It’s the housing costs, stupid? – politicalbetting.com

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

Theuniondivvie said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Theuniondivvie said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Theuniondivvie said:

The firm, principled vision that is the hallmark of Starmlab.

Do you disagree?

War is ugly.

Sure, though it’s easy to say from an armchair. I also agree it’s a clichéd, banal observation worthy of PB’s finest, but I’d expect a bit more from folk who have agency in this situation and who are jostling to to be in charge of the UK’s response to it.

More Lammynating

Again do you disagree?

Starmer is right. Sieges are lawful under international law, its how war operates. The idea of fighting a war with zero civilian casualties has never been the case and never will be the case, war is hell but so the law is not and never has been and never will be about not endangering civilians.

The law is about proportionality, and Israel are operating with that in mind. By warning civilians to clear out, they're doing everything they can to proportionately reduce civilian casualties while still fighting the war.

Having said that, Lammy is right too, others are entitled to their views even if their views are wrong.

Hooray everybody, Lammy and Barty have given people permission to hold views.

Barty accused someone of making a "disgraceful" comment because they disagreed with him on some minor aspect of the housing debate.

Anyway, back to 1.1 million Gazans in 24 hours...

Which of these do you think is "disgraceful"

1: Hamas murdering and dismembering children.
2: Israel giving warning to Gazans to move away from a conflict zone so they don't get killed in the crossfire.
3: Telling people they can rent for decades because one day their parents will be dead and then they might inherit.

To me 1 is so far beyond the pale it goes beyond disgraceful, 3 is disgraceful, while 2 is a proportionate response to war to try to minimise civilian casualties.

What would you say?

And wicket!

Someone needs to give the Barty-o-meter a tap on the glass.

Leon said:

geoffw said:

These small pictures are annoying. Especially if they contain text.
You have to copy the url and open in a new window to expand and by then the immediate point is lost.

It would be nice if the mods could explain why this has happened, and whether anything can be done about it

FrancisUrquhart said:

IMO, Topley has been England's best ODI / T20 bowler over the past couple of years.

FrancisUrquhart said:

Hurt ripples in wake of Indigenous Voice vote

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-67114612

BBC take seems to be that the reason the proposal failed was it actually didn't even go far enough.....

viewcode said:

This video gives you the history of toilet paper (well actually military toilet paper, but it doesn't diverge until much later).

Go on. You know you want to click on it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f6HuAhJ0k5E

FrancisUrquhart said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Wow! Afghanistan giving the game to England here.

Spursy / England-esque collapso.

Sandpit said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Wow! Afghanistan giving the game to England here.

Spursy / England-esque collapso.

Pakistan-esque.

rottenborough said:

Observer reporting that Starmer plans to pull detailed plans for social care reform out of the forthcoming manifesto.

So, another five years ahead where nothing is done about the appalling social care situation and it will remain not only a source of considerable hardship and fear to many but a block on clearing nhs hospital beds.

The hyper caution is becoming too much now.

rottenborough said:

Observer reporting that Starmer plans to pull detailed plans for social care reform out of the forthcoming manifesto.

So, another five years ahead where nothing is done about the appalling social care situation and it will remain not only a source of considerable hardship and fear to many but a block on clearing nhs hospital beds.

The hyper caution is becoming too much now.

rottenborough said:

Observer reporting that Starmer plans to pull detailed plans for social care reform out of the forthcoming manifesto.

So, another five years ahead where nothing is done about the appalling social care situation and it will remain not only a source of considerable hardship and fear to many but a block on clearing nhs hospital beds.

The hyper caution is becoming too much now.

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

Theuniondivvie said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Theuniondivvie said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Theuniondivvie said:

The firm, principled vision that is the hallmark of Starmlab.

Do you disagree?

War is ugly.

Sure, though it’s easy to say from an armchair. I also agree it’s a clichéd, banal observation worthy of PB’s finest, but I’d expect a bit more from folk who have agency in this situation and who are jostling to to be in charge of the UK’s response to it.

More Lammynating

Again do you disagree?

Starmer is right. Sieges are lawful under international law, its how war operates. The idea of fighting a war with zero civilian casualties has never been the case and never will be the case, war is hell but so the law is not and never has been and never will be about not endangering civilians.

The law is about proportionality, and Israel are operating with that in mind. By warning civilians to clear out, they're doing everything they can to proportionately reduce civilian casualties while still fighting the war.

Having said that, Lammy is right too, others are entitled to their views even if their views are wrong.

Hooray everybody, Lammy and Barty have given people permission to hold views.

