I dont think any nation can justify killing non combatants in the numbers that Israel manages.
But how many of those non combatants are pawns sacrificed by Hamas?
The IDF released a very interesting video of an (aborted) attack the other day: they made the call, fired the warning shot. The family ran away from the house, but then lots of random "civilians" ran into the house and on to the roof.
I assume they were unarmed - but deliberately putting themselves in harm's way as a human shield. I'm not sure that should really count as a "non combatant" but I'm willing to bet they are in the numbers as such
I don't deny that Hamas are far from innocent, I'm just uncomfortable with the way that Israel sems to just shrugs it's shoulders and says "Oops" when it does something unacceptable.
I agree. I don't believe they do them deliberately - as some imply - but their view is that they exist in a state of war and, unfortunately, sometimes the innocent die in wars.
But it's been interesting: for the last 3-4 days the BBC has been mentioning the Hamas rocket attacks - much more balanced - whereas it was all Israeli attacks for the first week
Balance? Balance?
How many Israelis have been killed or maimed, and how many Palestinians?
Are there any figures on what the public thinks about the bedroom tax? I confess that I don't understand why it in particular became such a focal point for Labour, so I presume they must be getting some traction with it, whereas other restrictions are actually pretty popular.
I believe there was some polling showing about 60% support for it
If does rely on the real policy being explained (which is bringing public sector rental sector rules into line with those in the private sector)
But people do seem to have grasped the idea that the state shouldn't pay for houses that are bigger than the needs of the family.
Yes, there will always been hard cases - but the basic principle seems to be one on which a majority of people agree
That seems plausible. I guess Labour have just had more luck with this particular policy using the old 'I have found some examples where this policy had a negative impact on someone, therefore the entire policy must be terrible' tactic than with some others.
Anyway despite all that it's ashame Dave didn't bring him back into Gov't in my opinion.
Reasons:
a) Isn't a mate of Osborne b) Doesn't have a vagina c) Not part of the chumocracy
Or he could have made him an EU commissioner...
I wonder if Lynton killed the idea as by-elections inevitably give oxygen and publicity to UKIP.
When Plebgate first happened, some of PB's more stupid posters said Dave would never fire Mitchell because he was a chum.
The real reason Dave couldn't bring him back is because of his outstanding legal issues.
Hope he gets them sorted soon, he should probably ask for a refund from his accountant too - I assume it was one of those tax type accountants that suggested he invest in the scheme. Hope he kept the invoice !
Are there any figures on what the public thinks about the bedroom tax? I confess that I don't understand why it in particular became such a focal point for Labour, so I presume they must be getting some traction with it, whereas other restrictions are actually pretty popular.
I believe there was some polling showing about 60% support for it
If does rely on the real policy being explained (which is bringing public sector rental sector rules into line with those in the private sector)
But people do seem to have grasped the idea that the state shouldn't pay for houses that are bigger than the needs of the family.
Yes, there will always been hard cases - but the basic principle seems to be one on which a majority of people agree
That seems plausible. I guess Labour have just had more luck with this particular policy using the old 'I have found some examples where this policy had a negative impact on someone, therefore the entire policy must be terrible' tactic than with some others.
What I can't see is why the LDs think this will win back support. Their voters don't, on the whole, come from the affected tenants. And it would take a lot more than this to re-establish themselves as a party committed to social justice.
So it just makes them look like flip-floppers - and thus not trustworthy
Are there any figures on what the public thinks about the bedroom tax? I confess that I don't understand why it in particular became such a focal point for Labour, so I presume they must be getting some traction with it, whereas other restrictions are actually pretty popular.
I believe there was some polling showing about 60% support for it
If does rely on the real policy being explained (which is bringing public sector rental sector rules into line with those in the private sector)
But people do seem to have grasped the idea that the state shouldn't pay for houses that are bigger than the needs of the family.
Yes, there will always be hard cases - but the basic principle seems to be one on which a majority of people agree
"But people do seem to have grasped the idea that the state shouldn't pay for houses that are bigger than the needs of the family."
I don't think that's true in the details.
