely anti-Semitic but he calls into question domestic corruption.
I agree with this. His comments are criticising the Nethanyahu regime and our govts closeness to it which is fair comment. There may be other stuff he has said that was not quoted but from what I have seen I think this issue is artificial offence.
Of course we have the Israeli ultras here who think any criticism of Israel and its govt is also anti semitic.
Criticism of the Israeli government is entirely legitimate.
Holding them to standards you wouldn't hold any other nation is not.
I don't think anyone here is doing that. Do you?
You very openly have described your rabbit hole and cult susceptibility.
Criticism of Israel is entirely legitimate (if it is genuine criticism of Israel; it is not always) but if you also look at some of your comments on the Israeli actions and government you will see that you use hugely emotive language and terms that suggest an extreme of emotion over rationality.
Corby wasn't scum. AFAICS he was a run of the mill lefty, redistributive, anti-semite of which there are zillions around, even on well-respected internet chat rooms. Likewise, the Israeli government are not scum. They are fighting a war. Is Netanyahu scum? I don't follow it that closely to know what he has or hasn't done but I doubt it. I loathe BoJo but I wouldn't call him scum.
"They are fighting a war" is not an excuse for any actions.
Is Netanyahu scum? It depends what you mean. He has his political positions. There are the things he said. (For example, in October 2015, he claimed that the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husseini, gave Adolf Hitler the idea for the Holocaust in the preceding months to the Second World War, which is completely untrue.)
After a 3-year investigation, he is currently charged with fraud, accepting bribes and breach of trust. The trial is ongoing. He has, Trump-like, done everything possible to put off or avoid the trial. Many consider him guilty, but the case hasn't been decided yet.
He's had numerous extramarital affairs. When his first-wife was pregnant, he started banging a shiksa, who went on to become his second wife. He's on wife #3 now and has admitted to an affair during this marriage. There are allegations of another.
Do you judge a man by his friends? He's close to Orbán, Modi, Bolsonaro and Berlusconi. He was previously close to Trump and to Putin.
In many ways, Bibi is like Trump, but more successful.
It's a new definition of 'courage': gives away friends' and colleagues' phone numbers to, er, cover his arse.
He was courageous in admitting his cowardice ?
Confessing when you're going to be exposed anyway is definitely not courageous.
It is, however, helpful in avoiding the usual identity parade nonsense where we - and much of the UK - try to work out just which Conservative (or whatever) MP could fit the details leaked or announced to the media, for a week or three, upsetting every single one of them (usually male) who qualifies.
I am sure Alan Duncan's comments will have a week of daily headlines, because everyone knows anti-Semitism is treated equally whether you are a Labour or Tory MP.
Alan Duncan rightly criticized Israel's long policies of colonization of Palestinian land. Jeremy Corbyn openly praised murals of money-grabbing, big-nosed Jews crushing the world's poor. What a ridiculous comparison.
The papers gave a lot of attention to a Labour MP that said "fucking Israel".
On Corbyn they had a point.
Sometimes these racist pictures are subtle enough to go over your head unless you are racist in the first place. Often in the case of Jews I am blissfully unaware the person being attacked is Jewish in the first place, whereas an anti-Semite probably will be. That was true for me regarding Howard and Letwin before they were attacked. Didn't cross my mind they were Jewish and didn't care.
However in the case of the Corbyn mural controversy your racist radar would have to be switched off entirely and buried 12 feet underground not to spot that was an attack on Jews.
I do believe Corbyn is anti-Semitic. Having been down the rabbit hole, I am afraid cults are very real.
@BatteryCorrectHorse - You say you have been down that rabbit hole? Have you? I am fascinated how that happens. People who appear perfectly sane who just flip and fall into cults or conspiracies. I just don't get it, but it happens. We had it here with Plato. David Icke is an extreme example. The Liberals and Greens had near misses with him when he appeared quite sane before he went weird.
How does it happen?
I am not sure Corbyn's rabbit hole was quite on the scale of Icke's, unpleasant though it was. Icke's was the size of his Hereford United Goal.
Offensive and as obnoxious as Corbyn is and was, I do smile at those who excuse Johnson's dog whistle racism over the decades as satire or banter. Horses for courses, I guess.
I am sure Alan Duncan's comments will have a week of daily headlines, because everyone knows anti-Semitism is treated equally whether you are a Labour or Tory MP.
Duncan is alleging that Senior politicians in the Lords and Commons are bidding for an overseas Government. I don't believe he is remotely anti-Semitic but he calls into question domestic corruption.
I agree with this. His comments are criticising the Nethanyahu regime and our govts closeness to it which is fair comment. There may be other stuff he has said that was not quoted but from what I have seen I think this issue is artificial offence.
Of course we have the Israeli ultras here who think any criticism of Israel and its govt is also anti semitic.
Criticism of the Israeli government is entirely legitimate.
Holding them to standards you wouldn't hold any other nation is not.
I don't think anyone here is doing that. Do you?
Yes.
So would you like to name the people?
Well with all due respect, as one example, after the killing of the aid workers you said it was deliberate and that they'd not apologised.
Despite the fact they immediately apologised and said it immediately was a tragic mistake.
They've now not just apologised and promised an investigation, but sacked those behind the mistake.
Do you accept it was a tragic mistake, or do you still insist it was deliberate? We have made mistakes in wars in the past, in the fog of war everyone does.
The point is not that it isn't a mistake - it was - but that the rules of engagement which are evidently in operation mean that such mistakes are very common.
I am sure Alan Duncan's comments will have a week of daily headlines, because everyone knows anti-Semitism is treated equally whether you are a Labour or Tory MP.
Duncan is alleging that Senior politicians in the Lords and Commons are bidding for an overseas Government. I don't believe he is remotely anti-Semitic but he calls into question domestic corruption.
I agree with this. His comments are criticising the Nethanyahu regime and our govts closeness to it which is fair comment. There may be other stuff he has said that was not quoted but from what I have seen I think this issue is artificial offence.
Of course we have the Israeli ultras here who think any criticism of Israel and its govt is also anti semitic.
Criticism of the Israeli government is entirely legitimate.
Holding them to standards you wouldn't hold any other nation is not.
I don't think anyone here is doing that. Do you?
Yes.
So would you like to name the people?
Well with all due respect, as one example, after the killing of the aid workers you said it was deliberate and that they'd not apologised.
Despite the fact they immediately apologised and said it immediately was a tragic mistake.
They've now not just apologised and promised an investigation, but sacked those behind the mistake.
Do you accept it was a tragic mistake, or do you still insist it was deliberate? We have made mistakes in wars in the past, in the fog of war everyone does.
The point is not that it isn't a mistake - it was - but that the rules of engagement which are evidently in operation mean that such mistakes are very common.
Isn't that always the case when FIBUA?
Israel should and I believe is doing what it can to keep those mistakes to a minimum, without prejudicial the legitimate military objectives. That's the nature of proportionate warfare. It's the same when we fight a war in built up areas too and isn't helped by Hamas using others as human shields.
The argument is about whether it is proportionate. I don't think creating a famine conditions, for example, is. And note they only opened the crossings for aid in the last day after intense US pressure.
I am sure Alan Duncan's comments will have a week of daily headlines, because everyone knows anti-Semitism is treated equally whether you are a Labour or Tory MP.
Duncan is alleging that Senior politicians in the Lords and Commons are bidding for an overseas Government. I don't believe he is remotely anti-Semitic but he calls into question domestic corruption.
I agree with this. His comments are criticising the Nethanyahu regime and our govts closeness to it which is fair comment. There may be other stuff he has said that was not quoted but from what I have seen I think this issue is artificial offence.
Of course we have the Israeli ultras here who think any criticism of Israel and its govt is also anti semitic.
Criticism of the Israeli government is entirely legitimate.
Holding them to standards you wouldn't hold any other nation is not.
I don't think anyone here is doing that. Do you?
Yes.
So would you like to name the people?