Barty accused someone of making a "disgraceful" comment because they disagreed with him on some minor aspect of the housing debate.

Anyway, back to 1.1 million Gazans in 24 hours...

Which of these do you think is "disgraceful"

1: Hamas murdering and dismembering children.
2: Israel giving warning to Gazans to move away from a conflict zone so they don't get killed in the crossfire.
3: Telling people they can rent for decades because one day their parents will be dead and then they might inherit.

To me 1 is so far beyond the pale it goes beyond disgraceful, 3 is disgraceful, while 2 is a proportionate response to war to try to minimise civilian casualties.

What would you say?

And wicket!

Someone needs to give the Barty-o-meter a tap on the glass.

Not answering? OK, lets take housing out of the equation and give this another go.

Which do you think is disgraceful?

1: Deliberately dismembering and murdering children?
2: Warning civilians to evacuate a conflict zone so they're not accidentally killed while fighting the enemy while at war.

For me one of those is, one is not. For you?

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

Theuniondivvie said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Theuniondivvie said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Theuniondivvie said:

The firm, principled vision that is the hallmark of Starmlab.

Do you disagree?

War is ugly.

Sure, though it’s easy to say from an armchair. I also agree it’s a clichéd, banal observation worthy of PB’s finest, but I’d expect a bit more from folk who have agency in this situation and who are jostling to to be in charge of the UK’s response to it.

More Lammynating

Again do you disagree?

Starmer is right. Sieges are lawful under international law, its how war operates. The idea of fighting a war with zero civilian casualties has never been the case and never will be the case, war is hell but so the law is not and never has been and never will be about not endangering civilians.

The law is about proportionality, and Israel are operating with that in mind. By warning civilians to clear out, they're doing everything they can to proportionately reduce civilian casualties while still fighting the war.

Having said that, Lammy is right too, others are entitled to their views even if their views are wrong.

Hooray everybody, Lammy and Barty have given people permission to hold views.

Barty accused someone of making a "disgraceful" comment because they disagreed with him on some minor aspect of the housing debate.

Anyway, back to 1.1 million Gazans in 24 hours...

Which of these do you think is "disgraceful"

1: Hamas murdering and dismembering children.
2: Israel giving warning to Gazans to move away from a conflict zone so they don't get killed in the crossfire.
3: Telling people they can rent for decades because one day their parents will be dead and then they might inherit.

To me 1 is so far beyond the pale it goes beyond disgraceful, 3 is disgraceful, while 2 is a proportionate response to war to try to minimise civilian casualties.

What would you say?

And wicket!

Someone needs to give the Barty-o-meter a tap on the glass.

Not answering? OK, lets take housing out of the equation and give this another go.

Which do you think is disgraceful?

1: Deliberately dismembering and murdering children?
2: Warning civilians to evacuate a conflict zone so they're not accidentally killed while fighting the enemy while at war.

For me one of those is, one is not. For you?

Both are, when you give only 24 hours for 1 million people. That kind of warning is entirely performative, designed to give people like you cover to dismiss any criticism of the Israeli state.

(I actually think it was just a card Netanyahu has played to get more concessions/support from the US).

Sandpit said:

Run rate down from 8 an over, to now below 6 an over. We need another couple of quick wickets though, if we don’t want to be chasing 280-300.

FrancisUrquhart said:

CarlottaVance said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Hurt ripples in wake of Indigenous Voice vote

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-67114612

BBC take seems to be that the reason the proposal failed was it actually didn't even go far enough.....

The BBC's reporting editorialising on the subject has been little short of propaganda shocking.

Good job they don't call Hamas terrorists, all about not taking sides don't you know....

The corporation said it was “urgently investigating” on Saturday after social media activity by several of its journalists in the Middle East appeared to celebrate the attack which left approximately 1,300 dead.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2023/10/14/bbc-arabic-reporters-back-hamas-anti-israel-bias/

DavidL said:

Sandpit said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Wow! Afghanistan giving the game to England here.

Spursy / England-esque collapso.

Pakistan-esque.

Need another 5 wickets to match that.

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

Theuniondivvie said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Theuniondivvie said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Theuniondivvie said:

The firm, principled vision that is the hallmark of Starmlab.

Do you disagree?

War is ugly.

Sure, though it’s easy to say from an armchair. I also agree it’s a clichéd, banal observation worthy of PB’s finest, but I’d expect a bit more from folk who have agency in this situation and who are jostling to to be in charge of the UK’s response to it.

More Lammynating

Again do you disagree?