It might be true if asked in general principle but ask if someone who's kids have left home and they have a spare room for visits is too much and you'll get a different answer.
Are there any figures on what the public thinks about the bedroom tax? I confess that I don't understand why it in particular became such a focal point for Labour, so I presume they must be getting some traction with it, whereas other restrictions are actually pretty popular.
I believe there was some polling showing about 60% support for it
If does rely on the real policy being explained (which is bringing public sector rental sector rules into line with those in the private sector)
But people do seem to have grasped the idea that the state shouldn't pay for houses that are bigger than the needs of the family.
Yes, there will always be hard cases - but the basic principle seems to be one on which a majority of people agree
"But people do seem to have grasped the idea that the state shouldn't pay for houses that are bigger than the needs of the family."
I don't think that's true in the details.
It might be true if asked in general principle but ask if someone who's kids have left home and they have a spare room for visits is too much and you'll get a different answer.
There are always ways of delivering a poll result - but I have never understood why someone who was in a house in the private rented sector should have a worse deal than someone in an equivalent council house. That is what this policy resolved.
Are there any figures on what the public thinks about the bedroom tax? I confess that I don't understand why it in particular became such a focal point for Labour, so I presume they must be getting some traction with it, whereas other restrictions are actually pretty popular.
I believe there was some polling showing about 60% support for it
If does rely on the real policy being explained (which is bringing public sector rental sector rules into line with those in the private sector)
But people do seem to have grasped the idea that the state shouldn't pay for houses that are bigger than the needs of the family.
Yes, there will always been hard cases - but the basic principle seems to be one on which a majority of people agree
That seems plausible. I guess Labour have just had more luck with this particular policy using the old 'I have found some examples where this policy had a negative impact on someone, therefore the entire policy must be terrible' tactic than with some others.
What I can't see is why the LDs think this will win back support. Their voters don't, on the whole, come from the affected tenants. And it would take a lot more than this to re-establish themselves as a party committed to social justice.
So it just makes them look like flip-floppers - and thus not trustworthy
They're going to try and lose the remaining 6%.
UKIP gain Eastleigh ! Con gain Torbay ! Labour gain Hallam ! SNP gain Orkney & Shetland !
That seems plausible. I guess policy had a negative impact on someone, therefore the entire policy must be terrible' tactic than with some others.
What I can't see is why the LDs think this will win back support. Their voters don't, on the whole, come from the affected tenants. And it would take a lot more than this to re-establish themselves as a party committed to social justice.
So it just makes them look like flip-floppers - and thus not trustworthy
Their position is so bleak and nothing has worked to improve it, to the point they will not be afraid to try any tactic even if logically it makes no sense. Perhaps if they appear to be against it in the run up to the next elections, a significant enough percentage of people will forget what their previous position was and only remember the last one. Or by making the right, labour-lite noises despite the actual policy support they may have had, they can convince, again a small but significant number, that they can be trusted to be labour in yellow again and so be worthy of a vote in a LD-Con marginal.
I hope you are right but sadly I doubt it. We will still be here in a decades time saying the same things.
Israel does not care. Unless the west stops selling them guns and giving them money they won't stop.
vely, stronger.
America is in swift relative decline? How many nuclear powered aircraft carriers did it have in 1945, How many does it have now? How
...
Ylso have said the same post-Vietnam. And how much has America done since then?
But during Vietnam America still comprised at least 30% of global GDP - and it was facing an enfeebled opponent in global communism, which failed, economically, wherever it was attempted.
Now America is under 20% of global GDP and this proportion is falling fast. In ten-twenty years it could be 10%. How often does this need repeating? Before people realize what it means?
Moreover America now faces fierce rivals with bigger populations who are happily, indeed ruthlessly, capitalist.
Do. The. Math.
As they say.
People may quibble over how far their dominance will fall, and when, heh, crossover will occur, but as you say, sheer numbers mean it is hard to dispute it happening at some stage, with the process underway already.
But during Vietnam America still comprised at least 30% of global GDP - and it was facing an enfeebled opponent in global communism, which failed, economically, wherever it was attempted.