Well with all due respect, as one example, after the killing of the aid workers you said it was deliberate and that they'd not apologised.
Despite the fact they immediately apologised and said it immediately was a tragic mistake.
They've now not just apologised and promised an investigation, but sacked those behind the mistake.
Do you accept it was a tragic mistake, or do you still insist it was deliberate? We have made mistakes in wars in the past, in the fog of war everyone does.
They have apologised. They did not immediately apologise.
What counts as deliberate versus a tragic mistake? I think it's possible for both to be true at different levels. Some people in the IDF deliberately targeted those vehicles. They weren't accidentally hit when a drone was targetting something else. It is unclear why, so that targetting decision may have been a tragic mistake. Ergo, something can be deliberate but also a mistake, IYSWIM.
I'm not sure on the timescale differential for immediate but at the time we had the conversation it was within about 24 hours of the story breaking and they'd already apologised by that point.
I agree entirely with the rest of your post.
I would class shooting at a vehicle you believe to be used by militants but actually has aid workers as a mistake, even if hitting the vehicle was deliberate.
I would class shooting at a vehicle you know to be only aid workers because you want to kill aid workers to be deliberate.
I believe the former of the two happened. I'm not sure what horse thinks now.
How does having the charity logo on the top change things?
Would it have made a difference if it had a red cross or red crescent logo?
I am sure Alan Duncan's comments will have a week of daily headlines, because everyone knows anti-Semitism is treated equally whether you are a Labour or Tory MP.
Duncan is alleging that Senior politicians in the Lords and Commons are bidding for an overseas Government. I don't believe he is remotely anti-Semitic but he calls into question domestic corruption.
I agree with this. His comments are criticising the Nethanyahu regime and our govts closeness to it which is fair comment. There may be other stuff he has said that was not quoted but from what I have seen I think this issue is artificial offence.
Of course we have the Israeli ultras here who think any criticism of Israel and its govt is also anti semitic.
Criticism of the Israeli government is entirely legitimate.
Holding them to standards you wouldn't hold any other nation is not.
I don't think anyone here is doing that. Do you?
Yes.
So would you like to name the people?
Well with all due respect, as one example, after the killing of the aid workers you said it was deliberate and that they'd not apologised.
Despite the fact they immediately apologised and said it immediately was a tragic mistake.
They've now not just apologised and promised an investigation, but sacked those behind the mistake.
Do you accept it was a tragic mistake, or do you still insist it was deliberate? We have made mistakes in wars in the past, in the fog of war everyone does.
They have apologised. They did not immediately apologise.
What counts as deliberate versus a tragic mistake? I think it's possible for both to be true at different levels. Some people in the IDF deliberately targeted those vehicles. They weren't accidentally hit when a drone was targetting something else. It is unclear why, so that targetting decision may have been a tragic mistake. Ergo, something can be deliberate but also a mistake, IYSWIM.
Give them 2 minutes to work out what happened. The car could have been packed with Hamas militants.
The (CBS News - no idea) account seems pretty sensible.
"The army said the order was given after one of the passengers inside a car was identified as a gunman. It said troops became suspicious because a gunman had been seen on the roof of one of the delivery trucks on the way to the warehouse. The army showed reporters video of the gunman firing his weapon while riding atop one of the trucks.
After the aid was dropped off at a warehouse, an officer believed he had spotted a gunman in one of the cars. The passenger, it turned out, was not carrying a weapon — the military said it's possible he was just carrying a bag."
I mean what on earth was that bloke doing on top of the car I can't imagine.
I’m sure it wasn’t the intention, but this just highlights how rubbish Rishi Sunak is at this kind of thing.
Cameron had a lot of practice when playing John Barnaby in Midsomer Murders to be fair
Sir Keir is dodging an awful lot of mockery by ex Tories hating Sunak so much. He’s possibly the stiffest, most thin skinned, tetchy male politician of the century, yet gets off scot free. I reckon Rishi will be far smoother & more telegenic in the debates, for what they’re worth
Matt Forde, a big supporter of Sir Keir, has picked up on his Partridge-esque manner as well. I can’t believe he won’t sink like a lead weight during the campaign
I am sure Alan Duncan's comments will have a week of daily headlines, because everyone knows anti-Semitism is treated equally whether you are a Labour or Tory MP.
Duncan is alleging that Senior politicians in the Lords and Commons are bidding for an overseas Government. I don't believe he is remotely anti-Semitic but he calls into question domestic corruption.
I agree with this. His comments are criticising the Nethanyahu regime and our govts closeness to it which is fair comment. There may be other stuff he has said that was not quoted but from what I have seen I think this issue is artificial offence.
Of course we have the Israeli ultras here who think any criticism of Israel and its govt is also anti semitic.
Criticism of the Israeli government is entirely legitimate.
Holding them to standards you wouldn't hold any other nation is not.
I don't think anyone here is doing that. Do you?
Yes.
So would you like to name the people?
Well with all due respect, as one example, after the killing of the aid workers you said it was deliberate and that they'd not apologised.
Despite the fact they immediately apologised and said it immediately was a tragic mistake.
They've now not just apologised and promised an investigation, but sacked those behind the mistake.
Do you accept it was a tragic mistake, or do you still insist it was deliberate? We have made mistakes in wars in the past, in the fog of war everyone does.
They have apologised. They did not immediately apologise.
What counts as deliberate versus a tragic mistake? I think it's possible for both to be true at different levels. Some people in the IDF deliberately targeted those vehicles. They weren't accidentally hit when a drone was targetting something else. It is unclear why, so that targetting decision may have been a tragic mistake. Ergo, something can be deliberate but also a mistake, IYSWIM.
I'm not sure on the timescale differential for immediate but at the time we had the conversation it was within about 24 hours of the story breaking and they'd already apologised by that point.
I agree entirely with the rest of your post.
I would class shooting at a vehicle you believe to be used by militants but actually has aid workers as a mistake, even if hitting the vehicle was deliberate.
I would class shooting at a vehicle you know to be only aid workers because you want to kill aid workers to be deliberate.
I believe the former of the two happened. I'm not sure what horse thinks now.
I don't know what Horse thinks. I don't even know what I think, tbh. It's a fast-changing situation.
The IDF currently say that the personnel involved thought that the convoy had been taken over by Hamas gunmen and was thus a legitimate target.
If this was an understandable error during the fog of war, I am unclear why they've sacked two and reprimanded another three.
Following on from the discussion above, I think that Starmer understands the politics but not the problems, but Reeves understands the problems. Specifically that the age has changed and that the cures of the past no longer work.
Anyhoo, Reeves's Speech (36th annual Mais Lecture) was entitled ‘Economic Growth in an Age of Insecurity’. Links are given below
The following text is an AI summary of Rachel Reeves Mais Lecture 2024
PART 1 OF 4
The provided text is a speech given at Bayes Business School, discussing the shifting contours of conventional economic thought and the challenges facing policymakers. The speaker argues that the current moment is one of flux, similar to the 1970s, where old certainties about economic management have been found wanting. They propose an economic approach that recognizes the changes in the world and emphasizes stability, investment, and reform. The main challenge highlighted is the UK's growth performance, with the country entering a recession and underperforming compared to other OECD countries. The decline in productivity growth is identified as a key factor contributing to wage stagnation. The speaker emphasizes the need for a fundamental course correction to address these challenges and highlights the importance of values in economic policymaking. They argue that a new model of economic management is needed, one that builds growth on strong foundations and commands democratic consent. The text also discusses the accumulation of problems, including long-standing weaknesses, political and policy choices, and structural vulnerabilities. The speaker criticizes past approaches, such as the pursuit of narrowly-shared growth, and calls for a more comprehensive and inclusive strategy for growth. The text concludes by acknowledging the changing fiscal circumstances and the need to strike a balance between the imperatives of the energy transition and economic constraints.
