The issue before is now is very simple and clear. There is a large and growing movement of leftwing terrorism in this country. It is well organized and funded. And it is shielded by far-left Democrat judges, prosecutors and attorneys general. The only remedy is to use legitimate state power to dismantle terrorism and terror networks.
Generally speaking if you want people to take you seriously then you should only do serious things and avoid empty gestures.
Recognising the state of Palestine and then following that up with no practical measures to make a sovereign state of Palestine a reality, is an empty gesture and an unserious action.
It certainly did not seem to be a part of any strategy beyond "If we do this, something may happen..."
Compare it to what Trump's plan may have already produced, with a promise to release the last of the hostages.
I would be very surprised if Trump's Sharpie ever saw a page of the 20 point plan. I suspect the original draft was handwritten with Tony Blair's Montblanc.
What a shame that the actions of a demented and unsuitable US President grabbing on to the plan of the last person he spoke to, being based on the work of someone out of office for eighteen years . . . is so much more credible than what our own Prime Minister did.
Whatever the value or otherwise of recognising Palestine, it is as you suggest most likely paying lip service to the base. However when it comes to the analysis on the Israel and Gaza war, your solution is both immoral and ridiculous.
In the past I have asked you to give me a maximum number of acceptable collateral casualties in this war and you have been courteous enough to respond "whatever it takes to extinguish* Hamas". When I have asked if 2 million dead Gazans is acceptable you have responded with "whatever it takes to extinguish* Hamas". I find that outrageous.
* My word choice, replace as you feel fit.
Because your comment is an asinine bullshit piece of bollocks.
Just war theory doesn't rely upon a quantity of the deaths the other side may face in isolation without any other consideration. Never has done, never will do.
If you were in Chamberlain's shoes, let alone Churchill's, then what maximum number of acceptable collateral casualties would you set to defeat the Nazis?
If you were in Lincoln's shoes, then what maximum number of acceptable collateral casualties would you set to defeat the Confederates and free the slaves?
As few collateral casualties as possible is desirable, but there never has been, never will be, a maximum. That's not outrageous, its reality.
You set a quantifiable maximum for Churchill and Lincoln, and your reasons for those maximums, then I will consider a quantity.
But you need to ask what would Churchill do in about March or April 1945, with Nazi Germany practically defeated. Israel controls more of Gaza than the Allied powers did of Germany then. At that point, Churchill was very much thinking about German civilian casualties and how to re-build Germany after the war.
You're completely right, and what Churchill did do in March or April 1945 was press on and ensure Nazi Germany surrendered unconditionally, not release the pressure and let them rebuild.
Same as Israel should be doing.
Yes there should be some day after thinking going on too, but first things first is to achieve the comprehensive and unconditional defeat and surrender of the enemy.
Generally speaking if you want people to take you seriously then you should only do serious things and avoid empty gestures.
Recognising the state of Palestine and then following that up with no practical measures to make a sovereign state of Palestine a reality, is an empty gesture and an unserious action.
It certainly did not seem to be a part of any strategy beyond "If we do this, something may happen..."
Compare it to what Trump's plan may have already produced, with a promise to release the last of the hostages.
I would be very surprised if Trump's Sharpie ever saw a page of the 20 point plan. I suspect the original draft was handwritten with Tony Blair's Montblanc.
What a shame that the actions of a demented and unsuitable US President grabbing on to the plan of the last person he spoke to, being based on the work of someone out of office for eighteen years . . . is so much more credible than what our own Prime Minister did.
Whatever the value or otherwise of recognising Palestine, it is as you suggest most likely paying lip service to the base. However when it comes to the analysis on the Israel and Gaza war, your solution is both immoral and ridiculous.
In the past I have asked you to give me a maximum number of acceptable collateral casualties in this war and you have been courteous enough to respond "whatever it takes to extinguish* Hamas". When I have asked if 2 million dead Gazans is acceptable you have responded with "whatever it takes to extinguish* Hamas". I find that outrageous.
* My word choice, replace as you feel fit.
Because your comment is an asinine bullshit piece of bollocks.
Just war theory doesn't rely upon a quantity of the deaths the other side may face in isolation without any other consideration. Never has done, never will do.
If you were in Chamberlain's shoes, let alone Churchill's, then what maximum number of acceptable collateral casualties would you set to defeat the Nazis?
If you were in Lincoln's shoes, then what maximum number of acceptable collateral casualties would you set to defeat the Confederates and free the slaves?
As few collateral casualties as possible is desirable, but there never has been, never will be, a maximum. That's not outrageous, its reality.
You set a quantifiable maximum for Churchill and Lincoln, and your reasons for those maximums, then I will consider a quantity.
The problem with your comparisons is that Netenyahu is not Churchill. If he is anyone in that conflict then it is Hitler. Happy to follow a course of genocide 'for the greater good'.
What genocide?
If Netanyahu were Hitler, or if Israel were committing genocide, there'd be at least two million dead by now. Israel has the power, and the ammunition, to achieve that very rapidly in a very small space.
Just because you dislike the war, doesn't make it genocide.
As an aside, I really hope the Trump Gaza plan comes through. It's been clear for a while that the best chance for the people of Gaza is for someone who isnt Hamas or Israel to take it over. I had thought it was mostly likely to be the Malaysians (as Muslims, but not Middle Eastern), but Tony Blair will do.
Hopefully he can oversee the rebuilding of Gaza, and make it a prosperous place that is no threat to its neighbour.
Simple capitalism - I've found - is the best antitode to extremism. (Indeed, you'd struggle to find a more diverse place than Goldman Sachs when I worked there in the late 1990s. Except perhaps from a neurodiversity point of view.)
I'm not sure I follow your Goldman Sachs point. Are you suggesting you had fanatical religious zealots on the staff who were turned away from their godly obsession by making money instead?
I'd suggest the best thing would be not to indoctrinate children. And try to inoculate them through the public education system.
I don’t think there any schools still standing in Gaza, unfortunately.
Considering the way they were used by Hamas, I'd be surprised if there were, or why there should be. They were being used by Hamas for military purposes.
Which is why I'd love to see children and any other innocents being able to get refuge in neighbouring Muslim states until the war is over, safe from the conflict and the bloodshed, rather than being subjected to the consequences of the war Hamas wanted.
The issue before is now is very simple and clear. There is a large and growing movement of leftwing terrorism in this country. It is well organized and funded. And it is shielded by far-left Democrat judges, prosecutors and attorneys general. The only remedy is to use legitimate state power to dismantle terrorism and terror networks.
This might well be conspiracy theory nonsense, and it likely wouldn't work very well, but it's actually now difficult to tell. They're mad enough to attempt it, and they do have a few tech billionaires inside.
.."After breaking fast tonight, while preparing for dinner and catching up on the flood of missed calls and messages, I heard from sources I trust. And what I heard stopped me cold.
The reason Trump and Pete Hegseth gathered all those generals in one room was not just about a loyalty speech or a pep rally.
I’m hearing that the Trump team used artificial intelligence and facial-recognition technology during those briefings to monitor the generals’ reactions in real time.
Every eyebrow raise, every flicker of doubt, every moment of discomfort was scanned and analyzed by an algorithm designed to detect who would obey orders without question—and who might resist.
I’m also hearing from my sources that this isn’t limited to the generals. This same technology is being used as a tool inside Trump’s orbit — a quiet weapon of power, deployed by his loyalists to identify and weed out whistleblowers and anyone who isn’t completely obedient. .. https://x.com/LorraineEvanoff/status/1973946340796477452
If you are not aware of Stephen Miller you should be. Trump and Hegseth are dangerous clowns. Miller is smart, intelligent, malign, extremely dangerous and quite possibly clinically insane.
The issue before is now is very simple and clear. There is a large and growing movement of leftwing terrorism in this country. It is well organized and funded. And it is shielded by far-left Democrat judges, prosecutors and attorneys general. The only remedy is to use legitimate state power to dismantle terrorism and terror networks.
This might well be conspiracy theory nonsense, and it likely wouldn't work very well, but it's actually now difficult to tell. They're mad enough to attempt it, and they do have a few tech billionaires inside.
.."After breaking fast tonight, while preparing for dinner and catching up on the flood of missed calls and messages, I heard from sources I trust. And what I heard stopped me cold.
The reason Trump and Pete Hegseth gathered all those generals in one room was not just about a loyalty speech or a pep rally.
I’m hearing that the Trump team used artificial intelligence and facial-recognition technology during those briefings to monitor the generals’ reactions in real time.
Every eyebrow raise, every flicker of doubt, every moment of discomfort was scanned and analyzed by an algorithm designed to detect who would obey orders without question—and who might resist.
I’m also hearing from my sources that this isn’t limited to the generals. This same technology is being used as a tool inside Trump’s orbit — a quiet weapon of power, deployed by his loyalists to identify and weed out whistleblowers and anyone who isn’t completely obedient. .. https://x.com/LorraineEvanoff/status/1973946340796477452
If you are not aware of Stephen Miller you should be. Trump and Hegseth are dangerous clowns. Miller is smart, intelligent, malign, extremely dangerous and quite possibly clinically insane.
Probably as near to Dr. Strangelove as we've ever had in the War Room.
The ant has made herself illustrious By constant industry industrious. So what? Would you be calm and placid If you were full of formic acid
(Ogden Nash)
I play a game called Factorio, with a mod pack called Pyanodons, which is all about creating a factory on an alien planet [ab]using alien life.
First major milestone is getting to being able to produce alien ants in volume in order to slaughter them to harvest their formic acid, in order to make rubber.
Generally speaking if you want people to take you seriously then you should only do serious things and avoid empty gestures.
Recognising the state of Palestine and then following that up with no practical measures to make a sovereign state of Palestine a reality, is an empty gesture and an unserious action.
It certainly did not seem to be a part of any strategy beyond "If we do this, something may happen..."
Compare it to what Trump's plan may have already produced, with a promise to release the last of the hostages.
I would be very surprised if Trump's Sharpie ever saw a page of the 20 point plan. I suspect the original draft was handwritten with Tony Blair's Montblanc.
What a shame that the actions of a demented and unsuitable US President grabbing on to the plan of the last person he spoke to, being based on the work of someone out of office for eighteen years . . . is so much more credible than what our own Prime Minister did.
Whatever the value or otherwise of recognising Palestine, it is as you suggest most likely paying lip service to the base. However when it comes to the analysis on the Israel and Gaza war, your solution is both immoral and ridiculous.
In the past I have asked you to give me a maximum number of acceptable collateral casualties in this war and you have been courteous enough to respond "whatever it takes to extinguish* Hamas". When I have asked if 2 million dead Gazans is acceptable you have responded with "whatever it takes to extinguish* Hamas". I find that outrageous.
* My word choice, replace as you feel fit.
Because your comment is an asinine bullshit piece of bollocks.
Just war theory doesn't rely upon a quantity of the deaths the other side may face in isolation without any other consideration. Never has done, never will do.
If you were in Chamberlain's shoes, let alone Churchill's, then what maximum number of acceptable collateral casualties would you set to defeat the Nazis?
If you were in Lincoln's shoes, then what maximum number of acceptable collateral casualties would you set to defeat the Confederates and free the slaves?
As few collateral casualties as possible is desirable, but there never has been, never will be, a maximum. That's not outrageous, its reality.
You set a quantifiable maximum for Churchill and Lincoln, and your reasons for those maximums, then I will consider a quantity.
The problem with your comparisons is that Netenyahu is not Churchill. If he is anyone in that conflict then it is Hitler. Happy to follow a course of genocide 'for the greater good'.
What genocide?
If Netanyahu were Hitler, or if Israel were committing genocide, there'd be at least two million dead by now. Israel has the power, and the ammunition, to achieve that very rapidly in a very small space.
Just because you dislike the war, doesn't make it genocide.
The mechanism to potentially execute 2 million Gazans is starvation.
Generally speaking if you want people to take you seriously then you should only do serious things and avoid empty gestures.
Recognising the state of Palestine and then following that up with no practical measures to make a sovereign state of Palestine a reality, is an empty gesture and an unserious action.
It certainly did not seem to be a part of any strategy beyond "If we do this, something may happen..."
Compare it to what Trump's plan may have already produced, with a promise to release the last of the hostages.
I would be very surprised if Trump's Sharpie ever saw a page of the 20 point plan. I suspect the original draft was handwritten with Tony Blair's Montblanc.
What a shame that the actions of a demented and unsuitable US President grabbing on to the plan of the last person he spoke to, being based on the work of someone out of office for eighteen years . . . is so much more credible than what our own Prime Minister did.
Whatever the value or otherwise of recognising Palestine, it is as you suggest most likely paying lip service to the base. However when it comes to the analysis on the Israel and Gaza war, your solution is both immoral and ridiculous.
In the past I have asked you to give me a maximum number of acceptable collateral casualties in this war and you have been courteous enough to respond "whatever it takes to extinguish* Hamas". When I have asked if 2 million dead Gazans is acceptable you have responded with "whatever it takes to extinguish* Hamas". I find that outrageous.
* My word choice, replace as you feel fit.
Because your comment is an asinine bullshit piece of bollocks.
Just war theory doesn't rely upon a quantity of the deaths the other side may face in isolation without any other consideration. Never has done, never will do.
If you were in Chamberlain's shoes, let alone Churchill's, then what maximum number of acceptable collateral casualties would you set to defeat the Nazis?
If you were in Lincoln's shoes, then what maximum number of acceptable collateral casualties would you set to defeat the Confederates and free the slaves?
As few collateral casualties as possible is desirable, but there never has been, never will be, a maximum. That's not outrageous, its reality.
You set a quantifiable maximum for Churchill and Lincoln, and your reasons for those maximums, then I will consider a quantity.
The problem with your comparisons is that Netenyahu is not Churchill. If he is anyone in that conflict then it is Hitler. Happy to follow a course of genocide 'for the greater good'.
What genocide?
If Netanyahu were Hitler, or if Israel were committing genocide, there'd be at least two million dead by now. Israel has the power, and the ammunition, to achieve that very rapidly in a very small space.
Just because you dislike the war, doesn't make it genocide.
The mechanism to potentially execute 2 million Gazans is starvation.
Oddly slow motion mechanism. Especially when they're the ones sending food and aid there to people who need it.
They could do it in days with ammunition, yet strangely they keep warning innocents to move so they don't get bombed. Weird thing for a nation set on genocide to do, to warn the people they're trying to wipe out so that they don't get hurt. Almost as if this genocide bullshit is just bullshit.
Generally speaking if you want people to take you seriously then you should only do serious things and avoid empty gestures.
Recognising the state of Palestine and then following that up with no practical measures to make a sovereign state of Palestine a reality, is an empty gesture and an unserious action.
It certainly did not seem to be a part of any strategy beyond "If we do this, something may happen..."
Compare it to what Trump's plan may have already produced, with a promise to release the last of the hostages.
I would be very surprised if Trump's Sharpie ever saw a page of the 20 point plan. I suspect the original draft was handwritten with Tony Blair's Montblanc.
What a shame that the actions of a demented and unsuitable US President grabbing on to the plan of the last person he spoke to, being based on the work of someone out of office for eighteen years . . . is so much more credible than what our own Prime Minister did.
Whatever the value or otherwise of recognising Palestine, it is as you suggest most likely paying lip service to the base. However when it comes to the analysis on the Israel and Gaza war, your solution is both immoral and ridiculous.
In the past I have asked you to give me a maximum number of acceptable collateral casualties in this war and you have been courteous enough to respond "whatever it takes to extinguish* Hamas". When I have asked if 2 million dead Gazans is acceptable you have responded with "whatever it takes to extinguish* Hamas". I find that outrageous.
* My word choice, replace as you feel fit.
Because your comment is an asinine bullshit piece of bollocks.
Just war theory doesn't rely upon a quantity of the deaths the other side may face in isolation without any other consideration. Never has done, never will do.
If you were in Chamberlain's shoes, let alone Churchill's, then what maximum number of acceptable collateral casualties would you set to defeat the Nazis?
If you were in Lincoln's shoes, then what maximum number of acceptable collateral casualties would you set to defeat the Confederates and free the slaves?