Now America is under 20% of global GDP and this proportion is falling fast. In ten-twenty years it could be 10%. How often does this need repeating? Before people realize what it means?
Moreover America now faces fierce rivals with bigger populations who are happily, indeed ruthlessly, capitalist.
Do. The. Math.
As they say.
I think you're right about relative US power but that doesn't necessarily end where you might think. If US relative power drops dramatically (which seems highly likely at the mo) then i think:
1) Russia will likely have its hands full extending influence nearer to home 2) China doesn't care who sells them oil as long as it gets sold 3) Israel has the military advantage in the middle east
so seems to me the most likely outcome of a collapse in US influence is a bigger Israel sitting on a lot of oil.
(You're right i should have said "towards" rather than "to" as we're not there quite yet).
Looks a lot like the education rankings in fact.
"Have you read and understood my comments?"
I know what the reasons are - half the women in my extended familyranking.
They may be nurses but they are clearly not statisticians or epidemiologists! England and Wales now has an infant mortality rate that is half of what it was 30 years ago. It is getting better (not worse!) though other countries have also improved. Could it get better? Probably. But to suggest it is third world is ludicrous.
21st in the 1995-2000 column 27th in the 2000-2005 column 29th in the 2005-2010 column
Your lack of understanding of statistics makes you deaf.
The countries just behind UK in the rankings are: Croatia, Cuba, US, Malta, Hungary, Slovakia, Poland, Estonia, Lithuania.
The US is up in the air at the mo but of the rest i'd guess at least Croatia, Cuba, Poland and Estonia will pass Britain in the 2010-2015 list.
There has been a lot of progress in eastern europe so I am glad they are reaching our level. In part it is a triumph of the EU developing their economic and social infrastructure.
Ranking matters much less than the absolute rate of infant deaths. Perhaps if we had EU wide standard recording and definitions we might be able to make fair comparisons. In the Czech republic infants born at 22 weeks under 500g are recorded as still births, even if they breathe for hours. In the UK they are recorded as live births. This is one reason our mortality rate appears higher. I mentioned some others earlier.
But never mind the truth when you want to bash the NHS and privatise it.
Are there any figures on what the public thinks about the bedroom tax? I confess that I don't understand why it in particular became such a focal point for Labour, so I presume they must be getting some traction with it, whereas other restrictions are actually pretty popular.
I believe there was some polling showing about 60% support for it
If does rely on the real policy being explained (which is bringing public sector rental sector rules into line with those in the private sector)
But people do seem to have grasped the idea that the state shouldn't pay for houses that are bigger than the needs of the family.
Yes, there will always be hard cases - but the basic principle seems to be one on which a majority of people agree
"But people do seem to have grasped the idea that the state shouldn't pay for houses that are bigger than the needs of the family."
I don't think that's true in the details.
It might be true if asked in general principle but ask if someone who's kids have left home and they have a spare room for visits is too much and you'll get a different answer.
There are always ways of delivering a poll result - but I have never understood why someone who was in a house in the private rented sector should have a worse deal than someone in an equivalent council house. That is what this policy resolved.
Council housing was an improvement over private rented.
Are there any figures on what the public thinks about the bedroom tax? I confess that I don't understand why it in particular became such a focal point for Labour, so I presume they must be getting some traction with it, whereas other restrictions are actually pretty popular.
I believe there was some polling showing about 60% support for it
If does rely on the real policy being explained (which is bringing public sector rental sector rules into line with those in the private sector)
But people do seem to have grasped the idea that the state shouldn't pay for houses that are bigger than the needs of the family.
Yes, there will always be hard cases - but the basic principle seems to be one on which a majority of people agree
"But people do seem to have grasped the idea that the state shouldn't pay for houses that are bigger than the needs of the family."
I don't think that's true in the details.
It might be true if asked in general principle but ask if someone who's kids have left home and they have a spare room for visits is too much and you'll get a different answer.
There are always ways of delivering a poll result - but I have never understood why someone who was in a house in the private rented sector should have a worse deal than someone in an equivalent council house. That is what this policy resolved.
Council housing was an improvement over private rented.
But why should a family in a council house be entitled to extra bedrooms (under the old system)?