The following text is an AI summary of Rachel Reeves Mais Lecture 2024
PART 2 OF 4
The text highlights the impact of political instability on economic instability and investment deterrence. It discusses the urgent need for supply-side reform due to weak growth, stagnant living standards, and inflation. The narrative shifts to the current age of insecurity marked by geopolitical shifts, technological advancements, and the climate crisis. The need for a new approach to address these challenges is emphasized.
The discussion delves into the changing global landscape, emphasizing the need for resilience, inclusivity, and adaptability in economic growth strategies. The concept of 'securonomics' is introduced, focusing on balancing openness to global trade with domestic resilience. The text advocates for a strategic and active state to navigate the complexities of modern industrial strategy and economic growth.
The importance of sustained economic growth for funding public services, raising living standards, and international competitiveness is underscored. The narrative rejects the notion of a trade-off between a strong economy and a good society, emphasizing the potential for growth to improve overall well-being. The text concludes by highlighting the diverse sectors in the UK with growth potential and the need for tailored policies to unlock their benefits.
I am sure Alan Duncan's comments will have a week of daily headlines, because everyone knows anti-Semitism is treated equally whether you are a Labour or Tory MP.
Alan Duncan isn’t a Tory MP.
The Conservative former minister Alan Duncan
Your original quote was about the differing attitudes towards antisemitism between Labour and Tory MPs.
Alan Duncan isn’t a Tory MP, in sharp contrast to Corbyn’s friends in years past, who were very much Labour MPs at the time, and many of them still are.
Those Labour MPs are scum, clearly.
But the way anti-Semitism is reported in the Tories vs Labour is different. Actually forget anti-Semitism, just racism in general, for example Islamophobia.
So where is the Tory MP who has a problem with antisemitism?
Well I sincerely believed Alan Duncan was still a Tory MP but I was wrong. Former MP then. For what it's worth, I am not saying Duncan is anti-Semitic, I don't think he is. More that his comments are given a fair hearing compared to MPs from other parties.
But the Tories clearly have problems with racism of their own, which is as bad in my view, as the anti-Semitism in Labour.
I know of Duncan from his days working for Marc Rich in the '80s. I didn't know him personally but from what I saw and by all accounts he was a decent enough guy. Quite a flamboyant gay, but not a hint of racial prejudice.
The following text is an AI summary of Rachel Reeves Mais Lecture 2024
PART 3 OF 4
The text emphasizes the importance of stability, investment, and reform in achieving broad-based and resilient economic growth. Stability is highlighted as a fundamental condition for economic security and credibility, with institutions providing direction and coordination. Investment is seen as crucial, requiring partnership between businesses and government to foster growth. Reform is necessary to mobilize resources for shared prosperity. The role of the Bank of England in maintaining independence and addressing climate change risks is discussed, along with the need for strong fiscal rules and public investment. The text also stresses the importance of strategic industrial policy, public and private investment, innovation, and productivity to drive economic growth. Labor's plans for fiscal responsibility, tax stability, and investment in key sectors are outlined as part of a comprehensive strategy for sustainable growth.
I am sure Alan Duncan's comments will have a week of daily headlines, because everyone knows anti-Semitism is treated equally whether you are a Labour or Tory MP.
Duncan is alleging that Senior politicians in the Lords and Commons are bidding for an overseas Government. I don't believe he is remotely anti-Semitic but he calls into question domestic corruption.
I agree with this. His comments are criticising the Nethanyahu regime and our govts closeness to it which is fair comment. There may be other stuff he has said that was not quoted but from what I have seen I think this issue is artificial offence.
Of course we have the Israeli ultras here who think any criticism of Israel and its govt is also anti semitic.
Criticism of the Israeli government is entirely legitimate.
Holding them to standards you wouldn't hold any other nation is not.
I don't think anyone here is doing that. Do you?
Yes.
So would you like to name the people?
Well with all due respect, as one example, after the killing of the aid workers you said it was deliberate and that they'd not apologised.
Despite the fact they immediately apologised and said it immediately was a tragic mistake.
They've now not just apologised and promised an investigation, but sacked those behind the mistake.
Do you accept it was a tragic mistake, or do you still insist it was deliberate? We have made mistakes in wars in the past, in the fog of war everyone does.
They have apologised. They did not immediately apologise.
What counts as deliberate versus a tragic mistake? I think it's possible for both to be true at different levels. Some people in the IDF deliberately targeted those vehicles. They weren't accidentally hit when a drone was targetting something else. It is unclear why, so that targetting decision may have been a tragic mistake. Ergo, something can be deliberate but also a mistake, IYSWIM.
I'm not sure on the timescale differential for immediate but at the time we had the conversation it was within about 24 hours of the story breaking and they'd already apologised by that point.
I agree entirely with the rest of your post.
I would class shooting at a vehicle you believe to be used by militants but actually has aid workers as a mistake, even if hitting the vehicle was deliberate.
I would class shooting at a vehicle you know to be only aid workers because you want to kill aid workers to be deliberate.
I believe the former of the two happened. I'm not sure what horse thinks now.
How does having the charity logo on the top change things?
Would it have made a difference if it had a red cross or red crescent logo?
...tops of the vehicles obviously...
No. Just like the al Shifa hospital where Hamas was located.
Look up the much vaunted "Rules of War" (what they...?).
Combatants aren't allowed to use such ruses in war and if they do then they can expect an appropriate response from the opposing forces.
I would like to congratulate the ECB on starting the county season on April 5th, meaning of the first nine games four have no play at all on day 1, two have managed one session only and just three have had serious amounts of play.
By coincidence Worcestershire are one of the counties on the park, helped enormously by being at Edgbaston.
The following text is an AI summary of Rachel Reeves Mais Lecture 2024
PART 4 OF 4
The text outlines the need for reform in various sectors to drive growth and competitiveness in the future. It emphasizes the importance of planning system reform, infrastructure development, and housing targets to address economic challenges. The text also highlights the significance of regional equality and decentralization in boosting productivity and economic growth. Additionally, it discusses the importance of empowering workers, addressing skills gaps, and promoting gender equality in the workforce to drive economic success. The text concludes by stressing the need for a national mission to restore economic growth through supply-side reforms and strategic partnerships between the public and private sectors.
I am sure Alan Duncan's comments will have a week of daily headlines, because everyone knows anti-Semitism is treated equally whether you are a Labour or Tory MP.
Alan Duncan isn’t a Tory MP.
The Conservative former minister Alan Duncan
Your original quote was about the differing attitudes towards antisemitism between Labour and Tory MPs.
Alan Duncan isn’t a Tory MP, in sharp contrast to Corbyn’s friends in years past, who were very much Labour MPs at the time, and many of them still are.
Those Labour MPs are scum, clearly.
But the way anti-Semitism is reported in the Tories vs Labour is different. Actually forget anti-Semitism, just racism in general, for example Islamophobia.
So where is the Tory MP who has a problem with antisemitism?
Well I sincerely believed Alan Duncan was still a Tory MP but I was wrong. Former MP then. For what it's worth, I am not saying Duncan is anti-Semitic, I don't think he is. More that his comments are given a fair hearing compared to MPs from other parties.
But the Tories clearly have problems with racism of their own, which is as bad in my view, as the anti-Semitism in Labour.
I know of Duncan from his days working for Marc Rich in the '80s. I didn't know him personally but from what I saw and by all accounts he was a decent enough guy. Quite a flamboyant gay, but not a hint of racial prejudice.
I knew him slightly when he was a student. Very nice guy, notably lacking the pomposity of many of his Oxford Tory contemporaries in the 1970s (who included Daniel Moylan and Damian Green).
If you give it a link instead of the text, it summarizes the whole thing, thus:
The Labour Party's official website announced that Rachel Reeves, a Member of Parliament, delivered the annual Mais Lecture at City, University of London. The lecture centered around the future of work and the challenges faced by workers in the modern economy.