As few collateral casualties as possible is desirable, but there never has been, never will be, a maximum. That's not outrageous, its reality.
You set a quantifiable maximum for Churchill and Lincoln, and your reasons for those maximums, then I will consider a quantity.
The problem with your comparisons is that Netenyahu is not Churchill. If he is anyone in that conflict then it is Hitler. Happy to follow a course of genocide 'for the greater good'.
What genocide?
If Netanyahu were Hitler, or if Israel were committing genocide, there'd be at least two million dead by now. Israel has the power, and the ammunition, to achieve that very rapidly in a very small space.
Just because you dislike the war, doesn't make it genocide.
The mechanism to potentially execute 2 million Gazans is starvation.
Oddly slow motion mechanism. Especially when they're the ones sending food and aid there to people who need it.
They could do it in days with ammunition, yet strangely they keep warning innocents to move so they don't get bombed. Weird thing for a nation set on genocide to do, to warn the people they're trying to wipe out so that they don't get hurt. Almost as if this genocide bullshit is just bullshit.
Generally speaking if you want people to take you seriously then you should only do serious things and avoid empty gestures.
Recognising the state of Palestine and then following that up with no practical measures to make a sovereign state of Palestine a reality, is an empty gesture and an unserious action.
It certainly did not seem to be a part of any strategy beyond "If we do this, something may happen..."
Compare it to what Trump's plan may have already produced, with a promise to release the last of the hostages.
I would be very surprised if Trump's Sharpie ever saw a page of the 20 point plan. I suspect the original draft was handwritten with Tony Blair's Montblanc.
What a shame that the actions of a demented and unsuitable US President grabbing on to the plan of the last person he spoke to, being based on the work of someone out of office for eighteen years . . . is so much more credible than what our own Prime Minister did.
Whatever the value or otherwise of recognising Palestine, it is as you suggest most likely paying lip service to the base. However when it comes to the analysis on the Israel and Gaza war, your solution is both immoral and ridiculous.
In the past I have asked you to give me a maximum number of acceptable collateral casualties in this war and you have been courteous enough to respond "whatever it takes to extinguish* Hamas". When I have asked if 2 million dead Gazans is acceptable you have responded with "whatever it takes to extinguish* Hamas". I find that outrageous.
* My word choice, replace as you feel fit.
Because your comment is an asinine bullshit piece of bollocks.
Just war theory doesn't rely upon a quantity of the deaths the other side may face in isolation without any other consideration. Never has done, never will do.
If you were in Chamberlain's shoes, let alone Churchill's, then what maximum number of acceptable collateral casualties would you set to defeat the Nazis?
If you were in Lincoln's shoes, then what maximum number of acceptable collateral casualties would you set to defeat the Confederates and free the slaves?
As few collateral casualties as possible is desirable, but there never has been, never will be, a maximum. That's not outrageous, its reality.
You set a quantifiable maximum for Churchill and Lincoln, and your reasons for those maximums, then I will consider a quantity.
The problem with your comparisons is that Netenyahu is not Churchill. If he is anyone in that conflict then it is Hitler. Happy to follow a course of genocide 'for the greater good'.
What genocide?
If Netanyahu were Hitler, or if Israel were committing genocide, there'd be at least two million dead by now. Israel has the power, and the ammunition, to achieve that very rapidly in a very small space.
Just because you dislike the war, doesn't make it genocide.
The mechanism to potentially execute 2 million Gazans is starvation.
Oddly slow motion mechanism. Especially when they're the ones sending food and aid there to people who need it.
They could do it in days with ammunition, yet strangely they keep warning innocents to move so they don't get bombed. Weird thing for a nation set on genocide to do, to warn the people they're trying to wipe out so that they don't get hurt. Almost as if this genocide bullshit is just bullshit.
Do you not keep up with the news?
In simply practical terms genocide by starvation is considerably more economical in monetary terms than expending pricey ammunition.
Generally speaking if you want people to take you seriously then you should only do serious things and avoid empty gestures.
Recognising the state of Palestine and then following that up with no practical measures to make a sovereign state of Palestine a reality, is an empty gesture and an unserious action.
It certainly did not seem to be a part of any strategy beyond "If we do this, something may happen..."
Compare it to what Trump's plan may have already produced, with a promise to release the last of the hostages.
I would be very surprised if Trump's Sharpie ever saw a page of the 20 point plan. I suspect the original draft was handwritten with Tony Blair's Montblanc.
What a shame that the actions of a demented and unsuitable US President grabbing on to the plan of the last person he spoke to, being based on the work of someone out of office for eighteen years . . . is so much more credible than what our own Prime Minister did.
Whatever the value or otherwise of recognising Palestine, it is as you suggest most likely paying lip service to the base. However when it comes to the analysis on the Israel and Gaza war, your solution is both immoral and ridiculous.
In the past I have asked you to give me a maximum number of acceptable collateral casualties in this war and you have been courteous enough to respond "whatever it takes to extinguish* Hamas". When I have asked if 2 million dead Gazans is acceptable you have responded with "whatever it takes to extinguish* Hamas". I find that outrageous.
* My word choice, replace as you feel fit.
Because your comment is an asinine bullshit piece of bollocks.
Just war theory doesn't rely upon a quantity of the deaths the other side may face in isolation without any other consideration. Never has done, never will do.
If you were in Chamberlain's shoes, let alone Churchill's, then what maximum number of acceptable collateral casualties would you set to defeat the Nazis?
If you were in Lincoln's shoes, then what maximum number of acceptable collateral casualties would you set to defeat the Confederates and free the slaves?
As few collateral casualties as possible is desirable, but there never has been, never will be, a maximum. That's not outrageous, its reality.
You set a quantifiable maximum for Churchill and Lincoln, and your reasons for those maximums, then I will consider a quantity.
The problem with your comparisons is that Netenyahu is not Churchill. If he is anyone in that conflict then it is Hitler. Happy to follow a course of genocide 'for the greater good'.
What genocide?
If Netanyahu were Hitler, or if Israel were committing genocide, there'd be at least two million dead by now. Israel has the power, and the ammunition, to achieve that very rapidly in a very small space.
Just because you dislike the war, doesn't make it genocide.
The mechanism to potentially execute 2 million Gazans is starvation.
Oddly slow motion mechanism. Especially when they're the ones sending food and aid there to people who need it.
They could do it in days with ammunition, yet strangely they keep warning innocents to move so they don't get bombed. Weird thing for a nation set on genocide to do, to warn the people they're trying to wipe out so that they don't get hurt. Almost as if this genocide bullshit is just bullshit.
dead is dead
Yes and they're not dying because Israel is warning people to move away from the danger and setting up food distribution points.
Generally speaking if you want people to take you seriously then you should only do serious things and avoid empty gestures.
Recognising the state of Palestine and then following that up with no practical measures to make a sovereign state of Palestine a reality, is an empty gesture and an unserious action.
It certainly did not seem to be a part of any strategy beyond "If we do this, something may happen..."
Compare it to what Trump's plan may have already produced, with a promise to release the last of the hostages.
I would be very surprised if Trump's Sharpie ever saw a page of the 20 point plan. I suspect the original draft was handwritten with Tony Blair's Montblanc.
What a shame that the actions of a demented and unsuitable US President grabbing on to the plan of the last person he spoke to, being based on the work of someone out of office for eighteen years . . . is so much more credible than what our own Prime Minister did.
Whatever the value or otherwise of recognising Palestine, it is as you suggest most likely paying lip service to the base. However when it comes to the analysis on the Israel and Gaza war, your solution is both immoral and ridiculous.
In the past I have asked you to give me a maximum number of acceptable collateral casualties in this war and you have been courteous enough to respond "whatever it takes to extinguish* Hamas". When I have asked if 2 million dead Gazans is acceptable you have responded with "whatever it takes to extinguish* Hamas". I find that outrageous.
* My word choice, replace as you feel fit.
Because your comment is an asinine bullshit piece of bollocks.
Just war theory doesn't rely upon a quantity of the deaths the other side may face in isolation without any other consideration. Never has done, never will do.
If you were in Chamberlain's shoes, let alone Churchill's, then what maximum number of acceptable collateral casualties would you set to defeat the Nazis?
If you were in Lincoln's shoes, then what maximum number of acceptable collateral casualties would you set to defeat the Confederates and free the slaves?
As few collateral casualties as possible is desirable, but there never has been, never will be, a maximum. That's not outrageous, its reality.
You set a quantifiable maximum for Churchill and Lincoln, and your reasons for those maximums, then I will consider a quantity.
The problem with your comparisons is that Netenyahu is not Churchill. If he is anyone in that conflict then it is Hitler. Happy to follow a course of genocide 'for the greater good'.
What genocide?
If Netanyahu were Hitler, or if Israel were committing genocide, there'd be at least two million dead by now. Israel has the power, and the ammunition, to achieve that very rapidly in a very small space.
Just because you dislike the war, doesn't make it genocide.
The mechanism to potentially execute 2 million Gazans is starvation.
Oddly slow motion mechanism. Especially when they're the ones sending food and aid there to people who need it.
They could do it in days with ammunition, yet strangely they keep warning innocents to move so they don't get bombed. Weird thing for a nation set on genocide to do, to warn the people they're trying to wipe out so that they don't get hurt. Almost as if this genocide bullshit is just bullshit.
Do you not keep up with the news?
In simply practical terms genocide by starvation is considerably more economical in monetary terms than expending pricey ammunition.
Do you not keep up with the news?
They've used a shit tonne of ammunition, but they've kept the death toll impressively low, by warning civilians even though that carries the risk of warning Hamas.
If they were as bloodthirsty, or just plain uncaring, as accused of they could just not warn anyone and use the ammunition to exact maximum death tolls - but they're not, because they're fighting a war not committing genocide.
Now getting back to earlier conversation, if you were in Lincoln's shoes, what maximum number of acceptable collateral casualties would you set to defeat the Confederates and free the slaves?
You must have some sort of idea or bar or metric to go off, considering you consider it a sensible question and not barking mad.
The issue before is now is very simple and clear. There is a large and growing movement of leftwing terrorism in this country. It is well organized and funded. And it is shielded by far-left Democrat judges, prosecutors and attorneys general. The only remedy is to use legitimate state power to dismantle terrorism and terror networks.
This might well be conspiracy theory nonsense, and it likely wouldn't work very well, but it's actually now difficult to tell. They're mad enough to attempt it, and they do have a few tech billionaires inside.
.."After breaking fast tonight, while preparing for dinner and catching up on the flood of missed calls and messages, I heard from sources I trust. And what I heard stopped me cold.
The reason Trump and Pete Hegseth gathered all those generals in one room was not just about a loyalty speech or a pep rally.
I’m hearing that the Trump team used artificial intelligence and facial-recognition technology during those briefings to monitor the generals’ reactions in real time.
Every eyebrow raise, every flicker of doubt, every moment of discomfort was scanned and analyzed by an algorithm designed to detect who would obey orders without question—and who might resist.
I’m also hearing from my sources that this isn’t limited to the generals. This same technology is being used as a tool inside Trump’s orbit — a quiet weapon of power, deployed by his loyalists to identify and weed out whistleblowers and anyone who isn’t completely obedient. .. https://x.com/LorraineEvanoff/status/1973946340796477452
If you are not aware of Stephen Miller you should be. Trump and Hegseth are dangerous clowns. Miller is smart, intelligent, malign, extremely dangerous and quite possibly clinically insane.
Probably as near to Dr. Strangelove as we've ever had in the War Room.
His resemblance to Dr Evil (from the Austin Powers franchise) is genuinely uncanny.
Generally speaking if you want people to take you seriously then you should only do serious things and avoid empty gestures.
Recognising the state of Palestine and then following that up with no practical measures to make a sovereign state of Palestine a reality, is an empty gesture and an unserious action.
It certainly did not seem to be a part of any strategy beyond "If we do this, something may happen..."
Compare it to what Trump's plan may have already produced, with a promise to release the last of the hostages.
I would be very surprised if Trump's Sharpie ever saw a page of the 20 point plan. I suspect the original draft was handwritten with Tony Blair's Montblanc.
What a shame that the actions of a demented and unsuitable US President grabbing on to the plan of the last person he spoke to, being based on the work of someone out of office for eighteen years . . . is so much more credible than what our own Prime Minister did.
Whatever the value or otherwise of recognising Palestine, it is as you suggest most likely paying lip service to the base. However when it comes to the analysis on the Israel and Gaza war, your solution is both immoral and ridiculous.
In the past I have asked you to give me a maximum number of acceptable collateral casualties in this war and you have been courteous enough to respond "whatever it takes to extinguish* Hamas". When I have asked if 2 million dead Gazans is acceptable you have responded with "whatever it takes to extinguish* Hamas". I find that outrageous.
* My word choice, replace as you feel fit.
Because your comment is an asinine bullshit piece of bollocks.
Just war theory doesn't rely upon a quantity of the deaths the other side may face in isolation without any other consideration. Never has done, never will do.
If you were in Chamberlain's shoes, let alone Churchill's, then what maximum number of acceptable collateral casualties would you set to defeat the Nazis?
If you were in Lincoln's shoes, then what maximum number of acceptable collateral casualties would you set to defeat the Confederates and free the slaves?
As few collateral casualties as possible is desirable, but there never has been, never will be, a maximum. That's not outrageous, its reality.
You set a quantifiable maximum for Churchill and Lincoln, and your reasons for those maximums, then I will consider a quantity.
The problem with your comparisons is that Netenyahu is not Churchill. If he is anyone in that conflict then it is Hitler. Happy to follow a course of genocide 'for the greater good'.
What genocide?
If Netanyahu were Hitler, or if Israel were committing genocide, there'd be at least two million dead by now. Israel has the power, and the ammunition, to achieve that very rapidly in a very small space.
Just because you dislike the war, doesn't make it genocide.
The mechanism to potentially execute 2 million Gazans is starvation.
Oddly slow motion mechanism. Especially when they're the ones sending food and aid there to people who need it.
They could do it in days with ammunition, yet strangely they keep warning innocents to move so they don't get bombed. Weird thing for a nation set on genocide to do, to warn the people they're trying to wipe out so that they don't get hurt. Almost as if this genocide bullshit is just bullshit.
dead is dead
Yes and they're not dying because Israel is warning people to move away from the danger and setting up food distribution points.
Generally speaking if you want people to take you seriously then you should only do serious things and avoid empty gestures.
Recognising the state of Palestine and then following that up with no practical measures to make a sovereign state of Palestine a reality, is an empty gesture and an unserious action.
It certainly did not seem to be a part of any strategy beyond "If we do this, something may happen..."
Compare it to what Trump's plan may have already produced, with a promise to release the last of the hostages.
I would be very surprised if Trump's Sharpie ever saw a page of the 20 point plan. I suspect the original draft was handwritten with Tony Blair's Montblanc.
What a shame that the actions of a demented and unsuitable US President grabbing on to the plan of the last person he spoke to, being based on the work of someone out of office for eighteen years . . . is so much more credible than what our own Prime Minister did.
Whatever the value or otherwise of recognising Palestine, it is as you suggest most likely paying lip service to the base. However when it comes to the analysis on the Israel and Gaza war, your solution is both immoral and ridiculous.
In the past I have asked you to give me a maximum number of acceptable collateral casualties in this war and you have been courteous enough to respond "whatever it takes to extinguish* Hamas". When I have asked if 2 million dead Gazans is acceptable you have responded with "whatever it takes to extinguish* Hamas". I find that outrageous.
* My word choice, replace as you feel fit.
Because your comment is an asinine bullshit piece of bollocks.
Just war theory doesn't rely upon a quantity of the deaths the other side may face in isolation without any other consideration. Never has done, never will do.
If you were in Chamberlain's shoes, let alone Churchill's, then what maximum number of acceptable collateral casualties would you set to defeat the Nazis?
If you were in Lincoln's shoes, then what maximum number of acceptable collateral casualties would you set to defeat the Confederates and free the slaves?