It doesn't make sense to me.
Whilst the implementation of the new system might need further work, the core principle is a sound one as far as I am concerned. All tenants should have the same rights - no matter whether they are in a public or private sector.
(You're right i should have said "towards" rather than "to" as we're not there quite yet).
Looks a lot like the education rankings in fact.
"Have you read and understood my comments?"
I know what the reasons are - half the women in my extended familyranking.
They may be nurses but they are clearly not statisticians or epidemiologists! England and Wales now has an infant mortality rate that is half of what it was 30 years ago. It is getting better (not worse!) though other countries have also improved. Could it get better? Probably. But to suggest it is third world is ludicrous.
21st in the 1995-2000 column 27th in the 2000-2005 column 29th in the 2005-2010 column
Your lack of understanding of statistics makes you deaf.
The countries just behind UK in the rankings are: Croatia, Cuba, US, Malta, Hungary, Slovakia, Poland, Estonia, Lithuania.
The US is up in the air at the mo but of the rest i'd guess at least Croatia, Cuba, Poland and Estonia will pass Britain in the 2010-2015 list.
There has been a lot of progress in eastern europe so I am glad they are reaching our level. In part it is a triumph of the EU developing their economic and social infrastructure.
Ranking matters much less than the absolute rate of infant deaths. Perhaps if we had EU wide standard recording and definitions we might be able to make fair comparisons. In the Czech republic infants born at 22 weeks under 500g are recorded as still births, even if they breathe for hours. In the UK they are recorded as live births. This is one reason our mortality rate appears higher. I mentioned some others earlier.
But never mind the truth when you want to bash the NHS and privatise it.
I don't want to bash the NHS or privatize it.
"Ranking matters much less than the absolute rate of infant deaths."
The direction of travel of ranking matters a great deal as it's a sign things are going wrong.
SeanT As economic power adjusts to be a greater reflection of population, inevitably the US will see a relative decline, but in gdp per capita terms it will still most likely be ahead of China in 50-100 years and certainly India
SeanT As economic power adjusts to be a greater reflection of population, inevitably the US will see a relative decline, but in gdp per capita terms it will still most likely be ahead of China in 50-100 years and certainly India
It's not just about US decline relative to a growing China. Current US power relies on the dollar / petrodollar. Without that it will go into absolute decline very rapidly e.g. inability to maintain those carriers.
Are there any figures on what the public thinks about the bedroom tax? I confess that I don't understand why it in particular became such a focal point for Labour, so I presume they must be getting some traction with it, whereas other restrictions are actually pretty popular.
I believe there was some polling showing about 60% support for it
If does rely on the real policy being explained (which is bringing public sector rental sector rules into line with those in the private sector)
But people do seem to have grasped the idea that the state shouldn't pay for houses that are bigger than the needs of the family.
Yes, there will always be hard cases - but the basic principle seems to be one on which a majority of people agree
"But people do seem to have grasped the idea that the state shouldn't pay for houses that are bigger than the needs of the family."
I don't think that's true in the details.
It might be true if asked in general principle but ask if someone who's kids have left home and they have a spare room for visits is too much and you'll get a different answer.
There are always ways of delivering a poll result - but I have never understood why someone who was in a house in the private rented sector should have a worse deal than someone in an equivalent council house. That is what this policy resolved.
Council housing was an improvement over private rented.
But why should a family in a council house be entitled to extra bedrooms (under the old system)?
It doesn't make sense to me.
Whilst the implementation of the new system might need further work, the core principle is a sound one as far as I am concerned. All tenants should have the same rights - no matter whether they are in a public or private sector.
I'm not saying it should. I'm saying there's no reason to expect equalizing downwards to be popular (even if you can get positive polling for it if you ask the question right).
Re the bedroom tax - it is far, far easier to save money by simply freezing benefits - ie cut in real terms - than completely taking a benefit away from anyone.
The next thing to do is to hack away at the extraordinary tax credit system. If you are a single parent with children earning between £10k and about £35k it makes almost no difference what your salary is - as the change in what you end up with net is miniscule.