During her speech, Rachel Reeves emphasized the urgent need for a fairer economy that benefits everyone. She stressed the importance of decent work, fair wages, and workers' rights in achieving this goal. Reeves also discussed the potential consequences of technological advancements and automation on jobs, expressing concerns about job losses and the necessity for retraining and upskilling to adapt to the changing landscape.
In addition to addressing the impact of technology on employment, Reeves highlighted her commitment to tackling inequality and creating opportunities for all. She outlined the Labour Party's vision of a society where everyone can thrive, emphasizing the significance of investing in education, infrastructure, and green industries to achieve this goal.
Overall, the press release emphasized Rachel Reeves' call for a fairer economy, her concerns about the impact of technology on jobs, and her dedication to addressing inequality and creating opportunities for all.
I am sure Alan Duncan's comments will have a week of daily headlines, because everyone knows anti-Semitism is treated equally whether you are a Labour or Tory MP.
Duncan is alleging that Senior politicians in the Lords and Commons are bidding for an overseas Government. I don't believe he is remotely anti-Semitic but he calls into question domestic corruption.
I agree with this. His comments are criticising the Nethanyahu regime and our govts closeness to it which is fair comment. There may be other stuff he has said that was not quoted but from what I have seen I think this issue is artificial offence.
Of course we have the Israeli ultras here who think any criticism of Israel and its govt is also anti semitic.
Criticism of the Israeli government is entirely legitimate.
Holding them to standards you wouldn't hold any other nation is not.
I don't think anyone here is doing that. Do you?
Yes.
So would you like to name the people?
Well with all due respect, as one example, after the killing of the aid workers you said it was deliberate and that they'd not apologised.
Despite the fact they immediately apologised and said it immediately was a tragic mistake.
They've now not just apologised and promised an investigation, but sacked those behind the mistake.
Do you accept it was a tragic mistake, or do you still insist it was deliberate? We have made mistakes in wars in the past, in the fog of war everyone does.
They have apologised. They did not immediately apologise.
What counts as deliberate versus a tragic mistake? I think it's possible for both to be true at different levels. Some people in the IDF deliberately targeted those vehicles. They weren't accidentally hit when a drone was targetting something else. It is unclear why, so that targetting decision may have been a tragic mistake. Ergo, something can be deliberate but also a mistake, IYSWIM.
I'm not sure on the timescale differential for immediate but at the time we had the conversation it was within about 24 hours of the story breaking and they'd already apologised by that point.
I agree entirely with the rest of your post.
I would class shooting at a vehicle you believe to be used by militants but actually has aid workers as a mistake, even if hitting the vehicle was deliberate.
I would class shooting at a vehicle you know to be only aid workers because you want to kill aid workers to be deliberate.
I believe the former of the two happened. I'm not sure what horse thinks now.
I don't know what Horse thinks. I don't even know what I think, tbh. It's a fast-changing situation.
The IDF currently say that the personnel involved thought that the convoy had been taken over by Hamas gunmen and was thus a legitimate target.
If this was an understandable error during the fog of war, I am unclear why they've sacked two and reprimanded another three.
All a matter of taste, but I think he looks perfectly alright there. Slim enough to wear tight fitting clothes, unlike many men his age, and wearing trainers that are all the rage. Sir Keir would look preposterous, and to be fair to him wouldn’t try it
He is not perfectly adequate. He’s a bed-blocker for someone who actually believes in London and is willing to use the admittedly-limited powers available to advance its cause.
That he is better than Hall is no recommendation.
In my darker moments, I fear that Starmer could be a kind of national Khan.
So who would you like to be Mayor?
Personally I would have voted for Rory Stewart.
Livingstone (First Term) and Johnson (First Term) were pretty good.
You want someone with a bit of urban passion who is willing to use the bully pulpit to influence broader stakeholders.
Not sure Rory’s got that either, to be honest.
(a pedant writes: the term "bully pulpit" was IIUC coined by Theodore Roosevelt who used the word "bully" in his period's sense, which is to say expansive, loud, and wonderful. We'd use "awesome" today. The meaning of the word has changed over the years and become an insult)
The word bully has changed. The term bully pulpit has not…?
Possibly not. Roosevelt T used it to mean a "wonderful opportunity to address and change minds". Given his ebullient character (imagine a classy and brave version of Trump), you can see how the former meaning eventually gave way to the latter. Come to think of it, I imagine Hitler and Stalin didn't help...
All a matter of taste, but I think he looks perfectly alright there. Slim enough to wear tight fitting clothes, and wearing trainers that are all the rage. Sir Keir would look preposterous, and to be fair to him wouldn’t try it
I am not 100% sure about that slight bulge around his waist. He is a slight guy and hence no real excuse to have that going on. But yes otherwise young enough (ah me) to pull off the slim trousers and trainers look albeit he should be wearing Spezials.
If you give it a link instead of the text, it summarizes the whole thing, thus:
The Labour Party's official website announced that Rachel Reeves, a Member of Parliament, delivered the annual Mais Lecture at City, University of London. The lecture centered around the future of work and the challenges faced by workers in the modern economy.
During her speech, Rachel Reeves emphasized the urgent need for a fairer economy that benefits everyone. She stressed the importance of decent work, fair wages, and workers' rights in achieving this goal. Reeves also discussed the potential consequences of technological advancements and automation on jobs, expressing concerns about job losses and the necessity for retraining and upskilling to adapt to the changing landscape.
In addition to addressing the impact of technology on employment, Reeves highlighted her commitment to tackling inequality and creating opportunities for all. She outlined the Labour Party's vision of a society where everyone can thrive, emphasizing the significance of investing in education, infrastructure, and green industries to achieve this goal.
Overall, the press release emphasized Rachel Reeves' call for a fairer economy, her concerns about the impact of technology on jobs, and her dedication to addressing inequality and creating opportunities for all.
That all sounds like what the Americans might call motherhood and apple pie.
Don't think I've learnt anything meaningful from any of that.
I wonder whether Rishi & co, the people who knifed Boris, staged some kind of intervention with him at any point. Whether they say him down and said ‘Look you just can’t behave like this as PM, and it’s got to stop. We realise you’re the only one that can win for us but we will take you down if you dont buck up’ or whether they really believed there was a pathway to success without him , so just got rid
If I couldn't raise my bond I'd be down the state penetentiary and my feet wouldn't touch the ground. Stick the f***** in an orange boiler suit
This is his fraud case. Not bail. The bond is to allow him to appeal rather than having his assets seized.
The bond is to allow him to appeal without having his assets seized. Without the bond, he can still appeal, but his assets can be seized. In that case, were he to win on appeal, the state would then have to refund him.
I wonder whether Rishi & co, the people who knifed Boris, staged some kind of intervention with him at any point. Whether they say him down and said ‘Look you just can’t behave like this as PM, and it’s got to stop. We realise you’re the only one that can win for us but we will take you down if you dont buck up’ or whether they really believed there was a pathway to success without him , so just got rid
They did, half the cabinet told him pretty much that the weekend he told them he hadn't known about Chris Pincher being a sexual predator.
If I couldn't raise my bond I'd be down the state penetentiary and my feet wouldn't touch the ground. Stick the f***** in an orange boiler suit
This is his fraud case. Not bail. The bond is to allow him to appeal rather than having his assets seized.
The bond is to allow him to appeal without having his assets seized. Without the bond, he can still appeal, but his assets can be seized. In that case, were he to win on appeal, the state would then have to refund him.
Yes the point is he has already lost the case and already has to pay up.
If he appeals and wins then the payment will be reversed, which is why the bond to be held is an alternative, but it's already due.
The jail equivalent is that if you're convicted and sentenced to imprisonment then you can appeal but you're appealing from prison if so.
I wonder whether Rishi & co, the people who knifed Boris, staged some kind of intervention with him at any point. Whether they say him down and said ‘Look you just can’t behave like this as PM, and it’s got to stop. We realise you’re the only one that can win for us but we will take you down if you dont buck up’ or whether they really believed there was a pathway to success without him , so just got rid
They did, half the cabinet told him pretty much that the weekend he told them he hadn't known about Chris Pincher being a sexual predator.