As few collateral casualties as possible is desirable, but there never has been, never will be, a maximum. That's not outrageous, its reality.
You set a quantifiable maximum for Churchill and Lincoln, and your reasons for those maximums, then I will consider a quantity.
The problem with your comparisons is that Netenyahu is not Churchill. If he is anyone in that conflict then it is Hitler. Happy to follow a course of genocide 'for the greater good'.
What genocide?
If Netanyahu were Hitler, or if Israel were committing genocide, there'd be at least two million dead by now. Israel has the power, and the ammunition, to achieve that very rapidly in a very small space.
Just because you dislike the war, doesn't make it genocide.
The mechanism to potentially execute 2 million Gazans is starvation.
Oddly slow motion mechanism. Especially when they're the ones sending food and aid there to people who need it.
They could do it in days with ammunition, yet strangely they keep warning innocents to move so they don't get bombed. Weird thing for a nation set on genocide to do, to warn the people they're trying to wipe out so that they don't get hurt. Almost as if this genocide bullshit is just bullshit.
Do you not keep up with the news?
In simply practical terms genocide by starvation is considerably more economical in monetary terms than expending pricey ammunition.
Do you not keep up with the news?
They've used a shit tonne of ammunition, but they've kept the death toll impressively low, by warning civilians even though that carries the risk of warning Hamas.
If they were as bloodthirsty, or just plain uncaring, as accused of they could just not warn anyone and use the ammunition to exact maximum death tolls - but they're not, because they're fighting a war not committing genocide.
Now getting back to earlier conversation, if you were in Lincoln's shoes, what maximum number of acceptable collateral casualties would you set to defeat the Confederates and free the slaves?
You must have some sort of idea or bar or metric to go off, considering you consider it a sensible question and not barking mad.
With regards to Palestine your moral compass requires recalibration.
Well, it is *if* you get to redefine the term 'genocide' to mean whatever is actually happening...
Circular reasoning is so common nowadays that words like 'genocide' and 'fascist' easily become bereft of meaning. Say something that sounds powerful, then tweak the definition after the fact. Nobody will call you out if you're on the same side as them, after all.
Generally speaking if you want people to take you seriously then you should only do serious things and avoid empty gestures.
Recognising the state of Palestine and then following that up with no practical measures to make a sovereign state of Palestine a reality, is an empty gesture and an unserious action.
It certainly did not seem to be a part of any strategy beyond "If we do this, something may happen..."
Compare it to what Trump's plan may have already produced, with a promise to release the last of the hostages.
I would be very surprised if Trump's Sharpie ever saw a page of the 20 point plan. I suspect the original draft was handwritten with Tony Blair's Montblanc.
What a shame that the actions of a demented and unsuitable US President grabbing on to the plan of the last person he spoke to, being based on the work of someone out of office for eighteen years . . . is so much more credible than what our own Prime Minister did.
Whatever the value or otherwise of recognising Palestine, it is as you suggest most likely paying lip service to the base. However when it comes to the analysis on the Israel and Gaza war, your solution is both immoral and ridiculous.
In the past I have asked you to give me a maximum number of acceptable collateral casualties in this war and you have been courteous enough to respond "whatever it takes to extinguish* Hamas". When I have asked if 2 million dead Gazans is acceptable you have responded with "whatever it takes to extinguish* Hamas". I find that outrageous.
* My word choice, replace as you feel fit.
Because your comment is an asinine bullshit piece of bollocks.
Just war theory doesn't rely upon a quantity of the deaths the other side may face in isolation without any other consideration. Never has done, never will do.
If you were in Chamberlain's shoes, let alone Churchill's, then what maximum number of acceptable collateral casualties would you set to defeat the Nazis?
If you were in Lincoln's shoes, then what maximum number of acceptable collateral casualties would you set to defeat the Confederates and free the slaves?
As few collateral casualties as possible is desirable, but there never has been, never will be, a maximum. That's not outrageous, its reality.
You set a quantifiable maximum for Churchill and Lincoln, and your reasons for those maximums, then I will consider a quantity.
Netanyahu's extermination of Palestinians is not predicated on expediency it is predicated on racial hatred. This is why none of the examples you provide bear comparison.
That would be true for Ben-Gvir. It is not true for Netanyahu.
His calculation is that if he's the PM who annexes Gaza, he'll never be held accountable for the many crimes he has committed. Which is probably correct.
Just as, when he was secretly funnelling money to Hamas, he calculated as long as they were around his (entirely undeserved) reputation as a strongman who would take them on would cement him in power. In which incidentally he was correct.
Whereas I accept your narrative, Max Hastings provides an insight into Bibi's contempt for the Palestinian people.
Even if I overlook the fact that that was fifty years ago, I don't think that's as significant as you and he are making it to be. Netanyahu holds *everyone* in contempt (even, in private, his own supporters). He thinks of them all as scum.
It's epochal projection worthy of Susan Acland-Hood.
Netanyahu becomes easier to understand when you realise he is utterly cynical. He has no principles of any sort. Not even bad ones like racism.
Once a psychopathic racist, always a psychopathic racist?
I am content to be given an equal billing to Max Hastings. Our analysis of Boris Johnson is somewhat similar too.
Generally speaking if you want people to take you seriously then you should only do serious things and avoid empty gestures.
Recognising the state of Palestine and then following that up with no practical measures to make a sovereign state of Palestine a reality, is an empty gesture and an unserious action.
It certainly did not seem to be a part of any strategy beyond "If we do this, something may happen..."
Compare it to what Trump's plan may have already produced, with a promise to release the last of the hostages.
I would be very surprised if Trump's Sharpie ever saw a page of the 20 point plan. I suspect the original draft was handwritten with Tony Blair's Montblanc.
What a shame that the actions of a demented and unsuitable US President grabbing on to the plan of the last person he spoke to, being based on the work of someone out of office for eighteen years . . . is so much more credible than what our own Prime Minister did.
Whatever the value or otherwise of recognising Palestine, it is as you suggest most likely paying lip service to the base. However when it comes to the analysis on the Israel and Gaza war, your solution is both immoral and ridiculous.
In the past I have asked you to give me a maximum number of acceptable collateral casualties in this war and you have been courteous enough to respond "whatever it takes to extinguish* Hamas". When I have asked if 2 million dead Gazans is acceptable you have responded with "whatever it takes to extinguish* Hamas". I find that outrageous.
* My word choice, replace as you feel fit.
Because your comment is an asinine bullshit piece of bollocks.
Just war theory doesn't rely upon a quantity of the deaths the other side may face in isolation without any other consideration. Never has done, never will do.
If you were in Chamberlain's shoes, let alone Churchill's, then what maximum number of acceptable collateral casualties would you set to defeat the Nazis?
If you were in Lincoln's shoes, then what maximum number of acceptable collateral casualties would you set to defeat the Confederates and free the slaves?
As few collateral casualties as possible is desirable, but there never has been, never will be, a maximum. That's not outrageous, its reality.
You set a quantifiable maximum for Churchill and Lincoln, and your reasons for those maximums, then I will consider a quantity.
The problem with your comparisons is that Netenyahu is not Churchill. If he is anyone in that conflict then it is Hitler. Happy to follow a course of genocide 'for the greater good'.
What genocide?
If Netanyahu were Hitler, or if Israel were committing genocide, there'd be at least two million dead by now. Israel has the power, and the ammunition, to achieve that very rapidly in a very small space.
Just because you dislike the war, doesn't make it genocide.
The massacre at Srebrenica where 8000 men and boys were murdered was and is considered a genocidal act. Netenyahu has far exceeded that number. The fact he hasn't yet reached the levels of WW2 does not diminish the fact he is engaged in genocide. You support this and have done since the start. It is far too late for you to try and worm your way out of it now.
Generally speaking if you want people to take you seriously then you should only do serious things and avoid empty gestures.
Recognising the state of Palestine and then following that up with no practical measures to make a sovereign state of Palestine a reality, is an empty gesture and an unserious action.
It certainly did not seem to be a part of any strategy beyond "If we do this, something may happen..."
Compare it to what Trump's plan may have already produced, with a promise to release the last of the hostages.
I would be very surprised if Trump's Sharpie ever saw a page of the 20 point plan. I suspect the original draft was handwritten with Tony Blair's Montblanc.
What a shame that the actions of a demented and unsuitable US President grabbing on to the plan of the last person he spoke to, being based on the work of someone out of office for eighteen years . . . is so much more credible than what our own Prime Minister did.
Whatever the value or otherwise of recognising Palestine, it is as you suggest most likely paying lip service to the base. However when it comes to the analysis on the Israel and Gaza war, your solution is both immoral and ridiculous.
In the past I have asked you to give me a maximum number of acceptable collateral casualties in this war and you have been courteous enough to respond "whatever it takes to extinguish* Hamas". When I have asked if 2 million dead Gazans is acceptable you have responded with "whatever it takes to extinguish* Hamas". I find that outrageous.
* My word choice, replace as you feel fit.
Because your comment is an asinine bullshit piece of bollocks.
Just war theory doesn't rely upon a quantity of the deaths the other side may face in isolation without any other consideration. Never has done, never will do.
If you were in Chamberlain's shoes, let alone Churchill's, then what maximum number of acceptable collateral casualties would you set to defeat the Nazis?
If you were in Lincoln's shoes, then what maximum number of acceptable collateral casualties would you set to defeat the Confederates and free the slaves?
As few collateral casualties as possible is desirable, but there never has been, never will be, a maximum. That's not outrageous, its reality.
You set a quantifiable maximum for Churchill and Lincoln, and your reasons for those maximums, then I will consider a quantity.
The problem with your comparisons is that Netenyahu is not Churchill. If he is anyone in that conflict then it is Hitler. Happy to follow a course of genocide 'for the greater good'.
What genocide?
If Netanyahu were Hitler, or if Israel were committing genocide, there'd be at least two million dead by now. Israel has the power, and the ammunition, to achieve that very rapidly in a very small space.
Just because you dislike the war, doesn't make it genocide.
The massacre at Srebrenica where 8000 men and boys were murdered was and is considered a genocidal act. Netenyahu has far exceeded that number. The fact he hasn't yet reached the levels of WW2 does not diminish the fact he is engaged in genocide. You support this and have done since the start. It is far too late for you to try and worm your way out of it now.
The massacre at Srebenica served no military purpose and was not part of a just war, fighting Hamas does and is, which is why it is an act of just war. Many just wars have had death tolls far in excess of the just war that Israel is fighting.
I support whatever it takes to defeat Hamas and have done since the start, yes.
You did not. From the start you opposed defeating Hamas, even after what they did.
That does not make defeating Hamas an act of genocide, it is an act of war.
Generally speaking if you want people to take you seriously then you should only do serious things and avoid empty gestures.
Recognising the state of Palestine and then following that up with no practical measures to make a sovereign state of Palestine a reality, is an empty gesture and an unserious action.
It certainly did not seem to be a part of any strategy beyond "If we do this, something may happen..."
Compare it to what Trump's plan may have already produced, with a promise to release the last of the hostages.
I would be very surprised if Trump's Sharpie ever saw a page of the 20 point plan. I suspect the original draft was handwritten with Tony Blair's Montblanc.
What a shame that the actions of a demented and unsuitable US President grabbing on to the plan of the last person he spoke to, being based on the work of someone out of office for eighteen years . . . is so much more credible than what our own Prime Minister did.
Whatever the value or otherwise of recognising Palestine, it is as you suggest most likely paying lip service to the base. However when it comes to the analysis on the Israel and Gaza war, your solution is both immoral and ridiculous.
In the past I have asked you to give me a maximum number of acceptable collateral casualties in this war and you have been courteous enough to respond "whatever it takes to extinguish* Hamas". When I have asked if 2 million dead Gazans is acceptable you have responded with "whatever it takes to extinguish* Hamas". I find that outrageous.
* My word choice, replace as you feel fit.
Because your comment is an asinine bullshit piece of bollocks.
Just war theory doesn't rely upon a quantity of the deaths the other side may face in isolation without any other consideration. Never has done, never will do.
If you were in Chamberlain's shoes, let alone Churchill's, then what maximum number of acceptable collateral casualties would you set to defeat the Nazis?
If you were in Lincoln's shoes, then what maximum number of acceptable collateral casualties would you set to defeat the Confederates and free the slaves?
As few collateral casualties as possible is desirable, but there never has been, never will be, a maximum. That's not outrageous, its reality.
You set a quantifiable maximum for Churchill and Lincoln, and your reasons for those maximums, then I will consider a quantity.
The problem with your comparisons is that Netenyahu is not Churchill. If he is anyone in that conflict then it is Hitler. Happy to follow a course of genocide 'for the greater good'.
What genocide?
If Netanyahu were Hitler, or if Israel were committing genocide, there'd be at least two million dead by now. Israel has the power, and the ammunition, to achieve that very rapidly in a very small space.
Just because you dislike the war, doesn't make it genocide.
The massacre at Srebrenica where 8000 men and boys were murdered was and is considered a genocidal act. Netenyahu has far exceeded that number. The fact he hasn't yet reached the levels of WW2 does not diminish the fact he is engaged in genocide. You support this and have done since the start. It is far too late for you to try and worm your way out of it now.
The massacre at Srebenica served no military purpose and was not part of a just war, fighting Hamas does and is, which is why it is an act of just war. Many just wars have had death tolls far in excess of the just war that Israel is fighting.
I support whatever it takes to defeat Hamas and have done since the start, yes.
You did not. From the start you opposed defeating Hamas, even after what they did.
That does not make defeating Hamas an act of genocide, it is an act of war.
From the man who at the start of all of this claimed it didn't matter how many Palestinian civilians died and it was all their own fault anyway.
Someone earlier said your moral compass needed recalibrating. I don't think you ever had one.
Generally speaking if you want people to take you seriously then you should only do serious things and avoid empty gestures.
Recognising the state of Palestine and then following that up with no practical measures to make a sovereign state of Palestine a reality, is an empty gesture and an unserious action.
It certainly did not seem to be a part of any strategy beyond "If we do this, something may happen..."
Compare it to what Trump's plan may have already produced, with a promise to release the last of the hostages.
I would be very surprised if Trump's Sharpie ever saw a page of the 20 point plan. I suspect the original draft was handwritten with Tony Blair's Montblanc.
What a shame that the actions of a demented and unsuitable US President grabbing on to the plan of the last person he spoke to, being based on the work of someone out of office for eighteen years . . . is so much more credible than what our own Prime Minister did.
Whatever the value or otherwise of recognising Palestine, it is as you suggest most likely paying lip service to the base. However when it comes to the analysis on the Israel and Gaza war, your solution is both immoral and ridiculous.
In the past I have asked you to give me a maximum number of acceptable collateral casualties in this war and you have been courteous enough to respond "whatever it takes to extinguish* Hamas". When I have asked if 2 million dead Gazans is acceptable you have responded with "whatever it takes to extinguish* Hamas". I find that outrageous.
* My word choice, replace as you feel fit.
Because your comment is an asinine bullshit piece of bollocks.
Just war theory doesn't rely upon a quantity of the deaths the other side may face in isolation without any other consideration. Never has done, never will do.
If you were in Chamberlain's shoes, let alone Churchill's, then what maximum number of acceptable collateral casualties would you set to defeat the Nazis?
If you were in Lincoln's shoes, then what maximum number of acceptable collateral casualties would you set to defeat the Confederates and free the slaves?
As few collateral casualties as possible is desirable, but there never has been, never will be, a maximum. That's not outrageous, its reality.
You set a quantifiable maximum for Churchill and Lincoln, and your reasons for those maximums, then I will consider a quantity.
The problem with your comparisons is that Netenyahu is not Churchill. If he is anyone in that conflict then it is Hitler. Happy to follow a course of genocide 'for the greater good'.
What genocide?
If Netanyahu were Hitler, or if Israel were committing genocide, there'd be at least two million dead by now. Israel has the power, and the ammunition, to achieve that very rapidly in a very small space.
Just because you dislike the war, doesn't make it genocide.