Starmer is right. Sieges are lawful under international law, its how war operates. The idea of fighting a war with zero civilian casualties has never been the case and never will be the case, war is hell but so the law is not and never has been and never will be about not endangering civilians.

The law is about proportionality, and Israel are operating with that in mind. By warning civilians to clear out, they're doing everything they can to proportionately reduce civilian casualties while still fighting the war.

Having said that, Lammy is right too, others are entitled to their views even if their views are wrong.

Hooray everybody, Lammy and Barty have given people permission to hold views.

Barty accused someone of making a "disgraceful" comment because they disagreed with him on some minor aspect of the housing debate.

Anyway, back to 1.1 million Gazans in 24 hours...

Which of these do you think is "disgraceful"

1: Hamas murdering and dismembering children.
2: Israel giving warning to Gazans to move away from a conflict zone so they don't get killed in the crossfire.
3: Telling people they can rent for decades because one day their parents will be dead and then they might inherit.

To me 1 is so far beyond the pale it goes beyond disgraceful, 3 is disgraceful, while 2 is a proportionate response to war to try to minimise civilian casualties.

What would you say?

And wicket!

Someone needs to give the Barty-o-meter a tap on the glass.

Not answering? OK, lets take housing out of the equation and give this another go.

Which do you think is disgraceful?

1: Deliberately dismembering and murdering children?
2: Warning civilians to evacuate a conflict zone so they're not accidentally killed while fighting the enemy while at war.

For me one of those is, one is not. For you?

Both are, when you give only 24 hours for 1 million people. That kind of warning is entirely performative, designed to give people like you cover to dismiss any criticism of the Israeli state.

(I actually think it was just a card Netanyahu has played to get more concessions/support from the US).

Not really, they don't have that far to move, its a tiny location.

24 hours has passed and anyone who hasn't moved is still getting an opportunity to do so, its not like Gaza City was levelled at 24 hours on the dot.

What exactly in your view should Israel be able to do to destroy Hamas in this war?

Hamas are committing war crimes by using civilians as a human shield, Israel giving a warning to civilians is giving a warning to Hamas fighters too, but they've done the right thing and still you complain.

You've spent two days defending it and even Netanyahu hasn't gone that far, in the end.

You'll be calling him an appeaser next.

Cyclefree said:

maxh said:

StillWaters said:

Foxy said:

StillWaters said:

Foxy said:

MattW said:

Reflecting on the Israel / Gaza situation, I think the closest (and not necessarily *very* close) analogue I can find is the 1982 Israeli Invasion of Lebanon, which resulted in the PLO Armed Forces being expelled from Lebanon.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1982_Lebanon_War

And also the killing of 2000 civilians in the Sabra and Shatila camps by forces under the supervision of the Israelis

We have to go back 4 decades to this atrocity to find one on a bigger scale than the Hamas atrocities of last weekend.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabra_and_Shatila_massacre

Interesting that you highlight the role of the Israelis (“under the supervision”) but choose not to mention the Lebanese perpetrators of the massacre.

Why is that?

The massacre was by Christian militias but the camps were surrounded by IDF troops who knew what was going on and indirectly responsible.

That is what the Israeli government found in its enquiry, and why Ariel Sharon resigned as Defence Minister

*Indirectly* responsible.

Most people who don’t have an instinctive bias against the Israelis blame Hobeika.

(Sharon resigned as defence minister but remained in the cabinet, IIRC)

From the article:
The IDF had ordered the militia to clear out the fighters of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) from Sabra and Shatila as part of a larger Israeli maneuver into western Beirut.
If accurate, Foxy’s description seems balanced, not biased, though I agree it would have been helpful to clarify the Lebanese forces’ role.

Yes - it would certainly be helpful to clarify that the murderers who carried out the massacre were Lebanese Christian militias. That this was their role and that they were not doing this just because Israelis ordered them to. The hatred and atrocities committed in the Lebanese civil war were carried out by all sorts of groups against all sorts of groups. There were no innocents in that dreadful war and Israel's role in that massacre shamed it. It was, however, the only country which had many demonstrations against what they did and which had an inquiry into what it did and failed to do. There has been no such self-reflection or reckoning for the many other militias and actors in that war, doubtless because no-one would come out with clean hands.

Foxy's description was inaccurate by omission - a fairly important omission.

I worry hugely about an invasion of Gaza now - not just because of the inevitable casualties - but because I fear that it will be a strategic mistake similar to its intervention in Lebanon, because Israel does not seem to have an answer to the "what happens after?" question, much as the US did not in Iraq.