It is a colossal disincentive to better yourself. Unless you reckon you can earn above about £35k it's a complete waste of time earning more than £10k.
Are there any figures on what the public thinks about the bedroom tax? I confess that I don't understand why it in particular became such a focal point for Labour, so I presume they must be getting some traction with it, whereas other restrictions are actually pretty popular.
I believe there was some polling showing about 60% support for it
If does rely on the real policy being explained (which is bringing public sector rental sector rules into line with those in the private sector)
But people do seem to have grasped the idea that the state shouldn't pay for houses that are bigger than the needs of the family.
Yes, there will always be hard cases - but the basic principle seems to be one on which a majority of people agree
"But people do seem to have grasped the idea that the state shouldn't pay for houses that are bigger than the needs of the family."
I don't think that's true in the details.
It might be true if asked in general principle but ask if someone who's kids have left home and they have a spare room for visits is too much and you'll get a different answer.
There are always ways of delivering a poll result - but I have never understood why someone who was in a house in the private rented sector should have a worse deal than someone in an equivalent council house. That is what this policy resolved.
Council housing was an improvement over private rented.
But why should a family in a council house be entitled to extra bedrooms (under the old system)?
It doesn't make sense to me. .
It's more the availability of housing for them to move into (or lack thereof).
Richard N - replied to your mailbox, let me know if you didn't get it.
Bedroom tax: the basic problem is that it changes the arithmetic of daily life for people who are already hard-pressed, especially if there is literally nowhere in the area they can trade down to. What are they supposed to do? Move away and give up their jobs? It doesn't matter whether it's logical or not - if you suddenly take something away that people rely on (such as the ability to live in their current home on £x/week), it's objectively nasty for them, and if you at the same time give the general impression that you don't much care about people like them (as polls show the Conservatives do), it's natural for them to be angry. That said, I think the LibDems suddenly seeing the light will at best cause more amusement than vote-switching.
It's a general problem of politics that people can readily adjust to having a bit more money but relatively few have enough in hand to absorb a downward shock. All kinds of tax simplifications would be easier if it wasn't for that.
Notable that all western nations (France, Germany, UK, etc) are in decline, though America's decline is the fastest, at the moment - as you would expect, with it being the biggest, so it has more to lose.
Also notable is the incredibly speedy rise of China.
China is just 4% behind America now (meaning it should overtake in a few years); 25 years ago China was 1/8th the size of America.
Russia, intriguingly, is almost exactly the same size as it was a quarter of a century ago, as a share of the global economy. The unchanging nation.
PPP is a dodgy way of doing it economic power though. The whole point of PPP is to measure living standards, so it only really matters on a per capita basis.
Richard N - replied to your mailbox, let me know if you didn't get it.
Bedroom tax: the basic problem is that it changes the arithmetic of daily life for people who are already hard-pressed, especially if there is literally nowhere in the area they can trade down to. What are they supposed to do? Move away and give up their jobs? It doesn't matter whether it's logical or not - if you suddenly take something away that people rely on (such as the ability to live in their current home on £x/week), it's objectively nasty for them, and if you at the same time give the general impression that you don't much care about people like them (as polls show the Conservatives do), it's natural for them to be angry. That said, I think the LibDems suddenly seeing the light will at best cause more amusement than vote-switching.
It's a general problem of politics that people can readily adjust to having a bit more money but relatively few have enough in hand to absorb a downward shock. All kinds of tax simplifications would be easier if it wasn't for that.
It's not suddenly really (see conference last year, what Farron's been saying about it etc). It's more the new research report out's given the cover for the leadership to move away from the Tories and back towards the more general view of the party (whether the leadership wanted to do this or was forced to it is an open question).
The "bedroom tax" is a dead duck anyhow. There have been several successful first-tier appeals, where appellants successfully argued that what the council deemed a bedroom was in fact a dining-room, gymnasium, office, store-room, etc, and hence not subject to the ill-thought out, daft legislation...
Richard N - replied to your mailbox, let me know if you didn't get it.