The massacre at Srebrenica where 8000 men and boys were murdered was and is considered a genocidal act. Netenyahu has far exceeded that number. The fact he hasn't yet reached the levels of WW2 does not diminish the fact he is engaged in genocide. You support this and have done since the start. It is far too late for you to try and worm your way out of it now.
The massacre at Srebenica served no military purpose and was not part of a just war, fighting Hamas does and is, which is why it is an act of just war. Many just wars have had death tolls far in excess of the just war that Israel is fighting.
I support whatever it takes to defeat Hamas and have done since the start, yes.
You did not. From the start you opposed defeating Hamas, even after what they did.
That does not make defeating Hamas an act of genocide, it is an act of war.
From the man who at the start of all of this claimed it didn't matter how many Palestinian civilians died and it was all their own fault anyway.
Someone earlier said your moral compass needed recalibrating. I don't think you ever had one.
That's bullshit, I said it is Hamas's fault, not the innocent Palestinian civilians fault.
It is, just as it was the Confederate leaders and the Nazi leaders fault when Confederate and German civilians died.
As for how many die, yes that is tragic but is not a deciding factor. If you think it is, then what is the acceptable number of German civilian casualties that Churchill or Chamberlain should have set as an upper limit before we stop fighting? What is the acceptable number of Confederate civilian casualties that Lincoln should have set as an upper limit before they stopped fighting?
Wars are not set with upper limits on casualty figures, which is why they should only ever be a last resort, and that last resort has been reached here.
To demand a cap on casualties here, when no war has ever in human history been fought on that basis, is utter bullshit. You need to recalibrate your morals if you can't see why Hamas need to be defeated.
750,000 over five years. Assuming the capacity of a 747 is 600, that's 1250 planes over five years, or 250 747s a year, or around two every 3 or 4 days. Good luck with that.
As an aside, I really hope the Trump Gaza plan comes through. It's been clear for a while that the best chance for the people of Gaza is for someone who isnt Hamas or Israel to take it over. I had thought it was mostly likely to be the Malaysians (as Muslims, but not Middle Eastern), but Tony Blair will do.
Hopefully he can oversee the rebuilding of Gaza, and make it a prosperous place that is no threat to its neighbour.
Simple capitalism - I've found - is the best antitode to extremism. (Indeed, you'd struggle to find a more diverse place than Goldman Sachs when I worked there in the late 1990s. Except perhaps from a neurodiversity point of view.)
I'm not sure I follow your Goldman Sachs point. Are you suggesting you had fanatical religious zealots on the staff who were turned away from their godly obsession by making money instead?
I'm suggesting that when people are motivated by making money, they are very happy to work very closely with people they have very little in common with.
I'm reminded of the greatest introduction to a book ever:
"Most of economics can be summarized in four words: ‘People respond to incentives.’ The rest is commentary."
That might be the second greatest but here is Goodstein's States of Matter:-
750,000 over five years. Assuming the capacity of a 747 is 600, that's 1250 planes over five years, or 250 747s a year, or around two every 3 or 4 days. Good luck with that.
Most people would go on their own volition when their visa expires, you don’t need to remove each one on a charter flight.
750,000 over five years. Assuming the capacity of a 747 is 600, that's 1250 planes over five years, or 250 747s a year, or around two every 3 or 4 days. Good luck with that.
Hundreds of large planes depart Britain every day. I think even our shambolic government could manage just 1 plane every 2 or 3 days
750,000 over five years. Assuming the capacity of a 747 is 600, that's 1250 planes over five years, or 250 747s a year, or around two every 3 or 4 days. Good luck with that.
Most people would go on their own volition when their visa expires, you don’t need to remove each one on a charter flight.
750,000 over five years. Assuming the capacity of a 747 is 600, that's 1250 planes over five years, or 250 747s a year, or around two every 3 or 4 days. Good luck with that.
Most people would go on their own volition when their visa expires, you don’t need to remove each one on a charter flight.
It's still 1000 to 2000 people a week.
How many people fly out of the UK every week? It’s a drop in the ocean.
750,000 over five years. Assuming the capacity of a 747 is 600, that's 1250 planes over five years, or 250 747s a year, or around two every 3 or 4 days. Good luck with that.
Hundreds of large planes depart Britain every day. I think even our shambolic government could manage just 1 plane every 2 or 3 days
750,000 over five years. Assuming the capacity of a 747 is 600, that's 1250 planes over five years, or 250 747s a year, or around two every 3 or 4 days. Good luck with that.
Hundreds of large planes depart Britain every day. I think even our shambolic government could manage just 1 plane every 2 or 3 days
What's wrong with boats?
Massive rafts. Tow them to Ireland
Ps I warn you the passport queues are LAX are as bad as ever. Why is it always like this?
Plus these days there’s the added chance of a arrest, mild torture then incarceration in that El Salvador maxi jail if you did a bad tweet about J D Vance
750,000 over five years. Assuming the capacity of a 747 is 600, that's 1250 planes over five years, or 250 747s a year, or around two every 3 or 4 days. Good luck with that.
Hundreds of large planes depart Britain every day. I think even our shambolic government could manage just 1 plane every 2 or 3 days
What's wrong with boats?
Massive rafts. Tow them to Ireland
Ps I warn you the passport queues are LAX are as bad as ever. Why is it always like this?
Plus these days there’s the added chance of a arrest, mild torture then incarceration in that El Salvador maxi jail if you did a bad tweet about J D Vance
I've just landed in Dallas. Also, I'm Global Entry, so it takes me approximately 30 seconds to clear immigration, and then a solid two minutes to walk through customs.
750,000 over five years. Assuming the capacity of a 747 is 600, that's 1250 planes over five years, or 250 747s a year, or around two every 3 or 4 days. Good luck with that.
Hundreds of large planes depart Britain every day. I think even our shambolic government could manage just 1 plane every 2 or 3 days
What's wrong with boats?
Massive rafts. Tow them to Ireland
Ps I warn you the passport queues are LAX are as bad as ever. Why is it always like this?
Plus these days there’s the added chance of a arrest, mild torture then incarceration in that El Salvador maxi jail if you did a bad tweet about J D Vance
I've just landed in Dallas. Also, I'm Global Entry, so it takes me approximately 30 seconds to clear immigration, and then a solid two minutes to walk through customs.
I WANT THAT. WHY CAN’T I HAVE THAT
Anyway I’m through now. Not shot by ICE or Stephen Miller. All feels quite un-fash
I am only awake because its still really stormy here in the North East of Scotland, but I just despair of the way that some of you are not recognising Kemi Badenoch's great qualities or what she has been trying to do over the last year having been handed the toughest Opposition Leader roll when the electorate are still punishing the Conservative party and have been refusing to listen to their party at all or any of their new policy messages! Kemi is not the problem, if Robert Jenrick had been elected in the Conservative leadership contest as a younger pint sized Farage the polls would have remained the same as he would have equally failed to break through with the electorate any more than she has managed to do over the last year and we would have been debating his demise as Party leader as a result of a protest party with no viable policies in May next year!
There have been focus groups who highlighted that part of the problem for the party has been the constant merry go round of the divisive changing of leaders four times in the last six years before that catastrophic and humilating GE defeat last year. The party needs stability in the wake of that defeat, and at the moment while the electorate are not listening to the Conservatives or what they have to offer, we have one thing that neither Keir Starmer or Nigel Farage have in their party right now, we have a young ambitious plain speaking woman who is trying to rebuild the party and offer sustainable policies and who is not another man in a grey suit who has been around for years. Changing Conservative leaders in the next year in response to the Reform polling or the May results next year so soon after the last GE only brings yet more negative publicity for the party and will back fire.
Given the time to rebuild the party and bring about real policy change with the whole backing of the party and I believe that Kemi Badenoch can do a David Cameron where Robert Jenrick cannot. But here is the thing, I believe that he can be a very useful ally to her in the same way that George Osborne was to David Cameron if he is on board enough like George Osborne was to make sure that the party was successfully elected again as her wingman. If Robert Jenrick and Chris Philp get behind her and she tightens up her Shadow Cabinet by bringing James Cleverly back into the fold as Shadow Foreign Secretary then they should be given the time to embed and make a difference over the longer term.
Really rather pleasant. Art deco, revamped. 101 years old. Once owned by Charlie Chaplin, who lost at poker here to John Wayne - old skool Hollywood
And the neighbourhood is… walkable
Culver City is quite nice. You're on the metro, so you can easily get into Santa Monica or go see LAFC or go to USC.
There are decent restaurants.
It's not particularly unattractive by LA standards.
Yes. I’m pleasantly surprised. It’s not Primrose Hill but it’s agreeable
And the hotel itself is fab. Great bar. Soaked in Hollywood history (all the studios nearby)
The Fox lot is about two minutes away. There's a nice office complex there where we use the WeWork. There's an Equinox gym.
There aren't too many homeless crystal meth addicts.
I’m just reading the history of the hotel. It’s fab. The entire cast of Gone with the Wind stayed here during filming. Clark Gable kept a suite for years. As did Joan Crawford, Buster Keaton, Greta Garbo
Likewise the Wizard of Oz and Singing in the rain - the cast all stayed here. Including 500 munchkins from Oz
The studio saved money by making the munchkins sleep three to a bed - arranged sideways. But then the munchkins got revenge by trashing the place - swinging from the chandeliers and chucking tankards through windows in riotous munchkin-fests
Very sad about this; we went there in February or March and sat down outside to eat. It's been closed for a few months now; annoying when I wanted a cheap place to get some good grub when I was in town.
I have many memories of Gardies; I was introduced to it when I first came to Cambridge by a friend whose gf went to uni there. Waiting for food in the poky rooms upstairs; chatting to students in the queue about arcane topics; one warm summer's day a queue of people in graduation gowns queuing out of the door. Sitting on the low wall nearby at night, getting all the lovely burger juices dribbling down my hands and clothes.
It also means that there's one less cheap food place in the centre of town.
The end of an institution. I'm glad I got to take my son there.
F1: going to start browsing the markets first. Heads up for anyone who hasn't seen: Williams had both drivers disqualified for rear wing technical infringements.
I am only awake because its still really stormy here in the North East of Scotland, but I just despair of the way that some of you are not recognising Kemi Badenoch's great qualities or what she has been trying to do over the last year having been handed the toughest Opposition Leader roll when the electorate are still punishing the Conservative party and have been refusing to listen to their party at all or any of their new policy messages! Kemi is not the problem, if Robert Jenrick had been elected in the Conservative leadership contest as a younger pint sized Farage the polls would have remained the same as he would have equally failed to break through with the electorate any more than she has managed to do over the last year and we would have been debating his demise as Party leader as a result of a protest party with no viable policies in May next year!
There have been focus groups who highlighted that part of the problem for the party has been the constant merry go round of the divisive changing of leaders four times in the last six years before that catastrophic and humilating GE defeat last year. The party needs stability in the wake of that defeat, and at the moment while the electorate are not listening to the Conservatives or what they have to offer, we have one thing that neither Keir Starmer or Nigel Farage have in their party right now, we have a young ambitious plain speaking woman who is trying to rebuild the party and offer sustainable policies and who is not another man in a grey suit who has been around for years. Changing Conservative leaders in the next year in response to the Reform polling or the May results next year so soon after the last GE only brings yet more negative publicity for the party and will back fire.
Given the time to rebuild the party and bring about real policy change with the whole backing of the party and I believe that Kemi Badenoch can do a David Cameron where Robert Jenrick cannot. But here is the thing, I believe that he can be a very useful ally to her in the same way that George Osborne was to David Cameron if he is on board enough like George Osborne was to make sure that the party was successfully elected again as her wingman. If Robert Jenrick and Chris Philp get behind her and she tightens up her Shadow Cabinet by bringing James Cleverly back into the fold as Shadow Foreign Secretary then they should be given the time to embed and make a difference over the longer term.
Absolutely, totally right. As another card carrying member of the party, I could not agree more.
The problem with the Tory Party is that is has always been based upon compromise, working with others for the good of the country. Thus we didn't believe in Nationalisation but in 1951 we tried to make the Labour post war settlement work. When we try to pull back a little there is all hell on, see 1979.
From 2010 to 2024 we worked with others for a consensus, doing the best we could but without overturning what was already there. And now that has bitten us in the arse.
It has been fashionable to hit Kemi, easy shots from opportunists whether hard left Marxist opportunists like Starmer or self-serving right of centre opportunists like Farage. I didn't vote for Kemi for leader as I feared she would suffer the same sotto-voce racism that Rishi suffered. I have bene proved right. That is what our opponents do, particularly the Lib Dems. I remember the first gay Tory councillor in a northern town. Labour were fine with it but I remember the Lib Dems on the door step. When the voter expressed admiration for the lad the next line was "You know he's a puff ?"
F1: bit of scrabbling around here, so not too confident, but backed Piastri each way at 7 and Bortoleto to win his group (Williams, Ocon, Stroll) at 3.6, prices boosted.
Matthew Syed talks to Palestine Action supporters, and it goes as expected.
Marching this weekend, after what happened on Thursday, is absolutely disgusting. Shame on the marchers.
Having read that article and others, I fear the problem is that, for many of the protestors, it is simply Palestinians=good, Israel=bad. The idea that Palestinians - and this includes Hamas - might have bad people or (heaven forfend!) be actually worse than Israel is anathema. Or worse: they accept that Hamas does bad things, but they're doing it in defence of Palestinians, which makes it okay.
"All mum did was congratulate the new Archbishop of Canterbury. She has be called vile, a travesty, ignorant, disgusting, an aberration, not a Christian, destroying the church & society & is a member of a cult, all because she is a female Priest. She is crying & I am furious."
I am only awake because its still really stormy here in the North East of Scotland, but I just despair of the way that some of you are not recognising Kemi Badenoch's great qualities or what she has been trying to do over the last year having been handed the toughest Opposition Leader roll when the electorate are still punishing the Conservative party and have been refusing to listen to their party at all or any of their new policy messages! Kemi is not the problem, if Robert Jenrick had been elected in the Conservative leadership contest as a younger pint sized Farage the polls would have remained the same as he would have equally failed to break through with the electorate any more than she has managed to do over the last year and we would have been debating his demise as Party leader as a result of a protest party with no viable policies in May next year!
There have been focus groups who highlighted that part of the problem for the party has been the constant merry go round of the divisive changing of leaders four times in the last six years before that catastrophic and humilating GE defeat last year. The party needs stability in the wake of that defeat, and at the moment while the electorate are not listening to the Conservatives or what they have to offer, we have one thing that neither Keir Starmer or Nigel Farage have in their party right now, we have a young ambitious plain speaking woman who is trying to rebuild the party and offer sustainable policies and who is not another man in a grey suit who has been around for years. Changing Conservative leaders in the next year in response to the Reform polling or the May results next year so soon after the last GE only brings yet more negative publicity for the party and will back fire.
Given the time to rebuild the party and bring about real policy change with the whole backing of the party and I believe that Kemi Badenoch can do a David Cameron where Robert Jenrick cannot. But here is the thing, I believe that he can be a very useful ally to her in the same way that George Osborne was to David Cameron if he is on board enough like George Osborne was to make sure that the party was successfully elected again as her wingman. If Robert Jenrick and Chris Philp get behind her and she tightens up her Shadow Cabinet by bringing James Cleverly back into the fold as Shadow Foreign Secretary then they should be given the time to embed and make a difference over the longer term.
And yet there is something lacking. Leadership is earned .. not demand from the sidelines.
"All mum did was congratulate the new Archbishop of Canterbury. She has be called vile, a travesty, ignorant, disgusting, an aberration, not a Christian, destroying the church & society & is a member of a cult, all because she is a female Priest. She is crying & I am furious."
The intolerance is unacceptable and probably from the Evangelical right
They need to understand the true meaning of Christianity and not dissect and twist the testaments to fit their very unchristian views . I am not a member of the COE but I wish her well
Matthew Syed talks to Palestine Action supporters, and it goes as expected.
Marching this weekend, after what happened on Thursday, is absolutely disgusting. Shame on the marchers.