And because, naive fool that I am, I think now would be a time to make a generous offer to Palestinians for a world after and without Hamas, one which might undercut them. I see no prospect of that with the current Israeli leadership. And whatever Israel does it will be criticised and many of those criticising it (not @Foxy) are those who will never ever give it the benefit of the doubt or accept that it should defend itself or that it should even exist.

There are many good faith criticisms of Israel. But there are an awful lot of very bad faith ones. And very often a failure to distinguish between the two.

Leon said:

The Israel/Gaza conflict has the potential to entirely upend our politics, and render worthy questions - like this threader - sadly irrelevant

Hope I’m wrong. But in a few weeks or months we might see regular terror attacks in Europe - including the UK - and something like civil strife in big European cities

What will that do the election? Change the narrative entirely. But it might not benefit the Tories

DavidL said:

Sandpit said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Wow! Afghanistan giving the game to England here.

Spursy / England-esque collapso.

Pakistan-esque.

Need another 5 wickets to match that.

BartholomewRoberts said:

darkage said:

Benpointer said:

On housing, bizarre conversation the other evening with similarly retired neighbours along the lines of:
"Labour seem to be going to allow building anywhere - it's crazy."
"We'll we do need more houses."
"Yes but they should put them where there are already houses, not new sites."

Then later, when we mentioned we are looking to downsize because our garden is far too big for us now:
"Can't you sell of half your garden for a couple of houses?"
Er no, building in our village is absolutely verboten by our wonderful Local NIMBY Plan.

The lack of self awareness exhibited by many older people on the issue of housing is rather spectacular.

The problem is too many have an attitude that housing costs are "assets" rather than costs to have a roof over your head.

And that mentality has been encouraged by the Bank of England, even though the Treasury doesn't levy CGT on primary homes quite rightly as it recognises that housing is a cost not an asset there.

We need to smash the mentality of houses being an asset and the first step of that reform needs to be with the Bank of England which should include house prices directly into the basket of goods for inflation.

Leon said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Theuniondivvie said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Theuniondivvie said:

The firm, principled vision that is the hallmark of Starmlab.

Do you disagree?

War is ugly.

Sure, though it’s easy to say from an armchair. I also agree it’s a clichéd, banal observation worthy of PB’s finest, but I’d expect a bit more from folk who have agency in this situation and who are jostling to to be in charge of the UK’s response to it.

More Lammynating

Again do you disagree?

Starmer is right. Sieges are lawful under international law, its how war operates. The idea of fighting a war with zero civilian casualties has never been the case and never will be the case, war is hell but so the law is not and never has been and never will be about not endangering civilians.

The law is about proportionality, and Israel are operating with that in mind. By warning civilians to clear out, they're doing everything they can to proportionately reduce civilian casualties while still fighting the war.

Having said that, Lammy is right too, others are entitled to their views even if their views are wrong.

Even if you’re right about international law (and I’ll set that aside for now) - the spectacle of Israel wading into Gaza to exterminate Hamas - and killing thousands of innocent Gazans as it goes - is going to violently inflame passions. Particularly in Muslim communities in the west - as the west is seen to support Israel

That means terror attacks. Attacks on Jews and Jewish businesses. Civil unrest perhaps. It could get REALLY ugly, and the attackers won’t care about “international law”

Taz said:

RochdalePioneers said:

.

rottenborough said:

Observer reporting that Starmer plans to pull detailed plans for social care reform out of the forthcoming manifesto.

So, another five years ahead where nothing is done about the appalling social care situation and it will remain not only a source of considerable hardship and fear to many but a block on clearing nhs hospital beds.

The hyper caution is becoming too much now.

Pulling it from the manifesto isn't the same as not doing anything once elected. The Tories are going after them. They have legally doubled the party spend limit (so must have the money) and will throw everything they have at stopping Labour.

And for good reason - the corruption commissioner that Reeves has promised will go after all the money corruptly stolen by Tory spiv mates and not stop until it has money returned and likely people in jail.

So Labour have to be cautious. The Tories will pick at everything. That doesn't mean they will be cautious once elected to office. Those Starmer 5 missions are big and comprehensive. They if nothing else will drive the policy agenda.

Those dastardly Tories. Doing their job and challenging the oppositions promises and commitments.

If only labour had the courage of their convictions to stand by what they believe in and respond to any challenge robustly.

FrankBooth said:

Shocking scenes of a person with an Israeli flag being attacked in London. Thank goodness the police were there.

https://twitter.com/israel_advocacy/status/1713292628035338617

I wonder if the time has come for the silent majority to stand up? Children should not be in fear of going to school, people should not be afraid to attend religious buildings or feel unable to wear symbols of their identity in the United Kingdom.