I think ‘sexual predator’ makes it sound worse than it was, but in any case, so we know that Theresa May didn’t know when she appointed him too?
There's something really odd about the perspectives in that photo. Everything (the flag, the furniture, the windows, the PM) is slightly but clearly the wrong size.
I am sure Alan Duncan's comments will have a week of daily headlines, because everyone knows anti-Semitism is treated equally whether you are a Labour or Tory MP.
Duncan is alleging that Senior politicians in the Lords and Commons are bidding for an overseas Government. I don't believe he is remotely anti-Semitic but he calls into question domestic corruption.
I agree with this. His comments are criticising the Nethanyahu regime and our govts closeness to it which is fair comment. There may be other stuff he has said that was not quoted but from what I have seen I think this issue is artificial offence.
Of course we have the Israeli ultras here who think any criticism of Israel and its govt is also anti semitic.
Criticism of the Israeli government is entirely legitimate.
Holding them to standards you wouldn't hold any other nation is not.
I don't think anyone here is doing that. Do you?
Yes.
So would you like to name the people?
Well with all due respect, as one example, after the killing of the aid workers you said it was deliberate and that they'd not apologised.
Despite the fact they immediately apologised and said it immediately was a tragic mistake.
They've now not just apologised and promised an investigation, but sacked those behind the mistake.
Do you accept it was a tragic mistake, or do you still insist it was deliberate? We have made mistakes in wars in the past, in the fog of war everyone does.
They have apologised. They did not immediately apologise.
What counts as deliberate versus a tragic mistake? I think it's possible for both to be true at different levels. Some people in the IDF deliberately targeted those vehicles. They weren't accidentally hit when a drone was targetting something else. It is unclear why, so that targetting decision may have been a tragic mistake. Ergo, something can be deliberate but also a mistake, IYSWIM.
I'm not sure on the timescale differential for immediate but at the time we had the conversation it was within about 24 hours of the story breaking and they'd already apologised by that point.
I agree entirely with the rest of your post.
I would class shooting at a vehicle you believe to be used by militants but actually has aid workers as a mistake, even if hitting the vehicle was deliberate.
I would class shooting at a vehicle you know to be only aid workers because you want to kill aid workers to be deliberate.
I believe the former of the two happened. I'm not sure what horse thinks now.
I don't know what Horse thinks. I don't even know what I think, tbh. It's a fast-changing situation.
The IDF currently say that the personnel involved thought that the convoy had been taken over by Hamas gunmen and was thus a legitimate target.
If this was an understandable error during the fog of war, I am unclear why they've sacked two and reprimanded another three.
Because they failed to check that the convoy was logged as an aid convoy, reportedly.
It criticised officers for failing to read messages alerting troops that cars, not aid trucks, would carry workers from the charity away from the warehouse where aid was distributed. As a result, the targeted cars were misidentified as transporting militants.
The army also faulted a major who identified the strike target and a colonel who approved the strike for acting with insufficient information.
The army said it initially hit one car. As people scrambled away into a second car, it hit that vehicle as well. It did the same thing when survivors scrambled into a third car. Army officials claimed drone operators could not see that the cars were marked with the words “World Central Kitchen” because it was night-time...
I am sure Alan Duncan's comments will have a week of daily headlines, because everyone knows anti-Semitism is treated equally whether you are a Labour or Tory MP.
Duncan is alleging that Senior politicians in the Lords and Commons are bidding for an overseas Government. I don't believe he is remotely anti-Semitic but he calls into question domestic corruption.
I agree with this. His comments are criticising the Nethanyahu regime and our govts closeness to it which is fair comment. There may be other stuff he has said that was not quoted but from what I have seen I think this issue is artificial offence.
Of course we have the Israeli ultras here who think any criticism of Israel and its govt is also anti semitic.
Criticism of the Israeli government is entirely legitimate.
Holding them to standards you wouldn't hold any other nation is not.
I don't think anyone here is doing that. Do you?
Yes.
So would you like to name the people?
Well with all due respect, as one example, after the killing of the aid workers you said it was deliberate and that they'd not apologised.
Despite the fact they immediately apologised and said it immediately was a tragic mistake.
They've now not just apologised and promised an investigation, but sacked those behind the mistake.
Do you accept it was a tragic mistake, or do you still insist it was deliberate? We have made mistakes in wars in the past, in the fog of war everyone does.
They have apologised. They did not immediately apologise.
What counts as deliberate versus a tragic mistake? I think it's possible for both to be true at different levels. Some people in the IDF deliberately targeted those vehicles. They weren't accidentally hit when a drone was targetting something else. It is unclear why, so that targetting decision may have been a tragic mistake. Ergo, something can be deliberate but also a mistake, IYSWIM.
I'm not sure on the timescale differential for immediate but at the time we had the conversation it was within about 24 hours of the story breaking and they'd already apologised by that point.
I agree entirely with the rest of your post.
I would class shooting at a vehicle you believe to be used by militants but actually has aid workers as a mistake, even if hitting the vehicle was deliberate.
I would class shooting at a vehicle you know to be only aid workers because you want to kill aid workers to be deliberate.
I believe the former of the two happened. I'm not sure what horse thinks now.
I don't know what Horse thinks. I don't even know what I think, tbh. It's a fast-changing situation.
The IDF currently say that the personnel involved thought that the convoy had been taken over by Hamas gunmen and was thus a legitimate target.
If this was an understandable error during the fog of war, I am unclear why they've sacked two and reprimanded another three.
Well with all due respect, as one example, after the killing of the aid workers you said it was deliberate and that they'd not apologised.
Despite the fact they immediately apologised and said it immediately was a tragic mistake.
They've now not just apologised and promised an investigation, but sacked those behind the mistake.
Do you accept it was a tragic mistake, or do you still insist it was deliberate? We have made mistakes in wars in the past, in the fog of war everyone does.
How is any of this anti-Semitic?
Secretary Nimzicki: "I'm not Jewish." Julius Levinson: "Nobody's poifect!"
Chair of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee calls for Arms Sales to Israel to be banned.
SKS fans (and Sunak fans if there are any) please explain where has your boys have been for the last 6 months
Apart from cheering on Genocide from the sidelines and ignoring International law Obvs
The call to ban arms to Israel rather sums up the post-Imperial delusions that even those who view themselves as 'anti-imperialists' share. As well as that MPs can be very silly in the name of grandstanding.
We barely sell any arms to Israel, as the annual value of exports wouldn't buy you a top Premier League midfielder. They are also all components in wider defence projects and collaborations. We don't sell them any actual weapons systems.
If wanting to take a moral stance that had some real-world impact you'd be better off banning arms imports from Israel. Though that impact would by and large be on us and contributing to our armed forces falling apart more than they already are.
Which is why the government won't ban exports unilaterally - for the sake of nothing, if reciprocated, we'd be almost entirely damaging ourselves for no gain whatsoever.
Speaking of post-imperial delusions, surely any action of the second most powerful country in the world would make Israel take notice? And isn’t British soft power the envy of the globe?
We could put a fairly big stone in their shoe via the F35 program. Big and Expensive has its fingers in many pies. By withdrawing consent to sales of weapons that have U.K. participation, we could effect even more
See the number of Argentine weapons deals that we have stuffed up since 1982.
The problem is that this gets noted on the international arms market. South Korea is making a killing at the moment, because they have a rep for selling for cash, no questions. As opposed to the Germans, Swiss and others who spent their time equivocating over Ukraine.
I'm not old enough to remember when, admittedly two decades before the Great War, Maxim sold machine-guns to all comers. Including the Imperial Germans. Who found them very useful, and not just on the Hereros in SWA.
I am sure Alan Duncan's comments will have a week of daily headlines, because everyone knows anti-Semitism is treated equally whether you are a Labour or Tory MP.