Having read that article and others, I fear the problem is that, for many of the protestors, it is simply Palestinians=good, Israel=bad. The idea that Palestinians - and this includes Hamas - might have bad people or (heaven forfend!) be actually worse than Israel is anathema. Or worse: they accept that Hamas does bad things, but they're doing it in defence of Palestinians, which makes it okay.
I note there has been an attack on a Mosque overnight
We need strong government action as Andy Burnham and Kemi Bademoch jointly said last night in Manchester
Matthew Syed talks to Palestine Action supporters, and it goes as expected.
Marching this weekend, after what happened on Thursday, is absolutely disgusting. Shame on the marchers.
Having read that article and others, I fear the problem is that, for many of the protestors, it is simply Palestinians=good, Israel=bad. The idea that Palestinians - and this includes Hamas - might have bad people or (heaven forfend!) be actually worse than Israel is anathema. Or worse: they accept that Hamas does bad things, but they're doing it in defence of Palestinians, which makes it okay.
I note there has been an attack on a Mosque overnight
We need strong government action as Andy Burnham and Kemi Bademoch jointly said last night in Manchester
750,000 over five years. Assuming the capacity of a 747 is 600, that's 1250 planes over five years, or 250 747s a year, or around two every 3 or 4 days. Good luck with that.
Most people would go on their own volition when their visa expires, you don’t need to remove each one on a charter flight.
It's still 1000 to 2000 people a week.
How many people fly out of the UK every week? It’s a drop in the ocean.
Confirming the Tory Party as the nasty party once again.
The ant has made herself illustrious By constant industry industrious. So what? Would you be calm and placid If you were full of formic acid
(Ogden Nash)
I play a game called Factorio, with a mod pack called Pyanodons, which is all about creating a factory on an alien planet [ab]using alien life.
First major milestone is getting to being able to produce alien ants in volume in order to slaughter them to harvest their formic acid, in order to make rubber.
750,000 over five years. Assuming the capacity of a 747 is 600, that's 1250 planes over five years, or 250 747s a year, or around two every 3 or 4 days. Good luck with that.
Hundreds of large planes depart Britain every day. I think even our shambolic government could manage just 1 plane every 2 or 3 days
What's wrong with boats?
Massive rafts. Tow them to Ireland
Ps I warn you the passport queues are LAX are as bad as ever. Why is it always like this?
Plus these days there’s the added chance of a arrest, mild torture then incarceration in that El Salvador maxi jail if you did a bad tweet about J D Vance
It takes me 11 minutes from plane to kerbside in LAX.
Matthew Syed talks to Palestine Action supporters, and it goes as expected.
Marching this weekend, after what happened on Thursday, is absolutely disgusting. Shame on the marchers.
Having read that article and others, I fear the problem is that, for many of the protestors, it is simply Palestinians=good, Israel=bad. The idea that Palestinians - and this includes Hamas - might have bad people or (heaven forfend!) be actually worse than Israel is anathema. Or worse: they accept that Hamas does bad things, but they're doing it in defence of Palestinians, which makes it okay.
I note there has been an attack on a Mosque overnight
We need strong government action as Andy Burnham and Kemi Bademoch jointly said last night in Manchester
Words are cheap.
Burnham has the capacity to do something about this Manchester wide, he is the Police Commissioner. Badenoch and her party were equally as ineffective as the current Government appears to be whilst in office.
Today’s Sunday Rawnsley, brought to you from blue skies Pavia as the morning bells ring out:
Sir Keir Starmer came away from the party conference in Liverpool feeling pleased that the days by the Mersey unfolded a lot better than might have been expected in the circumstances. [However,] The curiously upbeat mood within the conference arena contrasts starkly with how it looked from outside the secure zone.
[The] budget that looks more nightmarishly difficult with every passing day. Cabinet members don’t bother to try to deny that further tax rises are coming. Darkening the horizon are critical elections next May that threaten to be another demonstration of how the government has shed support on both sides. I suggested to a loyalist member of the cabinet that many voters may be too disillusioned and distrustful to be in the mood to be receptive to messages from this government. The minister rather mournfully agreed: “They are not listening right now, to be honest.”
While Andy Burnham had a bruising week, his diagnosis of the peril facing Labour has plenty of sympathisers and, as one veteran strategist put it to me, he has “put into play” the thought that Labour needs to change its leader. I give some points for candour to Shabana Mahmood, the home secretary, for saying: “You shouldn’t believe anyone in politics who says they’re not ambitious about the top job, because they’re basically lying.” She, one of the sharpest operators in the cabinet, and Wes Streeting, the government’s most fluent communicator, often come up in conversation as Labour MPs run their rulers over putative alternatives.
Sir Keir is depicting the next general election as hugely consequential. Nothing less than “a battle for the soul of our country”. It is not enough to be up for the fight; a leader must also demonstrate that they have a strategy to win it. Convincing his party he has one is another of the testing challenges of the weeks ahead.
Really rather pleasant. Art deco, revamped. 101 years old. Once owned by Charlie Chaplin, who lost at poker here to John Wayne - old skool Hollywood
And the neighbourhood is… walkable
Culver City is quite nice. You're on the metro, so you can easily get into Santa Monica or go see LAFC or go to USC.
There are decent restaurants.
It's not particularly unattractive by LA standards.
Yes. I’m pleasantly surprised. It’s not Primrose Hill but it’s agreeable
And the hotel itself is fab. Great bar. Soaked in Hollywood history (all the studios nearby)
The Fox lot is about two minutes away. There's a nice office complex there where we use the WeWork. There's an Equinox gym.
There aren't too many homeless crystal meth addicts.
I’m just reading the history of the hotel. It’s fab. The entire cast of Gone with the Wind stayed here during filming. Clark Gable kept a suite for years. As did Joan Crawford, Buster Keaton, Greta Garbo
Likewise the Wizard of Oz and Singing in the rain - the cast all stayed here. Including 500 munchkins from Oz
The studio saved money by making the munchkins sleep three to a bed - arranged sideways. But then the munchkins got revenge by trashing the place - swinging from the chandeliers and chucking tankards through windows in riotous munchkin-fests
I sense a gazette article
This post could have legs for publication in Pseuds Corner if you submit it to Private Eye.
The issue before is now is very simple and clear. There is a large and growing movement of leftwing terrorism in this country. It is well organized and funded. And it is shielded by far-left Democrat judges, prosecutors and attorneys general. The only remedy is to use legitimate state power to dismantle terrorism and terror networks.
Unlike Leon who's Edgelordship is founded on a desperate need for adoration, Stephen Miller is a genuinely evil bastard. He is not joking.
This is so much like a hundred years ago in Germany.
Actually, there is a really big difference.
Germany in the 1930s was beset by the Great Depression. It was an economic ruin, and people were starving. Unemployment was about 30%. Crime had gone through the roof - mostly because people needed to eat. The Germans would reach out for anything which promised salvation.
The US is 2025 is not like that. Now, sure, there are large parts of the US that have been hollowed out by globalisation, automation and private equity. There is a serious problem with homeless, mentally ill people addicted to Crystal Meth and opiates. Thanks to dumb policies, housing is too expensive (particularly on the prosperous coasts). Too many Americans have taken on too much debt.
But no one - or virtutally no one - is starving. Unemployment is not particularly high, even compared to the early 1980s. Crime - after a post Covid spike - is coming down. Some of the cities that looked desolate a few years ago - like San Francisco and New York - are now on the up again.
It's hard to look at America, the largest economy in the World, and say it's a disaster zone. Indeed, the mistakes (tariffs and the subsidization of coal) are relatively minor and easily reversible.
And yet, a sufficient number of people are so livid that they are prepared to actively or passively support a government saying and doing evil, cruel things.
It's the trouble with the hierarchy of needs. Until quite recently, the locus of contentment was food, shelter and basic healthcare. They were relatively easy to fix, once we set our minds to them. That didn't make us content for long, and now our discontent has landed on questions of identity and control that nobody really has an answer to.
But the resulting dynamic, a fake Messiah persuading enough of the population that the answer lies in blaming a Visible Other and the old elites who stabbed the people in the back... That's the same script.
750,000 over five years. Assuming the capacity of a 747 is 600, that's 1250 planes over five years, or 250 747s a year, or around two every 3 or 4 days. Good luck with that.
Hundreds of large planes depart Britain every day. I think even our shambolic government could manage just 1 plane every 2 or 3 days
What's wrong with boats?
Massive rafts. Tow them to Ireland
Ps I warn you the passport queues are LAX are as bad as ever. Why is it always like this?
Plus these days there’s the added chance of a arrest, mild torture then incarceration in that El Salvador maxi jail if you did a bad tweet about J D Vance
Matthew Syed talks to Palestine Action supporters, and it goes as expected.
Marching this weekend, after what happened on Thursday, is absolutely disgusting. Shame on the marchers.
Having read that article and others, I fear the problem is that, for many of the protestors, it is simply Palestinians=good, Israel=bad. The idea that Palestinians - and this includes Hamas - might have bad people or (heaven forfend!) be actually worse than Israel is anathema. Or worse: they accept that Hamas does bad things, but they're doing it in defence of Palestinians, which makes it okay.
I note there has been an attack on a Mosque overnight
We need strong government action as Andy Burnham and Kemi Bademoch jointly said last night in Manchester
Words are cheap.
Burnham has the capacity to do something about this Manchester wide, he is the Police Commissioner. Badenoch and her party were equally as ineffective as the current Government appears to be whilst in office.
Actually their joint meeting with the police and the public was well received
Compare and contrast that to the reception Lammy received !!!!
Today’s Sunday Rawnsley, brought to you from blue skies Pavia as the morning bells ring out:
Sir Keir Starmer came away from the party conference in Liverpool feeling pleased that the days by the Mersey unfolded a lot better than might have been expected in the circumstances. [However,] The curiously upbeat mood within the conference arena contrasts starkly with how it looked from outside the secure zone.
[The] budget that looks more nightmarishly difficult with every passing day. Cabinet members don’t bother to try to deny that further tax rises are coming. Darkening the horizon are critical elections next May that threaten to be another demonstration of how the government has shed support on both sides. I suggested to a loyalist member of the cabinet that many voters may be too disillusioned and distrustful to be in the mood to be receptive to messages from this government. The minister rather mournfully agreed: “They are not listening right now, to be honest.”
While Andy Burnham had a bruising week, his diagnosis of the peril facing Labour has plenty of sympathisers and, as one veteran strategist put it to me, he has “put into play” the thought that Labour needs to change its leader. I give some points for candour to Shabana Mahmood, the home secretary, for saying: “You shouldn’t believe anyone in politics who says they’re not ambitious about the top job, because they’re basically lying.” She, one of the sharpest operators in the cabinet, and Wes Streeting, the government’s most fluent communicator, often come up in conversation as Labour MPs run their rulers over putative alternatives.
Sir Keir is depicting the next general election as hugely consequential. Nothing less than “a battle for the soul of our country”. It is not enough to be up for the fight; a leader must also demonstrate that they have a strategy to win it. Convincing his party he has one is another of the testing challenges of the weeks ahead.
Nah, both Starmer and Badenoch have been tested and found wanting. They are both lame ducks.
If Starmer really believes the next election is a fight for the soul of the nation then he should hand over to someone capable of that fight. No to do so is pure egotism.
Matthew Syed talks to Palestine Action supporters, and it goes as expected.
Marching this weekend, after what happened on Thursday, is absolutely disgusting. Shame on the marchers.
Having read that article and others, I fear the problem is that, for many of the protestors, it is simply Palestinians=good, Israel=bad. The idea that Palestinians - and this includes Hamas - might have bad people or (heaven forfend!) be actually worse than Israel is anathema. Or worse: they accept that Hamas does bad things, but they're doing it in defence of Palestinians, which makes it okay.
I note there has been an attack on a Mosque overnight
We need strong government action as Andy Burnham and Kemi Bademoch jointly said last night in Manchester
Words are cheap.
Burnham has the capacity to do something about this Manchester wide, he is the Police Commissioner. Badenoch and her party were equally as ineffective as the current Government appears to be whilst in office.
Actually their joint meeting with the police and the public was well received
Compare and contrast that to the reception Lammy received !!!!
His reception was bad, but what Lammy said, and how he delivered it in the situation, was good.
Matthew Syed talks to Palestine Action supporters, and it goes as expected.
Marching this weekend, after what happened on Thursday, is absolutely disgusting. Shame on the marchers.
Having read that article and others, I fear the problem is that, for many of the protestors, it is simply Palestinians=good, Israel=bad. The idea that Palestinians - and this includes Hamas - might have bad people or (heaven forfend!) be actually worse than Israel is anathema. Or worse: they accept that Hamas does bad things, but they're doing it in defence of Palestinians, which makes it okay.
I note there has been an attack on a Mosque overnight
We need strong government action as Andy Burnham and Kemi Bademoch jointly said last night in Manchester
Words are cheap.
Burnham has the capacity to do something about this Manchester wide, he is the Police Commissioner. Badenoch and her party were equally as ineffective as the current Government appears to be whilst in office.
Actually their joint meeting with the police and the public was well received
Compare and contrast that to the reception Lammy received !!!!
His reception was bad, but what Lammy said, and how he delivered it in the situation, was good.
His words are only good if he is able to empathize with the vigil and those mourning and angry which he didn't
Really rather pleasant. Art deco, revamped. 101 years old. Once owned by Charlie Chaplin, who lost at poker here to John Wayne - old skool Hollywood
And the neighbourhood is… walkable
Culver City is quite nice. You're on the metro, so you can easily get into Santa Monica or go see LAFC or go to USC.
There are decent restaurants.
It's not particularly unattractive by LA standards.
Yes. I’m pleasantly surprised. It’s not Primrose Hill but it’s agreeable
And the hotel itself is fab. Great bar. Soaked in Hollywood history (all the studios nearby)
The Fox lot is about two minutes away. There's a nice office complex there where we use the WeWork. There's an Equinox gym.
There aren't too many homeless crystal meth addicts.
I’m just reading the history of the hotel. It’s fab. The entire cast of Gone with the Wind stayed here during filming. Clark Gable kept a suite for years. As did Joan Crawford, Buster Keaton, Greta Garbo
Likewise the Wizard of Oz and Singing in the rain - the cast all stayed here. Including 500 munchkins from Oz
The studio saved money by making the munchkins sleep three to a bed - arranged sideways. But then the munchkins got revenge by trashing the place - swinging from the chandeliers and chucking tankards through windows in riotous munchkin-fests
I sense a gazette article
This post could have legs for publication in Pseuds Corner if you submit it to Private Eye.
He’d have to wait some time; they’ve still got all his interior decorating bits to publish
Matthew Syed talks to Palestine Action supporters, and it goes as expected.
Marching this weekend, after what happened on Thursday, is absolutely disgusting. Shame on the marchers.
Having read that article and others, I fear the problem is that, for many of the protestors, it is simply Palestinians=good, Israel=bad. The idea that Palestinians - and this includes Hamas - might have bad people or (heaven forfend!) be actually worse than Israel is anathema. Or worse: they accept that Hamas does bad things, but they're doing it in defence of Palestinians, which makes it okay.
I note there has been an attack on a Mosque overnight
We need strong government action as Andy Burnham and Kemi Bademoch jointly said last night in Manchester
Words are cheap.
Burnham has the capacity to do something about this Manchester wide, he is the Police Commissioner. Badenoch and her party were equally as ineffective as the current Government appears to be whilst in office.
Actually their joint meeting with the police and the public was well received
Compare and contrast that to the reception Lammy received !!!!
His reception was bad, but what Lammy said, and how he delivered it in the situation, was good.
His words are only good if he is able to empathize with the vigil and those mourning and angry which he didn't
Give over. They didn't give him a chance; they were heckling him before he spoke.
Today’s Sunday Rawnsley, brought to you from blue skies Pavia as the morning bells ring out:
Sir Keir Starmer came away from the party conference in Liverpool feeling pleased that the days by the Mersey unfolded a lot better than might have been expected in the circumstances. [However,] The curiously upbeat mood within the conference arena contrasts starkly with how it looked from outside the secure zone.