I wonder if marches or events will be organised? There were some in the Labour party such as Harriet Harman who chose to stand with Jewish people during the Corbynite years.

StillWaters said:

Heathener said:

Good morning all.

Excellent thread @TSE and you're right. Starmer seems to be onto this one and if they succeed then Labour will be in power for a generation.

I’m not sure that’s a good idea.

About 2 terms (10 years) seems generally better and after that governments seem to run out of energy, ideas and people

BartholomewRoberts said:

IanB2 said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

darkage said:

Benpointer said:

On housing, bizarre conversation the other evening with similarly retired neighbours along the lines of:
"Labour seem to be going to allow building anywhere - it's crazy."
"We'll we do need more houses."
"Yes but they should put them where there are already houses, not new sites."

Then later, when we mentioned we are looking to downsize because our garden is far too big for us now:
"Can't you sell of half your garden for a couple of houses?"
Er no, building in our village is absolutely verboten by our wonderful Local NIMBY Plan.

The lack of self awareness exhibited by many older people on the issue of housing is rather spectacular.

The problem is too many have an attitude that housing costs are "assets" rather than costs to have a roof over your head.

And that mentality has been encouraged by the Bank of England, even though the Treasury doesn't levy CGT on primary homes quite rightly as it recognises that housing is a cost not an asset there.

We need to smash the mentality of houses being an asset and the first step of that reform needs to be with the Bank of England which should include house prices directly into the basket of goods for inflation.

And putting up some barriers to foreign ownership, and making owning additional properties left empty punatively expensive

Actually I'll disagree on the last one. Owning additional properties should face an LVT but in a healthy economy 10% of properties are normally empty.

That allows both buyers and renters a choice and an opportunity to turn down run-down, poor quality or expensive homes.

That then allows people to buy homes cheaper and renovate them if require.

We need more empty homes not fewer, but firstly we need more homes.

twistedfirestopper3 said:

.

Roger said:

Eabhal said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Eabhal said:

Theuniondivvie said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Theuniondivvie said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Theuniondivvie said:

The firm, principled vision that is the hallmark of Starmlab.

Do you disagree?

War is ugly.

Sure, though it’s easy to say from an armchair. I also agree it’s a clichéd, banal observation worthy of PB’s finest, but I’d expect a bit more from folk who have agency in this situation and who are jostling to to be in charge of the UK’s response to it.

More Lammynating

Again do you disagree?

Starmer is right. Sieges are lawful under international law, its how war operates. The idea of fighting a war with zero civilian casualties has never been the case and never will be the case, war is hell but so the law is not and never has been and never will be about not endangering civilians.

The law is about proportionality, and Israel are operating with that in mind. By warning civilians to clear out, they're doing everything they can to proportionately reduce civilian casualties while still fighting the war.

Having said that, Lammy is right too, others are entitled to their views even if their views are wrong.

Hooray everybody, Lammy and Barty have given people permission to hold views.

Barty accused someone of making a "disgraceful" comment because they disagreed with him on some minor aspect of the housing debate.

Anyway, back to 1.1 million Gazans in 24 hours...

Which of these do you think is "disgraceful"

1: Hamas murdering and dismembering children.
2: Israel giving warning to Gazans to move away from a conflict zone so they don't get killed in the crossfire.
3: Telling people they can rent for decades because one day their parents will be dead and then they might inherit.

To me 1 is so far beyond the pale it goes beyond disgraceful, 3 is disgraceful, while 2 is a proportionate response to war to try to minimise civilian casualties.

What would you say?

And wicket!

Someone needs to give the Barty-o-meter a tap on the glass.

You'd be surprised how quickly someone can become an authority on everything.

This is PB, we're all experts.

Nigelb said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Hurt ripples in wake of Indigenous Voice vote

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-67114612

BBC take seems to be that the reason the proposal failed was it actually didn't even go far enough.....

How do you get that from reading the article ?

Or did you note only the reported comments which offended you ?

BartholomewRoberts said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Telling civilians to leave - and mobilising the diplomatic efforts to secure an exit into Egypt - suggests that Israel isn't going to bother fighting building to building. Its just going to level the place. Death by a thousand cuts or cut the leg off surgically.

As I said, no good solutions...

Indeed, its the only viable solution - destroy Hamas while the civilians aren't there.

Which makes it all the more shame on the Arab neighbours that they aren't taking refugees, because what's going to happen to these displaced people when Hamas are defeated? They're not going to have homes to return to.