Bedroom tax: the basic problem is that it changes the arithmetic of daily life for people who are already hard-pressed, especially if there is literally nowhere in the area they can trade down to. What are they supposed to do? Move away and give up their jobs? It doesn't matter whether it's logical or not - if you suddenly take something away that people rely on (such as the ability to live in their current home on £x/week), it's objectively nasty for them, and if you at the same time give the general impression that you don't much care about people like them (as polls show the Conservatives do), it's natural for them to be angry. That said, I think the LibDems suddenly seeing the light will at best cause more amusement than vote-switching.
It's a general problem of politics that people can readily adjust to having a bit more money but relatively few have enough in hand to absorb a downward shock. All kinds of tax simplifications would be easier if it wasn't for that.
Change "bedroom tax" to "mass immigration of cheap labour" and it reads just the same, and you voted for and defend that to the hilt
SeanT China is the most populous nation on the planet, the shocking thing should be it has not always been the world's largest economy, what we are seeing is simply a reversion to the norm now it has ditched Maoism and the Age of Empire is over. Indeed, until the 17th century India and China were the world's largest economies
Richard N - replied to your mailbox, let me know if you didn't get it.
Bedroom tax: the basic problem is that it changes the arithmetic of daily life for people who are already hard-pressed, especially if there is literally nowhere in the area they can trade down to. What are they supposed to do? Move away and give up their jobs? It doesn't matter whether it's logical or not - if you suddenly take something away that people rely on (such as the ability to live in their current home on £x/week), it's objectively nasty for them, and if you at the same time give the general impression that you don't much care about people like them (as polls show the Conservatives do), it's natural for them to be angry. That said, I think the LibDems suddenly seeing the light will at best cause more amusement than vote-switching.
It's a general problem of politics that people can readily adjust to having a bit more money but relatively few have enough in hand to absorb a downward shock. All kinds of tax simplifications would be easier if it wasn't for that.
So why was the 'bedroom tax' ok for private sector rentals? May I assume that you voted in favour when it was introduced in 2006?
That said I don't believe China will become hegemonic, it has too many problems at home and has no wish to imperialise, it won't take sides in the Middle East.
maybe China has no wish to imperialize in the middle east, but in general? All these activities in the South China sea can't be solely for domestic propaganda purposes, can they?
and growing influence in Africa...
Having missed out on 20th century imperialism, maybe time for a little catch up?
That said, I think the LibDems suddenly seeing the light will at best cause more amusement than vote-switching.
Given that everybody knows it as the bedroom tax it's a bit surreal watching them still using the rather awkward pro-policy framing ("spare room subsidy") while attacking the policy to get rid of it...
Israel's model is a small, militaristic, aggressive, terrorist brutally expansionist State, fuelled by an omnipresent but wholly imaginary existential threat and threads of religious fervour.
That cannot possibly be sustainable. Something will give sometime, but heck knows what.
"Wholly imaginary existential threat"?
Have you read The Hamas charter? In summary, it says that every Jew everywhere should be killed. The fact that Hamas have, despite their incessant rocket attacks, not been successful in killing Jews in Israel is hardly something in their favour.
That said, the deaths of those children is a tragedy. The murder of the three Israeli boys was a tragedy, one celebrated by Hamas, as was the murder of 5 children in a settler family a few years ago (one of them a three month old baby who had her head cut off). The death of the Palestinian boy was a tragedy. There are alas too many tragedies in the MIddle East. But the rending of garments and wailing seems awfully selective as is the reference to historical facts.
Let's look a two mentioned on this thread. The right of return: The relevant UN resolutions refer to the right of return not just of Palestinians but also of all those Jews expelled by Arab States (Iraq, Egypt, Tunisia etc).
As for the expulsion of Arabs from Mandate Palestine at the time the UN partitioned the land between Israel and a proposed Palestinian state, it's true that Israel expelled some Arabs but many left because they were told to by Arab States, who rather than accept the UN decision (very different from their attitude to the UN now) chose war. They lost. Though Jordan took the opportunity to annex the land earmarked for the Palestinians for itself. And no-one complained about that or called them oppressors or campaigned for the land to be returned to the people to whom it had been awarded.
Still, those who choose to live by the sword will die by it and, as ever, it is the innocents who suffer.