Duncan is alleging that Senior politicians in the Lords and Commons are bidding for an overseas Government. I don't believe he is remotely anti-Semitic but he calls into question domestic corruption.
I agree with this. His comments are criticising the Nethanyahu regime and our govts closeness to it which is fair comment. There may be other stuff he has said that was not quoted but from what I have seen I think this issue is artificial offence.
Of course we have the Israeli ultras here who think any criticism of Israel and its govt is also anti semitic.
Criticism of the Israeli government is entirely legitimate.
Holding them to standards you wouldn't hold any other nation is not.
I don't think anyone here is doing that. Do you?
Yes.
So would you like to name the people?
Well with all due respect, as one example, after the killing of the aid workers you said it was deliberate and that they'd not apologised.
Despite the fact they immediately apologised and said it immediately was a tragic mistake.
They've now not just apologised and promised an investigation, but sacked those behind the mistake.
Do you accept it was a tragic mistake, or do you still insist it was deliberate? We have made mistakes in wars in the past, in the fog of war everyone does.
They have apologised. They did not immediately apologise.
What counts as deliberate versus a tragic mistake? I think it's possible for both to be true at different levels. Some people in the IDF deliberately targeted those vehicles. They weren't accidentally hit when a drone was targetting something else. It is unclear why, so that targetting decision may have been a tragic mistake. Ergo, something can be deliberate but also a mistake, IYSWIM.
I'm not sure on the timescale differential for immediate but at the time we had the conversation it was within about 24 hours of the story breaking and they'd already apologised by that point.
I agree entirely with the rest of your post.
I would class shooting at a vehicle you believe to be used by militants but actually has aid workers as a mistake, even if hitting the vehicle was deliberate.
I would class shooting at a vehicle you know to be only aid workers because you want to kill aid workers to be deliberate.
I believe the former of the two happened. I'm not sure what horse thinks now.
I don't know what Horse thinks. I don't even know what I think, tbh. It's a fast-changing situation.
The IDF currently say that the personnel involved thought that the convoy had been taken over by Hamas gunmen and was thus a legitimate target.
If this was an understandable error during the fog of war, I am unclear why they've sacked two and reprimanded another three.
It seems the IDF have gone full on Col. Kurtz.
"I love the smell of dead Arabs in the morning! Smells like victory!"
I am sure Alan Duncan's comments will have a week of daily headlines, because everyone knows anti-Semitism is treated equally whether you are a Labour or Tory MP.
Duncan is alleging that Senior politicians in the Lords and Commons are bidding for an overseas Government. I don't believe he is remotely anti-Semitic but he calls into question domestic corruption.
I agree with this. His comments are criticising the Nethanyahu regime and our govts closeness to it which is fair comment. There may be other stuff he has said that was not quoted but from what I have seen I think this issue is artificial offence.
Of course we have the Israeli ultras here who think any criticism of Israel and its govt is also anti semitic.
Criticism of the Israeli government is entirely legitimate.
Holding them to standards you wouldn't hold any other nation is not.
I don't think anyone here is doing that. Do you?
Yes.
So would you like to name the people?
Well with all due respect, as one example, after the killing of the aid workers you said it was deliberate and that they'd not apologised.
Despite the fact they immediately apologised and said it immediately was a tragic mistake.
They've now not just apologised and promised an investigation, but sacked those behind the mistake.
Do you accept it was a tragic mistake, or do you still insist it was deliberate? We have made mistakes in wars in the past, in the fog of war everyone does.
They have apologised. They did not immediately apologise.
What counts as deliberate versus a tragic mistake? I think it's possible for both to be true at different levels. Some people in the IDF deliberately targeted those vehicles. They weren't accidentally hit when a drone was targetting something else. It is unclear why, so that targetting decision may have been a tragic mistake. Ergo, something can be deliberate but also a mistake, IYSWIM.
I'm not sure on the timescale differential for immediate but at the time we had the conversation it was within about 24 hours of the story breaking and they'd already apologised by that point.
I agree entirely with the rest of your post.
I would class shooting at a vehicle you believe to be used by militants but actually has aid workers as a mistake, even if hitting the vehicle was deliberate.
I would class shooting at a vehicle you know to be only aid workers because you want to kill aid workers to be deliberate.
I believe the former of the two happened. I'm not sure what horse thinks now.
I don't know what Horse thinks. I don't even know what I think, tbh. It's a fast-changing situation.
The IDF currently say that the personnel involved thought that the convoy had been taken over by Hamas gunmen and was thus a legitimate target.
If this was an understandable error during the fog of war, I am unclear why they've sacked two and reprimanded another three.
Because they failed to check that the convoy was logged as an aid convoy, reportedly.
It criticised officers for failing to read messages alerting troops that cars, not aid trucks, would carry workers from the charity away from the warehouse where aid was distributed. As a result, the targeted cars were misidentified as transporting militants.
The army also faulted a major who identified the strike target and a colonel who approved the strike for acting with insufficient information.
The army said it initially hit one car. As people scrambled away into a second car, it hit that vehicle as well. It did the same thing when survivors scrambled into a third car. Army officials claimed drone operators could not see that the cars were marked with the words “World Central Kitchen” because it was night-time...
Makes perfect but tragic sense.
A very shit situation, but that's different to doing it on purpose.
It’s time to retire the word “racist”. It’s lost whatever original meaning it once had and is now freely applied, often as a straightforward attempt to “cancel” or delegitimise someone or something.
I now prefer the word “prejudiced”. One can be prejudiced against black people, white people, Muslims, Scotsmen, accordion-players, Tory MPs, and Cheshire-based PB posters.
We are all, in fact, somewhat prejudiced. It is a human failing against which we must constantly check ourselves. Being “prejudiced” therefore is a hopefully temporary state of sin, capable of correction, whereas “racist” is used now to significantly a permanent state of moral perdition.
When I lived in NZ 3 decades ago there was a great euphemism in use. If someone made a racist comment etc they would be asked "don't you think that is a bit culturally insensitive?".
Far less confrontational than calling someone racist, and it did require people to examine their attitudes.
I think "culturally insensitive" is a very useful phrase still.
Well with all due respect, as one example, after the killing of the aid workers you said it was deliberate and that they'd not apologised.
Despite the fact they immediately apologised and said it immediately was a tragic mistake.
They've now not just apologised and promised an investigation, but sacked those behind the mistake.
Do you accept it was a tragic mistake, or do you still insist it was deliberate? We have made mistakes in wars in the past, in the fog of war everyone does.
How is any of this anti-Semitic?
Secretary Nimzicki: "I'm not Jewish." Julius Levinson: "Nobody's poifect!"
It’s time to retire the word “racist”. It’s lost whatever original meaning it once had and is now freely applied, often as a straightforward attempt to “cancel” or delegitimise someone or something.
I now prefer the word “prejudiced”. One can be prejudiced against black people, white people, Muslims, Scotsmen, accordion-players, Tory MPs, and Cheshire-based PB posters.
We are all, in fact, somewhat prejudiced. It is a human failing against which we must constantly check ourselves. Being “prejudiced” therefore is a hopefully temporary state of sin, capable of correction, whereas “racist” is used now to significantly a permanent state of moral perdition.
When I lived in NZ 3 decades ago there was a great euphemism in use. If someone made a racist comment etc they would be asked "don't you think that is a bit culturally insensitive?".
Far less confrontational than calling someone racist, and it did require people to examine their attitudes.
I think "culturally insensitive" is a very useful phrase still.
I am sure Alan Duncan's comments will have a week of daily headlines, because everyone knows anti-Semitism is treated equally whether you are a Labour or Tory MP.
Duncan is alleging that Senior politicians in the Lords and Commons are bidding for an overseas Government. I don't believe he is remotely anti-Semitic but he calls into question domestic corruption.
I agree with this. His comments are criticising the Nethanyahu regime and our govts closeness to it which is fair comment. There may be other stuff he has said that was not quoted but from what I have seen I think this issue is artificial offence.