Which in a war, happens, that's why countries offer refugee status to those in conflict, but nobody is here. Better for the civilians to be alive and elsewhere, than dead in a conflict they can't avoid. ;(

Gaza to be rebuilt or absorbed? What's the plan?

Maybe both?

If I were Netanyahu I would level everything North of the evacuation zone and not allow anyone back into it once done. Absorb and rebuild it but not as it was before, rebuild it as you want it to be without anyone from Hamas or a sympathiser being allowed back. If Hamas don't surrender unconditionally, then do the same with everything South of the evacuation zone.

viewcode said:

Benpointer said:

On housing, bizarre conversation the other evening with similarly retired neighbours along the lines of:
"Labour seem to be going to allow building anywhere - it's crazy."
"We'll we do need more houses."
"Yes but they should put them where there are already houses, not new sites."

Then later, when we mentioned we are looking to downsize because our garden is far too big for us now:
"Can't you sell of half your garden for a couple of houses?"
Er no, building in our village is absolutely verboten by our wonderful Local NIMBY Plan.

If a person's advantage is dependent on them not understanding a truth, then they will refuse to understand it.

RochdalePioneers said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Telling civilians to leave - and mobilising the diplomatic efforts to secure an exit into Egypt - suggests that Israel isn't going to bother fighting building to building. Its just going to level the place. Death by a thousand cuts or cut the leg off surgically.

As I said, no good solutions...

Indeed, its the only viable solution - destroy Hamas while the civilians aren't there.

Which makes it all the more shame on the Arab neighbours that they aren't taking refugees, because what's going to happen to these displaced people when Hamas are defeated? They're not going to have homes to return to.

Which in a war, happens, that's why countries offer refugee status to those in conflict, but nobody is here. Better for the civilians to be alive and elsewhere, than dead in a conflict they can't avoid. ;(

Gaza to be rebuilt or absorbed? What's the plan?

Maybe both?

If I were Netanyahu I would level everything North of the evacuation zone and not allow anyone back into it once done. Absorb and rebuild it but not as it was before, rebuild it as you want it to be without anyone from Hamas or a sympathiser being allowed back. If Hamas don't surrender unconditionally, then do the same with everything South of the evacuation zone.

Before anyone accuses me and thee of being genocidal, we know what this means. The horrible dilemma is that all of the alternatives as as bad, only even more protracted.

The more this goes on the more I have to ask - whither Egypt? They have been perfectly happy to use the Gazans as political pawns for decades. They have maintained Gaza as a prison camp, in the clear hope that Israel will get the blame and thus start the process to end Israel.

Civilians are fleeing south. What will Egypt do?

RochdalePioneers said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Telling civilians to leave - and mobilising the diplomatic efforts to secure an exit into Egypt - suggests that Israel isn't going to bother fighting building to building. Its just going to level the place. Death by a thousand cuts or cut the leg off surgically.

As I said, no good solutions...

Indeed, its the only viable solution - destroy Hamas while the civilians aren't there.

Which makes it all the more shame on the Arab neighbours that they aren't taking refugees, because what's going to happen to these displaced people when Hamas are defeated? They're not going to have homes to return to.

Which in a war, happens, that's why countries offer refugee status to those in conflict, but nobody is here. Better for the civilians to be alive and elsewhere, than dead in a conflict they can't avoid. ;(

Gaza to be rebuilt or absorbed? What's the plan?

I doubt they know yet. Gaza - the prison camp / terrorism base - cannot continue as it is. Remember that Gaza was essentially run as a big prison camp even when it was under Egyptian administration. I know that Its All Israel's Fault, but it really isn't.

The big comprehensive offer to Gaza could be absorption into Israel. Legal protection for citizens, legal penalties for criminals and terrorists. Live in peace as part of the only democracy in the region. Its not as if the arab neighbours have any interests in their welfare, is it?

DavidL said:

Sandpit said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Wow! Afghanistan giving the game to England here.

Spursy / England-esque collapso.

Pakistan-esque.

Need another 5 wickets to match that.

No_Offence_Alan said:

Foxy said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Leon said:

The Israel/Gaza conflict has the potential to entirely upend our politics, and render worthy questions - like this threader - sadly irrelevant

Hope I’m wrong. But in a few weeks or months we might see regular terror attacks in Europe - including the UK - and something like civil strife in big European cities

What will that do the election? Change the narrative entirely. But it might not benefit the Tories

No, it really doesn't.