[The] budget that looks more nightmarishly difficult with every passing day. Cabinet members don’t bother to try to deny that further tax rises are coming. Darkening the horizon are critical elections next May that threaten to be another demonstration of how the government has shed support on both sides. I suggested to a loyalist member of the cabinet that many voters may be too disillusioned and distrustful to be in the mood to be receptive to messages from this government. The minister rather mournfully agreed: “They are not listening right now, to be honest.”
While Andy Burnham had a bruising week, his diagnosis of the peril facing Labour has plenty of sympathisers and, as one veteran strategist put it to me, he has “put into play” the thought that Labour needs to change its leader. I give some points for candour to Shabana Mahmood, the home secretary, for saying: “You shouldn’t believe anyone in politics who says they’re not ambitious about the top job, because they’re basically lying.” She, one of the sharpest operators in the cabinet, and Wes Streeting, the government’s most fluent communicator, often come up in conversation as Labour MPs run their rulers over putative alternatives.
Sir Keir is depicting the next general election as hugely consequential. Nothing less than “a battle for the soul of our country”. It is not enough to be up for the fight; a leader must also demonstrate that they have a strategy to win it. Convincing his party he has one is another of the testing challenges of the weeks ahead.
Nah, both Starmer and Badenoch have been tested and found wanting. They are both lame ducks.
If Starmer really believes the next election is a fight for the soul of the nation then he should hand over to someone capable of that fight. No to do so is pure egotism.
Unlike the conservatives I do not see how Starmer is removed but if labour want to turn the page then both he and Reeves need to go
I believe Starmer has passed the point of recovery
Matthew Syed talks to Palestine Action supporters, and it goes as expected.
Marching this weekend, after what happened on Thursday, is absolutely disgusting. Shame on the marchers.
Having read that article and others, I fear the problem is that, for many of the protestors, it is simply Palestinians=good, Israel=bad. The idea that Palestinians - and this includes Hamas - might have bad people or (heaven forfend!) be actually worse than Israel is anathema. Or worse: they accept that Hamas does bad things, but they're doing it in defence of Palestinians, which makes it okay.
I note there has been an attack on a Mosque overnight
We need strong government action as Andy Burnham and Kemi Bademoch jointly said last night in Manchester
Words are cheap.
Burnham has the capacity to do something about this Manchester wide, he is the Police Commissioner. Badenoch and her party were equally as ineffective as the current Government appears to be whilst in office.
Actually their joint meeting with the police and the public was well received
Compare and contrast that to the reception Lammy received !!!!
His reception was bad, but what Lammy said, and how he delivered it in the situation, was good.
His words are only good if he is able to empathize with the vigil and those mourning and angry which he didn't
Give over. They didn't give him a chance; they were heckling him before he spoke.
Yes and this is a Jewish Community hurting and have very strong feelings against the government
It was interesting at the same vigil how Andy Burnham and the Chief of Police were listened to and appreciated
Matthew Syed talks to Palestine Action supporters, and it goes as expected.
Marching this weekend, after what happened on Thursday, is absolutely disgusting. Shame on the marchers.
Having read that article and others, I fear the problem is that, for many of the protestors, it is simply Palestinians=good, Israel=bad. The idea that Palestinians - and this includes Hamas - might have bad people or (heaven forfend!) be actually worse than Israel is anathema. Or worse: they accept that Hamas does bad things, but they're doing it in defence of Palestinians, which makes it okay.
I note there has been an attack on a Mosque overnight
We need strong government action as Andy Burnham and Kemi Bademoch jointly said last night in Manchester
Words are cheap.
Burnham has the capacity to do something about this Manchester wide, he is the Police Commissioner. Badenoch and her party were equally as ineffective as the current Government appears to be whilst in office.
Actually their joint meeting with the police and the public was well received
Compare and contrast that to the reception Lammy received !!!!
His reception was bad, but what Lammy said, and how he delivered it in the situation, was good.
His words are only good if he is able to empathize with the vigil and those mourning and angry which he didn't
Give over. They didn't give him a chance; they were heckling him before he spoke.
Yes and this is a Jewish Community hurting and have very strong feelings against the government
It was interesting at the same vigil how Andy Burnham and the Chief of Police were listened to and appreciated
Yes. Which shows that it was not what Lammy said, or was going to say, but that he was a representative of the government (in particular, a government that had just recognised Palestine...)
So I refer back to my original comment: what he said was good, and he delivered it well considering the hostility. The reaction against him was not due to his speech, but his position.
Generally speaking if you want people to take you seriously then you should only do serious things and avoid empty gestures.
Recognising the state of Palestine and then following that up with no practical measures to make a sovereign state of Palestine a reality, is an empty gesture and an unserious action.
It certainly did not seem to be a part of any strategy beyond "If we do this, something may happen..."
Compare it to what Trump's plan may have already produced, with a promise to release the last of the hostages.
I would be very surprised if Trump's Sharpie ever saw a page of the 20 point plan. I suspect the original draft was handwritten with Tony Blair's Montblanc.
What a shame that the actions of a demented and unsuitable US President grabbing on to the plan of the last person he spoke to, being based on the work of someone out of office for eighteen years . . . is so much more credible than what our own Prime Minister did.
Whatever the value or otherwise of recognising Palestine, it is as you suggest most likely paying lip service to the base. However when it comes to the analysis on the Israel and Gaza war, your solution is both immoral and ridiculous.
In the past I have asked you to give me a maximum number of acceptable collateral casualties in this war and you have been courteous enough to respond "whatever it takes to extinguish* Hamas". When I have asked if 2 million dead Gazans is acceptable you have responded with "whatever it takes to extinguish* Hamas". I find that outrageous.
* My word choice, replace as you feel fit.
Because your comment is an asinine bullshit piece of bollocks.
Just war theory doesn't rely upon a quantity of the deaths the other side may face in isolation without any other consideration. Never has done, never will do.
If you were in Chamberlain's shoes, let alone Churchill's, then what maximum number of acceptable collateral casualties would you set to defeat the Nazis?
If you were in Lincoln's shoes, then what maximum number of acceptable collateral casualties would you set to defeat the Confederates and free the slaves?
As few collateral casualties as possible is desirable, but there never has been, never will be, a maximum. That's not outrageous, its reality.
You set a quantifiable maximum for Churchill and Lincoln, and your reasons for those maximums, then I will consider a quantity.
The problem with your comparisons is that Netenyahu is not Churchill. If he is anyone in that conflict then it is Hitler. Happy to follow a course of genocide 'for the greater good'.
What genocide?
If Netanyahu were Hitler, or if Israel were committing genocide, there'd be at least two million dead by now. Israel has the power, and the ammunition, to achieve that very rapidly in a very small space.
Just because you dislike the war, doesn't make it genocide.
The mechanism to potentially execute 2 million Gazans is starvation.
Oddly slow motion mechanism. Especially when they're the ones sending food and aid there to people who need it.
They could do it in days with ammunition, yet strangely they keep warning innocents to move so they don't get bombed. Weird thing for a nation set on genocide to do, to warn the people they're trying to wipe out so that they don't get hurt. Almost as if this genocide bullshit is just bullshit.
Ukraine hit the Kstovo oil refinery in Nizhny Novgorod oblast over night. This is the 4th largest refinery in Russia and was previously hit in March 2024 and January 2025.
Ukraine has now hit four refineries in the first five days of October, including three of the five largest refineries in Russia.
Matthew Syed talks to Palestine Action supporters, and it goes as expected.
Marching this weekend, after what happened on Thursday, is absolutely disgusting. Shame on the marchers.
Having read that article and others, I fear the problem is that, for many of the protestors, it is simply Palestinians=good, Israel=bad. The idea that Palestinians - and this includes Hamas - might have bad people or (heaven forfend!) be actually worse than Israel is anathema. Or worse: they accept that Hamas does bad things, but they're doing it in defence of Palestinians, which makes it okay.
I note there has been an attack on a Mosque overnight
We need strong government action as Andy Burnham and Kemi Bademoch jointly said last night in Manchester
Words are cheap.
Burnham has the capacity to do something about this Manchester wide, he is the Police Commissioner. Badenoch and her party were equally as ineffective as the current Government appears to be whilst in office.
Actually their joint meeting with the police and the public was well received
Compare and contrast that to the reception Lammy received !!!!
His reception was bad, but what Lammy said, and how he delivered it in the situation, was good.
His words are only good if he is able to empathize with the vigil and those mourning and angry which he didn't
Give over. They didn't give him a chance; they were heckling him before he spoke.
Yes and this is a Jewish Community hurting and have very strong feelings against the government
It was interesting at the same vigil how Andy Burnham and the Chief of Police were listened to and appreciated
Yes. Which shows that it was not what Lammy said, or was going to say, but that he was a representative of the government (in particular, a government that had just recognised Palestine...)
So I refer back to my original comment: what he said was good, and he delivered it well considering the hostility. The reaction against him was not due to his speech, but his position.
Yes I agree with you and his speech delivered by Burnham would have been well received
I am not even sure why Labour thought they should send their deputy when it should in the circumstances have been Starmer himself
Matthew Syed talks to Palestine Action supporters, and it goes as expected.
Marching this weekend, after what happened on Thursday, is absolutely disgusting. Shame on the marchers.
Having read that article and others, I fear the problem is that, for many of the protestors, it is simply Palestinians=good, Israel=bad. The idea that Palestinians - and this includes Hamas - might have bad people or (heaven forfend!) be actually worse than Israel is anathema. Or worse: they accept that Hamas does bad things, but they're doing it in defence of Palestinians, which makes it okay.
I note there has been an attack on a Mosque overnight
We need strong government action as Andy Burnham and Kemi Bademoch jointly said last night in Manchester
Words are cheap.
Burnham has the capacity to do something about this Manchester wide, he is the Police Commissioner. Badenoch and her party were equally as ineffective as the current Government appears to be whilst in office.
Actually their joint meeting with the police and the public was well received
Compare and contrast that to the reception Lammy received !!!!
His reception was bad, but what Lammy said, and how he delivered it in the situation, was good.
His words are only good if he is able to empathize with the vigil and those mourning and angry which he didn't
Give over. They didn't give him a chance; they were heckling him before he spoke.
Which is part of the problem this government has had from the start. They haven't helped themselves, good heavens they haven't helped themselves, but the graceless heckling from the losers has been unprecedented.
A significant slice of the electorate and media have not got the government they wanted for the first time in nearly half a century. I shouldn't be surprised at how badly they have taken that, but I still am.
Starmer got the jobs of Labour leader and PM because the available alternatives were clearly worse. That still applies now; until it changes, we're stuck with him.
Matthew Syed talks to Palestine Action supporters, and it goes as expected.
Marching this weekend, after what happened on Thursday, is absolutely disgusting. Shame on the marchers.
Having read that article and others, I fear the problem is that, for many of the protestors, it is simply Palestinians=good, Israel=bad. The idea that Palestinians - and this includes Hamas - might have bad people or (heaven forfend!) be actually worse than Israel is anathema. Or worse: they accept that Hamas does bad things, but they're doing it in defence of Palestinians, which makes it okay.
I note there has been an attack on a Mosque overnight
We need strong government action as Andy Burnham and Kemi Bademoch jointly said last night in Manchester
Words are cheap.
Burnham has the capacity to do something about this Manchester wide, he is the Police Commissioner. Badenoch and her party were equally as ineffective as the current Government appears to be whilst in office.
Actually their joint meeting with the police and the public was well received
Compare and contrast that to the reception Lammy received !!!!
His reception was bad, but what Lammy said, and how he delivered it in the situation, was good.
His words are only good if he is able to empathize with the vigil and those mourning and angry which he didn't
You are blinded by your political prejudice here. Lammy equipped himself very well under the circumstances. Tensions were justifiably high after such a wicked event.
You can go all Daily Telegraph and blame the Labour Government for a culture of anti-Semitism if you like. That would be appropriate if you sit one side of the Palestine-Israel fence. If you sit on the other, you can blame the Government for a culture of Islamophobia.
Quite what you expect Lammy to say differently to calm troubled waters, you'll have to explain further.
Matthew Syed talks to Palestine Action supporters, and it goes as expected.
Marching this weekend, after what happened on Thursday, is absolutely disgusting. Shame on the marchers.
Having read that article and others, I fear the problem is that, for many of the protestors, it is simply Palestinians=good, Israel=bad. The idea that Palestinians - and this includes Hamas - might have bad people or (heaven forfend!) be actually worse than Israel is anathema. Or worse: they accept that Hamas does bad things, but they're doing it in defence of Palestinians, which makes it okay.
I note there has been an attack on a Mosque overnight
We need strong government action as Andy Burnham and Kemi Bademoch jointly said last night in Manchester
Words are cheap.
Burnham has the capacity to do something about this Manchester wide, he is the Police Commissioner. Badenoch and her party were equally as ineffective as the current Government appears to be whilst in office.
Actually their joint meeting with the police and the public was well received
Compare and contrast that to the reception Lammy received !!!!
His reception was bad, but what Lammy said, and how he delivered it in the situation, was good.
His words are only good if he is able to empathize with the vigil and those mourning and angry which he didn't
Give over. They didn't give him a chance; they were heckling him before he spoke.
Which is part of the problem this government has had from the start. They haven't helped themselves, good heavens they haven't helped themselves, but the graceless heckling from the losers has been unprecedented.
A significant slice of the electorate and media have not got the government they wanted for the first time in nearly half a century. I shouldn't be surprised at how badly they have taken that, but I still am.
Starmer got the jobs of Labour leader and PM because the available alternatives were clearly worse. That still applies now; until it changes, we're stuck with him.
Are you really saying the Jewish Community who heckled Lammy are graceless losers ?
Matthew Syed talks to Palestine Action supporters, and it goes as expected.
Marching this weekend, after what happened on Thursday, is absolutely disgusting. Shame on the marchers.
Having read that article and others, I fear the problem is that, for many of the protestors, it is simply Palestinians=good, Israel=bad. The idea that Palestinians - and this includes Hamas - might have bad people or (heaven forfend!) be actually worse than Israel is anathema. Or worse: they accept that Hamas does bad things, but they're doing it in defence of Palestinians, which makes it okay.
I note there has been an attack on a Mosque overnight
We need strong government action as Andy Burnham and Kemi Bademoch jointly said last night in Manchester
Words are cheap.
Burnham has the capacity to do something about this Manchester wide, he is the Police Commissioner. Badenoch and her party were equally as ineffective as the current Government appears to be whilst in office.
Actually their joint meeting with the police and the public was well received
Compare and contrast that to the reception Lammy received !!!!
His reception was bad, but what Lammy said, and how he delivered it in the situation, was good.
His words are only good if he is able to empathize with the vigil and those mourning and angry which he didn't
You are blinded by your political prejudice here. Lammy equipped himself very well under the circumstances. Tensions were justifiably high after such a wicked event.
You can go all Daily Telegraph and blame the Labour Government for a culture of anti-Semitism if you like. That would be appropriate if you sit one side of the Palestine-Israel fence. If you sit on the other, you can blame the Government for a culture of Islamophobia.
Quite what you expect Lammy to say differently to calm troubled waters, you'll have to explain further.
Nobody on here is more blinded by political prejudice than yourself
Why does Andy Burnham receive the respect of the Jewish Community in Heaton Park whilst Lammy is heckled?
Matthew Syed talks to Palestine Action supporters, and it goes as expected.
Marching this weekend, after what happened on Thursday, is absolutely disgusting. Shame on the marchers.
Having read that article and others, I fear the problem is that, for many of the protestors, it is simply Palestinians=good, Israel=bad. The idea that Palestinians - and this includes Hamas - might have bad people or (heaven forfend!) be actually worse than Israel is anathema. Or worse: they accept that Hamas does bad things, but they're doing it in defence of Palestinians, which makes it okay.
I note there has been an attack on a Mosque overnight
We need strong government action as Andy Burnham and Kemi Bademoch jointly said last night in Manchester
Words are cheap.
Burnham has the capacity to do something about this Manchester wide, he is the Police Commissioner. Badenoch and her party were equally as ineffective as the current Government appears to be whilst in office.