Of course we have the Israeli ultras here who think any criticism of Israel and its govt is also anti semitic.
Criticism of the Israeli government is entirely legitimate.
Holding them to standards you wouldn't hold any other nation is not.
I don't think anyone here is doing that. Do you?
You very openly have described your rabbit hole and cult susceptibility.
Criticism of Israel is entirely legitimate (if it is genuine criticism of Israel; it is not always) but if you also look at some of your comments on the Israeli actions and government you will see that you use hugely emotive language and terms that suggest an extreme of emotion over rationality.
Corby wasn't scum. AFAICS he was a run of the mill lefty, redistributive, anti-semite of which there are zillions around, even on well-respected internet chat rooms. Likewise, the Israeli government are not scum. They are fighting a war. Is Netanyahu scum? I don't follow it that closely to know what he has or hasn't done but I doubt it. I loathe BoJo but I wouldn't call him scum.
Well at least I am open to my failings. If you think I’m in a cult then you can say so. But I do not think I am.
Emotive language does not mean I am in a cult. I accept you may perceive it that way but the actions of the Israelis in recent days I do think are utterly appalling.
I do think Corbyn was scum yes.
I think you take issue more with the way I write, which is fair enough as it goes but I don't really have much more to say to you as I sense we are not going to agree.
There's something really odd about the perspectives in that photo. Everything (the flag, the furniture, the windows, the PM) is slightly but clearly the wrong size.
This has the sniff of Republicans and their analysis of Princess Catherine’s pics!
It’s time to retire the word “racist”. It’s lost whatever original meaning it once had and is now freely applied, often as a straightforward attempt to “cancel” or delegitimise someone or something.
I now prefer the word “prejudiced”. One can be prejudiced against black people, white people, Muslims, Scotsmen, accordion-players, Tory MPs, and Cheshire-based PB posters.
We are all, in fact, somewhat prejudiced. It is a human failing against which we must constantly check ourselves. Being “prejudiced” therefore is a hopefully temporary state of sin, capable of correction, whereas “racist” is used now to significantly a permanent state of moral perdition.
When I lived in NZ 3 decades ago there was a great euphemism in use. If someone made a racist comment etc they would be asked "don't you think that is a bit culturally insensitive?".
Far less confrontational than calling someone racist, and it did require people to examine their attitudes.
I think "culturally insensitive" is a very useful phrase still.
Comments
Far less confrontational than calling someone racist, and it did require people to examine their attitudes.
I think "culturally insensitive" is a very useful phrase still.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/04/05/german-manufacturing-plunges-in-fresh-blow-for-scholz/
Trump has made suggestions viz-a-viz the US civil service. I am unconvinced that his proposals would be effective. They appear to consist of making him immune from all crimes and only employing people who worship him. Neither of these seem good for the country.
But I don't feel like I am. I'm quite aware of Starmer's flaws for example and I am quite prepared to vote Conservative if Labour ends up screwing up the country.
If you're consistent and would do the same with Britain and Russia and America and everyone else then it's not.
If you're holding them to separate standards because they're Jews and Jews can do no right, then it is.
I'm not saying you personally are. But I do think, with all due respect, you flirt with the edge and it's fuelled in part by innocently swallowing the propaganda of those who outright are.
30 million people have some sort of mental infirmity.
How is that letter-writing campaign.
https://theconversation.com/qanon-is-spreading-outside-the-us-a-conspiracy-theory-expert-explains-what-that-could-mean-198272
• Night Tube
• Crossrail
• Ulez
• Ulex
• 5G Tube
• Cycle Superhighway
What counts as deliberate versus a tragic mistake? I think it's possible for both to be true at different levels. Some people in the IDF deliberately targeted those vehicles. They weren't accidentally hit when a drone was targetting something else. It is unclear why, so that targetting decision may have been a tragic mistake. Ergo, something can be deliberate but also a mistake, IYSWIM.
Criticism of Israel is entirely legitimate (if it is genuine criticism of Israel; it is not always) but if you also look at some of your comments on the Israeli actions and government you will see that you use hugely emotive language and terms that suggest an extreme of emotion over rationality.
Corby wasn't scum. AFAICS he was a run of the mill lefty, redistributive, anti-semite of which there are zillions around, even on well-respected internet chat rooms. Likewise, the Israeli government are not scum. They are fighting a war. Is Netanyahu scum? I don't follow it that closely to know what he has or hasn't done but I doubt it. I loathe BoJo but I wouldn't call him scum.
The term bully pulpit has not…?
But ULEZ, as much as I support it, is rather paltry fare for one of the greatest cities on Earth.
But it's harder in London, because so many of its residents are transients. Which is part of what some residents of Romford fear about Londonisation.
Ken had it, but he was odd. Boris had a different version of it, which was only partly fake. Sadiq has a low key version of it. But it's much harder to put your finger on.
I’m sure it wasn’t the intention, but this just highlights how rubbish Rishi Sunak is at this kind of thing.
I agree entirely with the rest of your post.
I would class shooting at a vehicle you believe to be used by militants but actually has aid workers as a mistake, even if hitting the vehicle was deliberate.
I would class shooting at a vehicle you know to be only aid workers because you want to kill aid workers to be deliberate.
I believe the former of the two happened. I'm not sure what horse thinks now.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/donald-trump-175-million-civil-fraud-bond-valid-new-york/
I don't think he deserves any great praise for recognising the fact. But a certain amount of credit, nonetheless.
Israel should and I believe is doing what it can to keep those mistakes to a minimum, without prejudicial the legitimate military objectives. That's the nature of proportionate warfare. It's the same when we fight a war in built up areas too and isn't helped by Hamas using others as human shields.
Is Netanyahu scum? It depends what you mean. He has his political positions. There are the things he said. (For example, in October 2015, he claimed that the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husseini, gave Adolf Hitler the idea for the Holocaust in the preceding months to the Second World War, which is completely untrue.)
After a 3-year investigation, he is currently charged with fraud, accepting bribes and breach of trust. The trial is ongoing. He has, Trump-like, done everything possible to put off or avoid the trial. Many consider him guilty, but the case hasn't been decided yet.
He's had numerous extramarital affairs. When his first-wife was pregnant, he started banging a shiksa, who went on to become his second wife. He's on wife #3 now and has admitted to an affair during this marriage. There are allegations of another.
Do you judge a man by his friends? He's close to Orbán, Modi, Bolsonaro and Berlusconi. He was previously close to Trump and to Putin.
In many ways, Bibi is like Trump, but more successful.
Offensive and as obnoxious as Corbyn is and was, I do smile at those who excuse Johnson's dog whistle racism over the decades as satire or banter. Horses for courses, I guess.
I don't think creating a famine conditions, for example, is. And note they only opened the crossings for aid in the last day after intense US pressure.
Would it have made a difference if it had a red cross or red crescent logo?
...tops of the vehicles obviously...
I agree with this video. The actor/film is William Hurt in Gorky Park.
"My favourite British accent by an American actor
Dr Geoff Lindsey"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-NALBFLlTUQ
The (CBS News - no idea) account seems pretty sensible.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/israel-gaza-world-central-kitchen-idf-fires-officers-investigation-blames-mistaken-id/
Includes this bit:
"The army said the order was given after one of the passengers inside a car was identified as a gunman. It said troops became suspicious because a gunman had been seen on the roof of one of the delivery trucks on the way to the warehouse. The army showed reporters video of the gunman firing his weapon while riding atop one of the trucks.
After the aid was dropped off at a warehouse, an officer believed he had spotted a gunman in one of the cars. The passenger, it turned out, was not carrying a weapon — the military said it's possible he was just carrying a bag."
I mean what on earth was that bloke doing on top of the car I can't imagine.