Israel's model is a small, militaristic, aggressive, terrorist brutally expansionist State, fuelled by an omnipresent but wholly imaginary existential threat and threads of religious fervour.
That cannot possibly be sustainable. Something will give sometime, but heck knows what.
"Wholly imaginary existential threat"?
Have you read The Hamas charter? In summary, it says that every Jew everywhere should be killed. The fact that Hamas have, despite their incessant rocket attacks, not been successful in killing Jews in Israel is hardly something in their favour.
That said, the deaths of those children is a tragedy. The murder of the three Israeli boys was a tragedy, one celebrated by Hamas, as was the murder of 5 children in a settler family a few years ago (one of them a three month old baby who had her head cut off). The death of the Palestinian boy was a tragedy. There are alas too many tragedies in the MIddle East. But the rending of garments and wailing seems awfully selective as is the reference to historical facts.
Let's look a two mentioned on this thread. The right of return: The relevant UN resolutions refer to the right of return not just of Palestinians but also of all those Jews expelled by Arab States (Iraq, Egypt, Tunisia etc).
As for the expulsion of Arabs from Mandate Palestine at the time the UN partitioned the land between Israel and a proposed Palestinian state, it's true that Israel expelled some Arabs but many left because they were told to by Arab States, who rather than accept the UN decision (very different from their attitude to the UN now) chose war. They lost. Though Jordan took the opportunity to annex the land earmarked for the Palestinians for itself. And no-one complained about that or called them oppressors or campaigned for the land to be returned to the people to whom it had been awarded.
Still, those who choose to live by the sword will die by it and, as ever, it is the innocents who suffer.
Richard N - replied to your mailbox, let me know if you didn't get it.
Bedroom tax: the basic problem is that it changes the arithmetic of daily life for people who are already hard-pressed, especially if there is literally nowhere in the area they can trade down to. What are they supposed to do? Move away and give up their jobs? It doesn't matter whether it's logical or not - if you suddenly take something away that people rely on (such as the ability to live in their current home on £x/week), it's objectively nasty for them, and if you at the same time give the general impression that you don't much care about people like them (as polls show the Conservatives do), it's natural for them to be angry. That said, I think the LibDems suddenly seeing the light will at best cause more amusement than vote-switching.
It's a general problem of politics that people can readily adjust to having a bit more money but relatively few have enough in hand to absorb a downward shock. All kinds of tax simplifications would be easier if it wasn't for that.
It's not suddenly really (see conference last year, what Farron's been saying about it etc). It's more the new research report out's given the cover for the leadership to move away from the Tories and back towards the more general view of the party (whether the leadership wanted to do this or was forced to it is an open question).
As usual, the LD leadership has ended up in the worst of two worlds. Just like Tuition fees, all they had to say was No. £1bn only. How much has Osborne slipped by his original debt reduction projection. It is because of the the combination of the Tuition fees and Bedroom tax that the LD's have lost two-thirds of their vote base.
Irony: More GE2010 Liberal Democrats today are Labour than LD !!!
It's enough to make you despair at the chances of anybody ever being able to reform anything.
If only the vote on proportional representation had passed. Then everybody sickened by Cameron's marketing machinations could vote against him without letting that freak Miliband in.
There's a great post by the by on the solemn madness behind liberal pretensions called: "Racism Meme" at;
Comments
The real reason Dave couldn't bring him back is because of his outstanding legal issues.
How many Israelis have been killed or maimed, and how many Palestinians?
So it just makes them look like flip-floppers - and thus not trustworthy
I don't think that's true in the details.
It might be true if asked in general principle but ask if someone who's kids have left home and they have a spare room for visits is too much and you'll get a different answer.
The Lib Dems though, I've come to the opinion they'll say anything
My Dad told me one golden rule of politics
"Never trust the Lib Dems"
UKIP gain Eastleigh !
Con gain Torbay !
Labour gain Hallam !
SNP gain Orkney & Shetland !