As ugly as it is, its a distant war that is never going to affect household budgets as much as housing costs do.

Housing is the number one priority issue in this country today, by far. The only people who think otherwise, are those fortunate enough not to need to worry about paying rent or now not needing to worry about remortgaging either.

No it isn't. Housing is in 5th place behind: The Economy, Health, Immigration and Environment.

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/society/trackers/the-most-important-issues-facing-the-country

But it is our attitudes to property and housing which have damaged the economy.

Theuniondivvie said:

The firm, principled vision that is the hallmark of Starmlab.

RochdalePioneers said:

Taz said:

RochdalePioneers said:

.

rottenborough said:

Observer reporting that Starmer plans to pull detailed plans for social care reform out of the forthcoming manifesto.

So, another five years ahead where nothing is done about the appalling social care situation and it will remain not only a source of considerable hardship and fear to many but a block on clearing nhs hospital beds.

The hyper caution is becoming too much now.

Pulling it from the manifesto isn't the same as not doing anything once elected. The Tories are going after them. They have legally doubled the party spend limit (so must have the money) and will throw everything they have at stopping Labour.

And for good reason - the corruption commissioner that Reeves has promised will go after all the money corruptly stolen by Tory spiv mates and not stop until it has money returned and likely people in jail.

So Labour have to be cautious. The Tories will pick at everything. That doesn't mean they will be cautious once elected to office. Those Starmer 5 missions are big and comprehensive. They if nothing else will drive the policy agenda.

Those dastardly Tories. Doing their job and challenging the oppositions promises and commitments.

If only labour had the courage of their convictions to stand by what they believe in and respond to any challenge robustly.

I'm not voting Labour. But I understand Starmer's problem. The Tories - and their spiv owners - are so desperate to keep Labour out that they will say and do anything.

Taz said:

RochdalePioneers said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Telling civilians to leave - and mobilising the diplomatic efforts to secure an exit into Egypt - suggests that Israel isn't going to bother fighting building to building. Its just going to level the place. Death by a thousand cuts or cut the leg off surgically.

As I said, no good solutions...

Indeed, its the only viable solution - destroy Hamas while the civilians aren't there.

Which makes it all the more shame on the Arab neighbours that they aren't taking refugees, because what's going to happen to these displaced people when Hamas are defeated? They're not going to have homes to return to.

Which in a war, happens, that's why countries offer refugee status to those in conflict, but nobody is here. Better for the civilians to be alive and elsewhere, than dead in a conflict they can't avoid. ;(

Gaza to be rebuilt or absorbed? What's the plan?

I doubt they know yet. Gaza - the prison camp / terrorism base - cannot continue as it is. Remember that Gaza was essentially run as a big prison camp even when it was under Egyptian administration. I know that Its All Israel's Fault, but it really isn't.

The big comprehensive offer to Gaza could be absorption into Israel. Legal protection for citizens, legal penalties for criminals and terrorists. Live in peace as part of the only democracy in the region. Its not as if the arab neighbours have any interests in their welfare, is it?

Why would Israel, a nation of 7 million, absorb 2 million more people with the rights that come with it, including voting.

RochdalePioneers said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Telling civilians to leave - and mobilising the diplomatic efforts to secure an exit into Egypt - suggests that Israel isn't going to bother fighting building to building. Its just going to level the place. Death by a thousand cuts or cut the leg off surgically.

As I said, no good solutions...

Indeed, its the only viable solution - destroy Hamas while the civilians aren't there.

Which makes it all the more shame on the Arab neighbours that they aren't taking refugees, because what's going to happen to these displaced people when Hamas are defeated? They're not going to have homes to return to.

Which in a war, happens, that's why countries offer refugee status to those in conflict, but nobody is here. Better for the civilians to be alive and elsewhere, than dead in a conflict they can't avoid. ;(

Gaza to be rebuilt or absorbed? What's the plan?

I doubt they know yet. Gaza - the prison camp / terrorism base - cannot continue as it is. Remember that Gaza was essentially run as a big prison camp even when it was under Egyptian administration. I know that Its All Israel's Fault, but it really isn't.

The big comprehensive offer to Gaza could be absorption into Israel. Legal protection for citizens, legal penalties for criminals and terrorists. Live in peace as part of the only democracy in the region. Its not as if the arab neighbours have any interests in their welfare, is it?

RochdalePioneers said:

Taz said:

RochdalePioneers said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Telling civilians to leave - and mobilising the diplomatic efforts to secure an exit into Egypt - suggests that Israel isn't going to bother fighting building to building. Its just going to level the place. Death by a thousand cuts or cut the leg off surgically.