Sir Keir is dodging an awful lot of mockery by ex Tories hating Sunak so much. He’s possibly the stiffest, most thin skinned, tetchy male politician of the century, yet gets off scot free. I reckon Rishi will be far smoother & more telegenic in the debates, for what they’re worth
Matt Forde, a big supporter of Sir Keir, has picked up on his Partridge-esque manner as well. I can’t believe he won’t sink like a lead weight during the campaign
https://x.com/mattforde/status/1776143465052557549?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q
The IDF currently say that the personnel involved thought that the convoy had been taken over by Hamas gunmen and was thus a legitimate target.
If this was an understandable error during the fog of war, I am unclear why they've sacked two and reprimanded another three.
https://twitter.com/christiancalgie/status/1776227185256218848
Following on from the discussion above, I think that Starmer understands the politics but not the problems, but Reeves understands the problems. Specifically that the age has changed and that the cures of the past no longer work.
Anyhoo, Reeves's Speech (36th annual Mais Lecture) was entitled ‘Economic Growth in an Age of Insecurity’. Links are given below
PART 1 OF 4
The provided text is a speech given at Bayes Business School, discussing the shifting contours of conventional economic thought and the challenges facing policymakers. The speaker argues that the current moment is one of flux, similar to the 1970s, where old certainties about economic management have been found wanting. They propose an economic approach that recognizes the changes in the world and emphasizes stability, investment, and reform. The main challenge highlighted is the UK's growth performance, with the country entering a recession and underperforming compared to other OECD countries. The decline in productivity growth is identified as a key factor contributing to wage stagnation. The speaker emphasizes the need for a fundamental course correction to address these challenges and highlights the importance of values in economic policymaking. They argue that a new model of economic management is needed, one that builds growth on strong foundations and commands democratic consent. The text also discusses the accumulation of problems, including long-standing weaknesses, political and policy choices, and structural vulnerabilities. The speaker criticizes past approaches, such as the pursuit of narrowly-shared growth, and calls for a more comprehensive and inclusive strategy for growth. The text concludes by acknowledging the changing fiscal circumstances and the need to strike a balance between the imperatives of the energy transition and economic constraints.
PART 2 OF 4
The text highlights the impact of political instability on economic instability and investment deterrence. It discusses the urgent need for supply-side reform due to weak growth, stagnant living standards, and inflation. The narrative shifts to the current age of insecurity marked by geopolitical shifts, technological advancements, and the climate crisis. The need for a new approach to address these challenges is emphasized.
The discussion delves into the changing global landscape, emphasizing the need for resilience, inclusivity, and adaptability in economic growth strategies. The concept of 'securonomics' is introduced, focusing on balancing openness to global trade with domestic resilience. The text advocates for a strategic and active state to navigate the complexities of modern industrial strategy and economic growth.
The importance of sustained economic growth for funding public services, raising living standards, and international competitiveness is underscored. The narrative rejects the notion of a trade-off between a strong economy and a good society, emphasizing the potential for growth to improve overall well-being. The text concludes by highlighting the diverse sectors in the UK with growth potential and the need for tailored policies to unlock their benefits.
PART 3 OF 4
The text emphasizes the importance of stability, investment, and reform in achieving broad-based and resilient economic growth. Stability is highlighted as a fundamental condition for economic security and credibility, with institutions providing direction and coordination. Investment is seen as crucial, requiring partnership between businesses and government to foster growth. Reform is necessary to mobilize resources for shared prosperity. The role of the Bank of England in maintaining independence and addressing climate change risks is discussed, along with the need for strong fiscal rules and public investment. The text also stresses the importance of strategic industrial policy, public and private investment, innovation, and productivity to drive economic growth. Labor's plans for fiscal responsibility, tax stability, and investment in key sectors are outlined as part of a comprehensive strategy for sustainable growth.
Look up the much vaunted "Rules of War" (what they...?).
Combatants aren't allowed to use such ruses in war and if they do then they can expect an appropriate response from the opposing forces.
By coincidence Worcestershire are one of the counties on the park, helped enormously by being at Edgbaston.
PART 4 OF 4
The text outlines the need for reform in various sectors to drive growth and competitiveness in the future. It emphasizes the importance of planning system reform, infrastructure development, and housing targets to address economic challenges. The text also highlights the significance of regional equality and decentralization in boosting productivity and economic growth. Additionally, it discusses the importance of empowering workers, addressing skills gaps, and promoting gender equality in the workforce to drive economic success. The text concludes by stressing the need for a national mission to restore economic growth through supply-side reforms and strategic partnerships between the public and private sectors.
The Labour Party's official website announced that Rachel Reeves, a Member of Parliament, delivered the annual Mais Lecture at City, University of London. The lecture centered around the future of work and the challenges faced by workers in the modern economy.
During her speech, Rachel Reeves emphasized the urgent need for a fairer economy that benefits everyone. She stressed the importance of decent work, fair wages, and workers' rights in achieving this goal. Reeves also discussed the potential consequences of technological advancements and automation on jobs, expressing concerns about job losses and the necessity for retraining and upskilling to adapt to the changing landscape.
In addition to addressing the impact of technology on employment, Reeves highlighted her commitment to tackling inequality and creating opportunities for all. She outlined the Labour Party's vision of a society where everyone can thrive, emphasizing the significance of investing in education, infrastructure, and green industries to achieve this goal.
Overall, the press release emphasized Rachel Reeves' call for a fairer economy, her concerns about the impact of technology on jobs, and her dedication to addressing inequality and creating opportunities for all.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9oFzFB1KMxc
Don't think I've learnt anything meaningful from any of that.
It is a pisspoor attempt to look like a man of the people.
Only David Tennant is allowed to wear trainers with suits.
Honestly some of the Louis Vuitton loafers are like having your feet being massaged by angels.
If he appeals and wins then the payment will be reversed, which is why the bond to be held is an alternative, but it's already due.
The jail equivalent is that if you're convicted and sentenced to imprisonment then you can appeal but you're appealing from prison if so.
An appeal doesn't suspend the sentence.
Sir Alex Younger suggested a similar model to Sweden's partial conscription"
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13273557/brits-called-fight-country-conscription-mi6-chief.html
Oh, you decadent. A man at work should have proper shoes, black, polished, and with laces. Other variants are suitable for the weekends.
Ju-jitsu bar-chart move by the local Greens!
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/apr/05/israeli-inquiry-blames-wck-aid-killings-on-grave-errors-by-military-personnel
..The investigation determined that a colonel had authorised the series of drone strikes on the convoy based on one major’s observation – from grainy drone-camera footage – that someone in the convoy was armed. The observation turned out to be untrue.
It criticised officers for failing to read messages alerting troops that cars, not aid trucks, would carry workers from the charity away from the warehouse where aid was distributed. As a result, the targeted cars were misidentified as transporting militants.
The army also faulted a major who identified the strike target and a colonel who approved the strike for acting with insufficient information.
The army said it initially hit one car. As people scrambled away into a second car, it hit that vehicle as well. It did the same thing when survivors scrambled into a third car. Army officials claimed drone operators could not see that the cars were marked with the words “World Central Kitchen” because it was night-time...
Julius Levinson: "Nobody's poifect!"
A very shit situation, but that's different to doing it on purpose.
Whether he's getting that is a different question.
Or is that culturally insensitive?
Hey but I like the trend - crossover approaching with him and Biden in the betting.
Effective doubling in spending by 2036
4,600 more conscripts, 13,700 more reservists and 4,600 more employees
Five new frigates, at least five new submarines, and new class of 10/18 smaller vessels
https://twitter.com/Osinttechnical/status/1776234340692701452
Emotive language does not mean I am in a cult. I accept you may perceive it that way but the actions of the Israelis in recent days I do think are utterly appalling.
I do think Corbyn was scum yes.
I think you take issue more with the way I write, which is fair enough as it goes but I don't really have much more to say to you as I sense we are not going to agree.
Could he be following that fashion?
Edit: I keep two pairs of classic smart shoes at work - one brown (summer) and one black. I travel to the office in smart but practical.