Actually their joint meeting with the police and the public was well received
Compare and contrast that to the reception Lammy received !!!!
His reception was bad, but what Lammy said, and how he delivered it in the situation, was good.
His words are only good if he is able to empathize with the vigil and those mourning and angry which he didn't
Give over. They didn't give him a chance; they were heckling him before he spoke.
Which is part of the problem this government has had from the start. They haven't helped themselves, good heavens they haven't helped themselves, but the graceless heckling from the losers has been unprecedented.
A significant slice of the electorate and media have not got the government they wanted for the first time in nearly half a century. I shouldn't be surprised at how badly they have taken that, but I still am.
Starmer got the jobs of Labour leader and PM because the available alternatives were clearly worse. That still applies now; until it changes, we're stuck with him.
Are you really saying the Jewish Community who heckled Lammy are graceless losers ?
Words fail me
No, I'm saying that the losers of 2024 have been graceless and have heckled continually since their defeat.
Matthew Syed talks to Palestine Action supporters, and it goes as expected.
Marching this weekend, after what happened on Thursday, is absolutely disgusting. Shame on the marchers.
Having read that article and others, I fear the problem is that, for many of the protestors, it is simply Palestinians=good, Israel=bad. The idea that Palestinians - and this includes Hamas - might have bad people or (heaven forfend!) be actually worse than Israel is anathema. Or worse: they accept that Hamas does bad things, but they're doing it in defence of Palestinians, which makes it okay.
I note there has been an attack on a Mosque overnight
We need strong government action as Andy Burnham and Kemi Bademoch jointly said last night in Manchester
Words are cheap.
Burnham has the capacity to do something about this Manchester wide, he is the Police Commissioner. Badenoch and her party were equally as ineffective as the current Government appears to be whilst in office.
Actually their joint meeting with the police and the public was well received
Compare and contrast that to the reception Lammy received !!!!
His reception was bad, but what Lammy said, and how he delivered it in the situation, was good.
His words are only good if he is able to empathize with the vigil and those mourning and angry which he didn't
Give over. They didn't give him a chance; they were heckling him before he spoke.
Which is part of the problem this government has had from the start. They haven't helped themselves, good heavens they haven't helped themselves, but the graceless heckling from the losers has been unprecedented.
A significant slice of the electorate and media have not got the government they wanted for the first time in nearly half a century. I shouldn't be surprised at how badly they have taken that, but I still am.
Starmer got the jobs of Labour leader and PM because the available alternatives were clearly worse. That still applies now; until it changes, we're stuck with him.
Yes, because the coalition government in 2010; Cameron's in 2015; May's in 2017; Boris's in 2019 did not receive immediate graceless heckling from the losers. No siree, not at all.
Starmer's problems are manyfold. He is not a leader. He is not a good orator. He seems to have vague objectives, but no plans to get there. Then, a month after he became PM, he and many of his cabinet showed themselves to be as grifting, if not more, than the government they replaced. There have been a number of scandals since, and he has handled each one poorly.
His only advantage is his stonking majority.
Last year the country voted for change. A competent PM - say, like Blair - could have carried the country along with him. Starmer hasn't.
Matthew Syed talks to Palestine Action supporters, and it goes as expected.
Marching this weekend, after what happened on Thursday, is absolutely disgusting. Shame on the marchers.
Having read that article and others, I fear the problem is that, for many of the protestors, it is simply Palestinians=good, Israel=bad. The idea that Palestinians - and this includes Hamas - might have bad people or (heaven forfend!) be actually worse than Israel is anathema. Or worse: they accept that Hamas does bad things, but they're doing it in defence of Palestinians, which makes it okay.
I note there has been an attack on a Mosque overnight
We need strong government action as Andy Burnham and Kemi Bademoch jointly said last night in Manchester
Words are cheap.
Burnham has the capacity to do something about this Manchester wide, he is the Police Commissioner. Badenoch and her party were equally as ineffective as the current Government appears to be whilst in office.
Actually their joint meeting with the police and the public was well received
Compare and contrast that to the reception Lammy received !!!!
His reception was bad, but what Lammy said, and how he delivered it in the situation, was good.
His words are only good if he is able to empathize with the vigil and those mourning and angry which he didn't
Give over. They didn't give him a chance; they were heckling him before he spoke.
Which is part of the problem this government has had from the start. They haven't helped themselves, good heavens they haven't helped themselves, but the graceless heckling from the losers has been unprecedented.
A significant slice of the electorate and media have not got the government they wanted for the first time in nearly half a century. I shouldn't be surprised at how badly they have taken that, but I still am.
Starmer got the jobs of Labour leader and PM because the available alternatives were clearly worse. That still applies now; until it changes, we're stuck with him.
Are you really saying the Jewish Community who heckled Lammy are graceless losers ?
Words fail me
No, I'm saying that the losers of 2024 have been graceless and have heckled continually since their defeat.
Glad we've cleared that up.
Maybe using heckled was not the best description
Labour have collapsed in just 15 months and labour supporters are no doubt feeling the despair felt by many conservatives as their government also collapsed in popularity
Matthew Syed talks to Palestine Action supporters, and it goes as expected.
Marching this weekend, after what happened on Thursday, is absolutely disgusting. Shame on the marchers.
Having read that article and others, I fear the problem is that, for many of the protestors, it is simply Palestinians=good, Israel=bad. The idea that Palestinians - and this includes Hamas - might have bad people or (heaven forfend!) be actually worse than Israel is anathema. Or worse: they accept that Hamas does bad things, but they're doing it in defence of Palestinians, which makes it okay.
I note there has been an attack on a Mosque overnight
We need strong government action as Andy Burnham and Kemi Bademoch jointly said last night in Manchester
Words are cheap.
Burnham has the capacity to do something about this Manchester wide, he is the Police Commissioner. Badenoch and her party were equally as ineffective as the current Government appears to be whilst in office.
Actually their joint meeting with the police and the public was well received
Compare and contrast that to the reception Lammy received !!!!
His reception was bad, but what Lammy said, and how he delivered it in the situation, was good.
His words are only good if he is able to empathize with the vigil and those mourning and angry which he didn't
You are blinded by your political prejudice here. Lammy equipped himself very well under the circumstances. Tensions were justifiably high after such a wicked event.
You can go all Daily Telegraph and blame the Labour Government for a culture of anti-Semitism if you like. That would be appropriate if you sit one side of the Palestine-Israel fence. If you sit on the other, you can blame the Government for a culture of Islamophobia.
Quite what you expect Lammy to say differently to calm troubled waters, you'll have to explain further.
Nobody on here is more blinded by political prejudice than yourself
Why does Andy Burnham receive the respect of the Jewish Community in Heaton Park whilst Lammy is heckled?
Today’s Sunday Rawnsley, brought to you from blue skies Pavia as the morning bells ring out:
Sir Keir Starmer came away from the party conference in Liverpool feeling pleased that the days by the Mersey unfolded a lot better than might have been expected in the circumstances. [However,] The curiously upbeat mood within the conference arena contrasts starkly with how it looked from outside the secure zone.
[The] budget that looks more nightmarishly difficult with every passing day. Cabinet members don’t bother to try to deny that further tax rises are coming. Darkening the horizon are critical elections next May that threaten to be another demonstration of how the government has shed support on both sides. I suggested to a loyalist member of the cabinet that many voters may be too disillusioned and distrustful to be in the mood to be receptive to messages from this government. The minister rather mournfully agreed: “They are not listening right now, to be honest.”
While Andy Burnham had a bruising week, his diagnosis of the peril facing Labour has plenty of sympathisers and, as one veteran strategist put it to me, he has “put into play” the thought that Labour needs to change its leader. I give some points for candour to Shabana Mahmood, the home secretary, for saying: “You shouldn’t believe anyone in politics who says they’re not ambitious about the top job, because they’re basically lying.” She, one of the sharpest operators in the cabinet, and Wes Streeting, the government’s most fluent communicator, often come up in conversation as Labour MPs run their rulers over putative alternatives.
Sir Keir is depicting the next general election as hugely consequential. Nothing less than “a battle for the soul of our country”. It is not enough to be up for the fight; a leader must also demonstrate that they have a strategy to win it. Convincing his party he has one is another of the testing challenges of the weeks ahead.
Nah, both Starmer and Badenoch have been tested and found wanting. They are both lame ducks.
If Starmer really believes the next election is a fight for the soul of the nation then he should hand over to someone capable of that fight. No to do so is pure egotism.
Your final paragraph is very similar to the Biden situation in the US. There are some parallels between that administration and this government - took over from an unpopular president, first impressions seemed to be OK, but swiftly became very unpopular and allowed a resurgence of the populist right. The only difference is the Biden Administration actually did a fairly decent job with the US economy.
It remains to be seen is Starmer and the party conclude he is a dud quicker than those around Biden did.
"All mum did was congratulate the new Archbishop of Canterbury. She has be called vile, a travesty, ignorant, disgusting, an aberration, not a Christian, destroying the church & society & is a member of a cult, all because she is a female Priest. She is crying & I am furious."
The intolerance is unacceptable and probably from the Evangelical right
They need to understand the true meaning of Christianity and not dissect and twist the testaments to fit their very unchristian views . I am not a member of the COE but I wish her well
Or they're from Russian bots, or Americans, or common and garden trolls.
One way we reduce the division in society is to stop regarding social media comments as meaningful, and so stop reacting to them with anger and not being part of a cycle of discord.
The best of mornings to you Big G. We are enjoying the calm after the storm here in the West of Ireland.
Generally speaking if you want people to take you seriously then you should only do serious things and avoid empty gestures.
Recognising the state of Palestine and then following that up with no practical measures to make a sovereign state of Palestine a reality, is an empty gesture and an unserious action.
It certainly did not seem to be a part of any strategy beyond "If we do this, something may happen..."
Compare it to what Trump's plan may have already produced, with a promise to release the last of the hostages.
I would be very surprised if Trump's Sharpie ever saw a page of the 20 point plan. I suspect the original draft was handwritten with Tony Blair's Montblanc.
What a shame that the actions of a demented and unsuitable US President grabbing on to the plan of the last person he spoke to, being based on the work of someone out of office for eighteen years . . . is so much more credible than what our own Prime Minister did.
Whatever the value or otherwise of recognising Palestine, it is as you suggest most likely paying lip service to the base. However when it comes to the analysis on the Israel and Gaza war, your solution is both immoral and ridiculous.
In the past I have asked you to give me a maximum number of acceptable collateral casualties in this war and you have been courteous enough to respond "whatever it takes to extinguish* Hamas". When I have asked if 2 million dead Gazans is acceptable you have responded with "whatever it takes to extinguish* Hamas". I find that outrageous.
* My word choice, replace as you feel fit.
Because your comment is an asinine bullshit piece of bollocks.
Just war theory doesn't rely upon a quantity of the deaths the other side may face in isolation without any other consideration. Never has done, never will do.
If you were in Chamberlain's shoes, let alone Churchill's, then what maximum number of acceptable collateral casualties would you set to defeat the Nazis?
If you were in Lincoln's shoes, then what maximum number of acceptable collateral casualties would you set to defeat the Confederates and free the slaves?
As few collateral casualties as possible is desirable, but there never has been, never will be, a maximum. That's not outrageous, its reality.
You set a quantifiable maximum for Churchill and Lincoln, and your reasons for those maximums, then I will consider a quantity.
The problem with your comparisons is that Netenyahu is not Churchill. If he is anyone in that conflict then it is Hitler. Happy to follow a course of genocide 'for the greater good'.
What genocide?
If Netanyahu were Hitler, or if Israel were committing genocide, there'd be at least two million dead by now. Israel has the power, and the ammunition, to achieve that very rapidly in a very small space.
Just because you dislike the war, doesn't make it genocide.
The massacre at Srebrenica where 8000 men and boys were murdered was and is considered a genocidal act. Netenyahu has far exceeded that number. The fact he hasn't yet reached the levels of WW2 does not diminish the fact he is engaged in genocide. You support this and have done since the start. It is far too late for you to try and worm your way out of it now.
The massacre at Srebenica served no military purpose and was not part of a just war, fighting Hamas does and is, which is why it is an act of just war. Many just wars have had death tolls far in excess of the just war that Israel is fighting.
I support whatever it takes to defeat Hamas and have done since the start, yes.
You did not. From the start you opposed defeating Hamas, even after what they did.
That does not make defeating Hamas an act of genocide, it is an act of war.
But your analysis is akin to cutting off a toe to deal with an ingrowing toe nail or nuking Swinging London in the 1960s to rid the City of the scourge of the Richardsons and the Krays. Gang members living in the Home Counties then become the new heads of the Hydra. What do you do next? Nuke the counties closest to the outside of the North and South Circular roads, and so it goes on.
" Labour has chosen to make the university sector, if not quite an enemy, more of an embarrassing distant relation worthy of disdain. At the same time as relying on the votes of everyone vaguely attached to it.
It’s a bold strategy but Labour aren’t the first political party to turn on their core support. Their recent predecessors, the Conservatives, by the end of their time in government seemed positively embarrassed about managers, professionals, and local worthies. And yuppies? Don’t mention them. Shiver…
Both major political parties appear to be going through some odd form of psychopathology where they have become embarrassed to be supported by anyone who could be vaguely pigeonholed as ‘middle-class’."
Matthew Syed talks to Palestine Action supporters, and it goes as expected.
That is very bad.
I think it is possible to support civilians in Gaza and to protest the actions of Israel, without being blind to the evil that Hamas has perpetrated. But that was beyond most of the people on that protest (with a couple of notable exceptions).
Generally speaking if you want people to take you seriously then you should only do serious things and avoid empty gestures.
Recognising the state of Palestine and then following that up with no practical measures to make a sovereign state of Palestine a reality, is an empty gesture and an unserious action.
It certainly did not seem to be a part of any strategy beyond "If we do this, something may happen..."
Compare it to what Trump's plan may have already produced, with a promise to release the last of the hostages.
I would be very surprised if Trump's Sharpie ever saw a page of the 20 point plan. I suspect the original draft was handwritten with Tony Blair's Montblanc.
What a shame that the actions of a demented and unsuitable US President grabbing on to the plan of the last person he spoke to, being based on the work of someone out of office for eighteen years . . . is so much more credible than what our own Prime Minister did.
Whatever the value or otherwise of recognising Palestine, it is as you suggest most likely paying lip service to the base. However when it comes to the analysis on the Israel and Gaza war, your solution is both immoral and ridiculous.
In the past I have asked you to give me a maximum number of acceptable collateral casualties in this war and you have been courteous enough to respond "whatever it takes to extinguish* Hamas". When I have asked if 2 million dead Gazans is acceptable you have responded with "whatever it takes to extinguish* Hamas". I find that outrageous.
* My word choice, replace as you feel fit.
Because your comment is an asinine bullshit piece of bollocks.
Just war theory doesn't rely upon a quantity of the deaths the other side may face in isolation without any other consideration. Never has done, never will do.
If you were in Chamberlain's shoes, let alone Churchill's, then what maximum number of acceptable collateral casualties would you set to defeat the Nazis?
If you were in Lincoln's shoes, then what maximum number of acceptable collateral casualties would you set to defeat the Confederates and free the slaves?
As few collateral casualties as possible is desirable, but there never has been, never will be, a maximum. That's not outrageous, its reality.
You set a quantifiable maximum for Churchill and Lincoln, and your reasons for those maximums, then I will consider a quantity.
The problem with your comparisons is that Netenyahu is not Churchill. If he is anyone in that conflict then it is Hitler. Happy to follow a course of genocide 'for the greater good'.
What genocide?
If Netanyahu were Hitler, or if Israel were committing genocide, there'd be at least two million dead by now. Israel has the power, and the ammunition, to achieve that very rapidly in a very small space.
Just because you dislike the war, doesn't make it genocide.
The massacre at Srebrenica where 8000 men and boys were murdered was and is considered a genocidal act. Netenyahu has far exceeded that number. The fact he hasn't yet reached the levels of WW2 does not diminish the fact he is engaged in genocide. You support this and have done since the start. It is far too late for you to try and worm your way out of it now.