1) Russia will likely have its hands full extending influence nearer to home
2) China doesn't care who sells them oil as long as it gets sold
3) Israel has the military advantage in the middle east
so seems to me the most likely outcome of a collapse in US influence is a bigger Israel sitting on a lot of oil.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-28331598
Ranking matters much less than the absolute rate of infant deaths. Perhaps if we had EU wide standard recording and definitions we might be able to make fair comparisons. In the Czech republic infants born at 22 weeks under 500g are recorded as still births, even if they breathe for hours. In the UK they are recorded as live births. This is one reason our mortality rate appears higher. I mentioned some others earlier.
But never mind the truth when you want to bash the NHS and privatise it.
It doesn't make sense to me.
Whilst the implementation of the new system might need further work, the core principle is a sound one as far as I am concerned. All tenants should have the same rights - no matter whether they are in a public or private sector.
"Ranking matters much less than the absolute rate of infant deaths."
The direction of travel of ranking matters a great deal as it's a sign things are going wrong.
The next thing to do is to hack away at the extraordinary tax credit system. If you are a single parent with children earning between £10k and about £35k it makes almost no difference what your salary is - as the change in what you end up with net is miniscule.
It is a colossal disincentive to better yourself. Unless you reckon you can earn above about £35k it's a complete waste of time earning more than £10k.
Bedroom tax: the basic problem is that it changes the arithmetic of daily life for people who are already hard-pressed, especially if there is literally nowhere in the area they can trade down to. What are they supposed to do? Move away and give up their jobs? It doesn't matter whether it's logical or not - if you suddenly take something away that people rely on (such as the ability to live in their current home on £x/week), it's objectively nasty for them, and if you at the same time give the general impression that you don't much care about people like them (as polls show the Conservatives do), it's natural for them to be angry. That said, I think the LibDems suddenly seeing the light will at best cause more amusement than vote-switching.
It's a general problem of politics that people can readily adjust to having a bit more money but relatively few have enough in hand to absorb a downward shock. All kinds of tax simplifications would be easier if it wasn't for that.
(^_-)
http://politicalscrapbook.net/2014/07/lord-hill-to-sell-shares-after-scrapbook-highlights-lobbying-links/
May I assume that you voted in favour when it was introduced in 2006?
and growing influence in Africa...
Having missed out on 20th century imperialism, maybe time for a little catch up?
Have you read The Hamas charter? In summary, it says that every Jew everywhere should be killed. The fact that Hamas have, despite their incessant rocket attacks, not been successful in killing Jews in Israel is hardly something in their favour.
That said, the deaths of those children is a tragedy. The murder of the three Israeli boys was a tragedy, one celebrated by Hamas, as was the murder of 5 children in a settler family a few years ago (one of them a three month old baby who had her head cut off). The death of the Palestinian boy was a tragedy. There are alas too many tragedies in the MIddle East. But the rending of garments and wailing seems awfully selective as is the reference to historical facts.
Let's look a two mentioned on this thread. The right of return: The relevant UN resolutions refer to the right of return not just of Palestinians but also of all those Jews expelled by Arab States (Iraq, Egypt, Tunisia etc).
As for the expulsion of Arabs from Mandate Palestine at the time the UN partitioned the land between Israel and a proposed Palestinian state, it's true that Israel expelled some Arabs but many left because they were told to by Arab States, who rather than accept the UN decision (very different from their attitude to the UN now) chose war. They lost. Though Jordan took the opportunity to annex the land earmarked for the Palestinians for itself. And no-one complained about that or called them oppressors or campaigned for the land to be returned to the people to whom it had been awarded.
Still, those who choose to live by the sword will die by it and, as ever, it is the innocents who suffer.
Just a fact. Not in anyway meant to minimize all right-thinking persons' outrage at the senseless loss of innocents' lives, of course...
Irony: More GE2010 Liberal Democrats today are Labour than LD !!!
It's enough to make you despair at the chances of anybody ever being able to reform anything.
If only the vote on proportional representation had passed. Then everybody sickened by Cameron's marketing machinations could vote against him without letting that freak Miliband in.
There's a great post by the by on the solemn madness behind liberal pretensions called: "Racism Meme" at;
http://john-moloney.blogspot.com/2014/07/of-mountains-and-molehills.html