As I said, no good solutions...

Indeed, its the only viable solution - destroy Hamas while the civilians aren't there.

Which makes it all the more shame on the Arab neighbours that they aren't taking refugees, because what's going to happen to these displaced people when Hamas are defeated? They're not going to have homes to return to.

Which in a war, happens, that's why countries offer refugee status to those in conflict, but nobody is here. Better for the civilians to be alive and elsewhere, than dead in a conflict they can't avoid. ;(

Gaza to be rebuilt or absorbed? What's the plan?

I doubt they know yet. Gaza - the prison camp / terrorism base - cannot continue as it is. Remember that Gaza was essentially run as a big prison camp even when it was under Egyptian administration. I know that Its All Israel's Fault, but it really isn't.

The big comprehensive offer to Gaza could be absorption into Israel. Legal protection for citizens, legal penalties for criminals and terrorists. Live in peace as part of the only democracy in the region. Its not as if the arab neighbours have any interests in their welfare, is it?

Why would Israel, a nation of 7 million, absorb 2 million more people with the rights that come with it, including voting.

They won't absorb 2 million. A tenth of that maybe. the rest will insist in living as "refugees", imprisoned in northern Sinai by the Egyptians.

As I said a few posts ago, the Palestinians are not interested in any deal. Neither are their arab neighbours. Palestine - never independent - simply is a political pawn for the rest of the region who want to remove the jew.

As has just been pointed out, the arrival of Hamas in the refugees into Sinai could spark Egypt off again. So Egypt does not want Hamas either. The simple truth is that when push comes to shove, it is in the interests of both sides to eradicate Hamas. Only Iran wants them.

FrancisUrquhart said:

Nigelb said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Hurt ripples in wake of Indigenous Voice vote

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-67114612

BBC take seems to be that the reason the proposal failed was it actually didn't even go far enough.....

How do you get that from reading the article ?

Or did you note only the reported comments which offended you ?

None of it "offends" me, as I have no horse in the race.

But the balance is laughable.

"Prime Minister Anthony Albanese argued the Voice vote could unite Australia. But others remained convinced such a proposal would divide it. It also faced criticism from a bloc of Indigenous people who believed it wouldn't be powerful enough. Others saw it is a symbolic gesture and believed that money could be better spent on immediate solutions."

So, basically its too weak...

vs

Outside a polling booth on Saturday, the 76-year-old said he was not opposed to the idea of the Voice - he just wanted to keep it out of the nation's founding document..."I voted No....contested claim that the referendum could make Indigenous people "more equal" than other Australians.... "I've been disappointed in the No campaign to be honest,....there's a part of me that hopes the Yes vote wins because I think there are so many people who are emotionally tied to this."

But it "contested" claim, followed up the No is actually a Yes and the No campaign has been dishonest.

ydoethur said:

RochdalePioneers said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Telling civilians to leave - and mobilising the diplomatic efforts to secure an exit into Egypt - suggests that Israel isn't going to bother fighting building to building. Its just going to level the place. Death by a thousand cuts or cut the leg off surgically.

As I said, no good solutions...

Indeed, its the only viable solution - destroy Hamas while the civilians aren't there.

Which makes it all the more shame on the Arab neighbours that they aren't taking refugees, because what's going to happen to these displaced people when Hamas are defeated? They're not going to have homes to return to.

Which in a war, happens, that's why countries offer refugee status to those in conflict, but nobody is here. Better for the civilians to be alive and elsewhere, than dead in a conflict they can't avoid. ;(

Gaza to be rebuilt or absorbed? What's the plan?

Maybe both?

If I were Netanyahu I would level everything North of the evacuation zone and not allow anyone back into it once done. Absorb and rebuild it but not as it was before, rebuild it as you want it to be without anyone from Hamas or a sympathiser being allowed back. If Hamas don't surrender unconditionally, then do the same with everything South of the evacuation zone.

Before anyone accuses me and thee of being genocidal, we know what this means. The horrible dilemma is that all of the alternatives as as bad, only even more protracted.

The more this goes on the more I have to ask - whither Egypt? They have been perfectly happy to use the Gazans as political pawns for decades. They have maintained Gaza as a prison camp, in the clear hope that Israel will get the blame and thus start the process to end Israel.

Civilians are fleeing south. What will Egypt do?

If I were Sisi, panic. A large number of refugees from Gaza might be the excuse for the Muslim Brotherhood or indeed the junior officers of the Egyptian army to do unto him as he did unto Morsi.