The massacre at Srebenica served no military purpose and was not part of a just war, fighting Hamas does and is, which is why it is an act of just war. Many just wars have had death tolls far in excess of the just war that Israel is fighting.
I support whatever it takes to defeat Hamas and have done since the start, yes.
You did not. From the start you opposed defeating Hamas, even after what they did.
That does not make defeating Hamas an act of genocide, it is an act of war.
But your analysis is akin to cutting off a toe to deal with an ingrowing toe nail or nuking Swinging London in the 1960s to rid the City of the scourge of the Richardsons and the Krays. Gang members living in the Home Counties then become the new heads of the Hydra. What do you do next? Nuke the counties closest to the outside of the North and South Circular roads, and so it goes on.
Don't waste your breath. Debating Barty is like trying to reason with a Maga.
Really rather pleasant. Art deco, revamped. 101 years old. Once owned by Charlie Chaplin, who lost at poker here to John Wayne - old skool Hollywood
And the neighbourhood is… walkable
Culver City is quite nice. You're on the metro, so you can easily get into Santa Monica or go see LAFC or go to USC.
There are decent restaurants.
It's not particularly unattractive by LA standards.
Yes. I’m pleasantly surprised. It’s not Primrose Hill but it’s agreeable
And the hotel itself is fab. Great bar. Soaked in Hollywood history (all the studios nearby)
The Fox lot is about two minutes away. There's a nice office complex there where we use the WeWork. There's an Equinox gym.
There aren't too many homeless crystal meth addicts.
I’m just reading the history of the hotel. It’s fab. The entire cast of Gone with the Wind stayed here during filming. Clark Gable kept a suite for years. As did Joan Crawford, Buster Keaton, Greta Garbo
Likewise the Wizard of Oz and Singing in the rain - the cast all stayed here. Including 500 munchkins from Oz
The studio saved money by making the munchkins sleep three to a bed - arranged sideways. But then the munchkins got revenge by trashing the place - swinging from the chandeliers and chucking tankards through windows in riotous munchkin-fests
I sense a gazette article
This post could have legs for publication in Pseuds Corner if you submit it to Private Eye.
He also might want to check that '500' figure. It's possibly too great by a factor of 4.
Bit dodgy doing it at home given the risk of liver flukes, I see they say - the dilemma presumably being that cooking to kill the parasites will deactivate the enzymes needed for the yoghourt fermentation.
Comments
Same as Israel should be doing.
Yes there should be some day after thinking going on too, but first things first is to achieve the comprehensive and unconditional defeat and surrender of the enemy.
If Netanyahu were Hitler, or if Israel were committing genocide, there'd be at least two million dead by now. Israel has the power, and the ammunition, to achieve that very rapidly in a very small space.
Just because you dislike the war, doesn't make it genocide.
By constant industry industrious.
So what? Would you be calm and placid
If you were full of formic acid
(Ogden Nash)
Which is why I'd love to see children and any other innocents being able to get refuge in neighbouring Muslim states until the war is over, safe from the conflict and the bloodshed, rather than being subjected to the consequences of the war Hamas wanted.
First major milestone is getting to being able to produce alien ants in volume in order to slaughter them to harvest their formic acid, in order to make rubber.
They could do it in days with ammunition, yet strangely they keep warning innocents to move so they don't get bombed. Weird thing for a nation set on genocide to do, to warn the people they're trying to wipe out so that they don't get hurt. Almost as if this genocide bullshit is just bullshit.
He wrote elastic cheques
He never thought he would get caught
And he always signed them Rex
[unknown]
In simply practical terms genocide by starvation is considerably more economical in monetary terms than expending pricey ammunition.
No genocide is happening.
They've used a shit tonne of ammunition, but they've kept the death toll impressively low, by warning civilians even though that carries the risk of warning Hamas.
If they were as bloodthirsty, or just plain uncaring, as accused of they could just not warn anyone and use the ammunition to exact maximum death tolls - but they're not, because they're fighting a war not committing genocide.
Now getting back to earlier conversation, if you were in Lincoln's shoes, what maximum number of acceptable collateral casualties would you set to defeat the Confederates and free the slaves?
You must have some sort of idea or bar or metric to go off, considering you consider it a sensible question and not barking mad.
Circular reasoning is so common nowadays that words like 'genocide' and 'fascist' easily become bereft of meaning. Say something that sounds powerful, then tweak the definition after the fact. Nobody will call you out if you're on the same side as them, after all.
I am content to be given an equal billing to Max Hastings. Our analysis of Boris Johnson is somewhat similar too.
I support whatever it takes to defeat Hamas and have done since the start, yes.
You did not. From the start you opposed defeating Hamas, even after what they did.
That does not make defeating Hamas an act of genocide, it is an act of war.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c708g5x2yqzo
Someone earlier said your moral compass needed recalibrating. I don't think you ever had one.
It is, just as it was the Confederate leaders and the Nazi leaders fault when Confederate and German civilians died.
As for how many die, yes that is tragic but is not a deciding factor. If you think it is, then what is the acceptable number of German civilian casualties that Churchill or Chamberlain should have set as an upper limit before we stop fighting? What is the acceptable number of Confederate civilian casualties that Lincoln should have set as an upper limit before they stopped fighting?
Wars are not set with upper limits on casualty figures, which is why they should only ever be a last resort, and that last resort has been reached here.
To demand a cap on casualties here, when no war has ever in human history been fought on that basis, is utter bullshit. You need to recalibrate your morals if you can't see why Hamas need to be defeated.
Ps I warn you the passport queues are LAX are as bad as ever. Why is it always like this?
Plus these days there’s the added chance of a arrest, mild torture then incarceration in that El Salvador maxi jail if you did a bad tweet about J D Vance
Anyway I’m through now. Not shot by ICE or Stephen Miller. All feels quite un-fash
"World's most frequent flyer bought 'lifetime' United pass for $510K, can fly first-class anytime"
https://abc7.com/post/tom-stuker-bought-lifetime-united-airlines-pass-510k-1990-can-fly-first-class-anywhere-anytime/16369133
Really rather pleasant. Art deco, revamped. 101 years old. Once owned by Charlie Chaplin, who lost at poker here to John Wayne - old skool Hollywood
And the neighbourhood is… walkable
There are decent restaurants.
It's not particularly unattractive by LA standards.
And the hotel itself is fab. Great bar. Soaked in Hollywood history (all the studios nearby)
There aren't too many homeless crystal meth addicts.
There have been focus groups who highlighted that part of the problem for the party has been the constant merry go round of the divisive changing of leaders four times in the last six years before that catastrophic and humilating GE defeat last year. The party needs stability in the wake of that defeat, and at the moment while the electorate are not listening to the Conservatives or what they have to offer, we have one thing that neither Keir Starmer or Nigel Farage have in their party right now, we have a young ambitious plain speaking woman who is trying to rebuild the party and offer sustainable policies and who is not another man in a grey suit who has been around for years. Changing Conservative leaders in the next year in response to the Reform polling or the May results next year so soon after the last GE only brings yet more negative publicity for the party and will back fire.
Given the time to rebuild the party and bring about real policy change with the whole backing of the party and I believe that Kemi Badenoch can do a David Cameron where Robert Jenrick cannot. But here is the thing, I believe that he can be a very useful ally to her in the same way that George Osborne was to David Cameron if he is on board enough like George Osborne was to make sure that the party was successfully elected again as her wingman. If Robert Jenrick and Chris Philp get behind her and she tightens up her Shadow Cabinet by bringing James Cleverly back into the fold as Shadow Foreign Secretary then they should be given the time to embed and make a difference over the longer term.
Likewise the Wizard of Oz and Singing in the rain - the cast all stayed here. Including 500 munchkins from Oz
The studio saved money by making the munchkins sleep three to a bed - arranged sideways. But then the munchkins got revenge by trashing the place - swinging from the chandeliers and chucking tankards through windows in riotous munchkin-fests
I sense a gazette article
I have many memories of Gardies; I was introduced to it when I first came to Cambridge by a friend whose gf went to uni there. Waiting for food in the poky rooms upstairs; chatting to students in the queue about arcane topics; one warm summer's day a queue of people in graduation gowns queuing out of the door. Sitting on the low wall nearby at night, getting all the lovely burger juices dribbling down my hands and clothes.
It also means that there's one less cheap food place in the centre of town.
The end of an institution. I'm glad I got to take my son there.
F1: going to start browsing the markets first. Heads up for anyone who hasn't seen: Williams had both drivers disqualified for rear wing technical infringements.
https://www.thetimes.com/article/650ab75a-5423-44a2-98db-cc5c7ffff4d9?shareToken=90ebe0c0639b68c8d1eebbc3c64ff375
Matthew Syed talks to Palestine Action supporters, and it goes as expected.
The problem with the Tory Party is that is has always been based upon compromise, working with others for the good of the country. Thus we didn't believe in Nationalisation but in 1951 we tried to make the Labour post war settlement work. When we try to pull back a little there is all hell on, see 1979.
From 2010 to 2024 we worked with others for a consensus, doing the best we could but without overturning what was already there. And now that has bitten us in the arse.
It has been fashionable to hit Kemi, easy shots from opportunists whether hard left Marxist opportunists like Starmer or self-serving right of centre opportunists like Farage. I didn't vote for Kemi for leader as I feared she would suffer the same sotto-voce racism that Rishi suffered. I have bene proved right. That is what our opponents do, particularly the Lib Dems. I remember the first gay Tory councillor in a northern town. Labour were fine with it but I remember the Lib Dems on the door step. When the voter expressed admiration for the lad the next line was "You know he's a puff ?"
Betting PostF1: bit of scrabbling around here, so not too confident, but backed Piastri each way at 7 and Bortoleto to win his group (Williams, Ocon, Stroll) at 3.6, prices boosted.
https://morrisf1.blogspot.com/2025/10/singapore-grand-prix-2025-pre-race.html
Having read that article and others, I fear the problem is that, for many of the protestors, it is simply Palestinians=good, Israel=bad. The idea that Palestinians - and this includes Hamas - might have bad people or (heaven forfend!) be actually worse than Israel is anathema. Or worse: they accept that Hamas does bad things, but they're doing it in defence of Palestinians, which makes it okay.
https://x.com/TheVicarageCat/status/1974496387866763719
The intolerance is unacceptable and probably from the Evangelical right
They need to understand the true meaning of Christianity and not dissect and twist the testaments to fit their very unchristian views
.
I am not a member of the COE but I wish her well
We need strong government action as Andy Burnham and Kemi Bademoch jointly said last night in Manchester
The government was right to proscribe Palestine Action.
Bigotry expressed in terms of progressive-sounding language is still bigotry.
Burnham has the capacity to do something about this Manchester wide, he is the Police Commissioner. Badenoch and her party were equally as ineffective as the current Government appears to be whilst in office.
Sir Keir Starmer came away from the party conference in Liverpool feeling pleased that the days by the Mersey unfolded a lot better than might have been expected in the circumstances. [However,] The curiously upbeat mood within the conference arena contrasts starkly with how it looked from outside the secure zone.
[The] budget that looks more nightmarishly difficult with every passing day. Cabinet members don’t bother to try to deny that further tax rises are coming. Darkening the horizon are critical elections next May that threaten to be another demonstration of how the government has shed support on both sides. I suggested to a loyalist member of the cabinet that many voters may be too disillusioned and distrustful to be in the mood to be receptive to messages from this government. The minister rather mournfully agreed: “They are not listening right now, to be honest.”
While Andy Burnham had a bruising week, his diagnosis of the peril facing Labour has plenty of sympathisers and, as one veteran strategist put it to me, he has “put into play” the thought that Labour needs to change its leader. I give some points for candour to Shabana Mahmood, the home secretary, for saying: “You shouldn’t believe anyone in politics who says they’re not ambitious about the top job, because they’re basically lying.” She, one of the sharpest operators in the cabinet, and Wes Streeting, the government’s most fluent communicator, often come up in conversation as Labour MPs run their rulers over putative alternatives.
Sir Keir is depicting the next general election as hugely consequential. Nothing less than “a battle for the soul of our country”. It is not enough to be up for the fight; a leader must also demonstrate that they have a strategy to win it. Convincing his party he has one is another of the testing challenges of the weeks ahead.
It's the trouble with the hierarchy of needs. Until quite recently, the locus of contentment was food, shelter and basic healthcare. They were relatively easy to fix, once we set our minds to them. That didn't make us content for long, and now our discontent has landed on questions of identity and control that nobody really has an answer to.
But the resulting dynamic, a fake Messiah persuading enough of the population that the answer lies in blaming a Visible Other and the old elites who stabbed the people in the back... That's the same script.
Compare and contrast that to the reception Lammy received !!!!
If Starmer really believes the next election is a fight for the soul of the nation then he should hand over to someone capable of that fight. No to do so is pure egotism.
I believe Starmer has passed the point of recovery
It was interesting at the same vigil how Andy Burnham and the Chief of Police were listened to and appreciated
So I refer back to my original comment: what he said was good, and he delivered it well considering the hostility. The reaction against him was not due to his speech, but his position.
Ukraine has now hit four refineries in the first five days of October, including three of the five largest refineries in Russia.
I am not even sure why Labour thought they should send their deputy when it should in the circumstances have been Starmer himself
A significant slice of the electorate and media have not got the government they wanted for the first time in nearly half a century. I shouldn't be surprised at how badly they have taken that, but I still am.
Starmer got the jobs of Labour leader and PM because the available alternatives were clearly worse. That still applies now; until it changes, we're stuck with him.
You can go all Daily Telegraph and blame the Labour Government for a culture of anti-Semitism if you like. That would be appropriate if you sit one side of the Palestine-Israel fence. If you sit on the other, you can blame the Government for a culture of Islamophobia.
Quite what you expect Lammy to say differently to calm troubled waters, you'll have to explain further.
Words fail me
Why does Andy Burnham receive the respect of the Jewish Community in Heaton Park whilst Lammy is heckled?
Glad we've cleared that up.
Starmer's problems are manyfold. He is not a leader. He is not a good orator. He seems to have vague objectives, but no plans to get there. Then, a month after he became PM, he and many of his cabinet showed themselves to be as grifting, if not more, than the government they replaced. There have been a number of scandals since, and he has handled each one poorly.
His only advantage is his stonking majority.
Last year the country voted for change. A competent PM - say, like Blair - could have carried the country along with him. Starmer hasn't.
"[Green Party] Members led several chants from the beach, including the controversial phrase: "From the River to the sea, Palestine will be free.""
Showing their true colours.
Labour have collapsed in just 15 months and labour supporters are no doubt feeling the despair felt by many conservatives as their government also collapsed in popularity
It remains to be seen is Starmer and the party conclude he is a dud quicker than those around Biden did.
It's a shame the government has recognised Palestine, yet is to cowardly to recognise Taiwan: a country much more deserving of recognition.
One way we reduce the division in society is to stop regarding social media comments as meaningful, and so stop reacting to them with anger and not being part of a cycle of discord.
The best of mornings to you Big G. We are enjoying the calm after the storm here in the West of Ireland.
https://benansell.substack.com/p/british-politics-midlife-crisis
" Labour has chosen to make the university sector, if not quite an enemy, more of an embarrassing distant relation worthy of disdain. At the same time as relying on the votes of everyone vaguely attached to it.
It’s a bold strategy but Labour aren’t the first political party to turn on their core support. Their recent predecessors, the Conservatives, by the end of their time in government seemed positively embarrassed about managers, professionals, and local worthies. And yuppies? Don’t mention them. Shiver…
Both major political parties appear to be going through some odd form of psychopathology where they have become embarrassed to be supported by anyone who could be vaguely pigeonholed as ‘middle-class’."
Our enshittification enthusiasts may like this piece by the coiner of the word, from a new book.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/oct/05/way-past-its-prime-how-did-amazon-get-so-rubbish
I think it is possible to support civilians in Gaza and to protest the actions of Israel, without being blind to the evil that Hamas has perpetrated. But that was beyond most of the people on that protest (with a couple of notable exceptions).