Howdy, Stranger!

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

Options

Have I Got News For You – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 11,693
edited April 28 in General
Have I Got News For You – politicalbetting.com

Where do Britons primarily source news from? (24 March)Television news 34%Social media 25%Online newspapers or magazines 14%Print newspapers or magazines 8%Television news channel’s website 6%Radio 6% pic.twitter.com/BgR0pgc9rV

Read the full story here

«134

Comments

  • Options
    BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,720
    First - like Labour
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,320
    PB not on the list?

    Disgraceful.
  • Options
    rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 7,908
    TV is still king. Do we know if there will be debates?

    Starmer probably wouldn't want to mess up his poll lead, but a bad look for an opposition leader to duck it I would guess.
  • Options
    BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,720
    ydoethur said:

    PB not on the list?

    Disgraceful.

    Social meeja shirley?
  • Options

    This is voodoo economics. Where do you imagine that this 5% has gone and where would it magically come from if we rejoined?

    Before that other William Glenn chap left the board, I am sure he would have commented on the voodoo economics of the leave side.
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,320
    rkrkrk said:

    TV is still king. Do we know if there will be debates?

    Starmer probably wouldn't want to mess up his poll lead, but a bad look for an opposition leader to duck it I would guess.

    Didn't hurt Blair. And he actually proposed the TV debate before chickening out.

    Hence that ridiculous pantomime chicken fight - one hired by the Tories to represent Blair, and one hired by the Mirror for shits and giggles.
  • Options
    BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,720
    rkrkrk said:

    TV is still king. Do we know if there will be debates?

    Starmer probably wouldn't want to mess up his poll lead, but a bad look for an opposition leader to duck it I would guess.

    I am sure Starmer will be up for it.

    Ex-QC versus a Hedgie geek who easily gets riled? I am sure Starmer will be gagging for a TV debate or two. Sunak however will be 'too busy'.
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,320

    rkrkrk said:

    TV is still king. Do we know if there will be debates?

    Starmer probably wouldn't want to mess up his poll lead, but a bad look for an opposition leader to duck it I would guess.

    I am sure Starmer will be up for it.

    Ex-QC versus a Hedgie geek who easily gets riled? I am sure Starmer will be gagging for a TV debate or two. Sunak however will be 'too busy'.
    He's still a member of the bar, shurely?

    Although now of course a KC not a QC.
  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 114,526
    ydoethur said:

    PB not on the list?

    Disgraceful.

    Yonder aka Populus regularly ask me if I visit PoliticalBetting.com
  • Options
    anothernickanothernick Posts: 3,578
    rkrkrk said:

    TV is still king. Do we know if there will be debates?

    Starmer probably wouldn't want to mess up his poll lead, but a bad look for an opposition leader to duck it I would guess.

    Based on the relative performance of the leaders at PMQs I would think Sunak will be the one to try and duck out.
  • Options
    pm215pm215 Posts: 936
    I think some of these categories blend into each other. For instance I rarely actively seek out a news source, but often follow links that friends provide to eg BBC or Guardian websites for specific stories. Does that mean my primary news source is social media or a newspaper website?

    Also important in terms of effects on elections, fake news and the like is how much attention people pay to news at all in the first place...
  • Options
    BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,720
    That graph would represent the situation better if the bars were weighted for likelihood of vote - i.e. all the Tory bars need to be halved as it stands.
  • Options
    carnforthcarnforth Posts: 3,230

    rkrkrk said:

    TV is still king. Do we know if there will be debates?

    Starmer probably wouldn't want to mess up his poll lead, but a bad look for an opposition leader to duck it I would guess.

    Based on the relative performance of the leaders at PMQs I would think Sunak will be the one to try and duck out.
    It's not about the likely average outcome, but the risk. One viral gotcha moment could harm Starmer.
  • Options
    CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 39,856

    ydoethur said:

    PB not on the list?

    Disgraceful.

    Social meeja shirley?
    Unsocial. Positively so. Especially this morning and yesterday.
  • Options

    rkrkrk said:

    TV is still king. Do we know if there will be debates?

    Starmer probably wouldn't want to mess up his poll lead, but a bad look for an opposition leader to duck it I would guess.

    Based on the relative performance of the leaders at PMQs I would think Sunak will be the one to try and duck out.
    Sunak will come across quite badly I think.
  • Options
    noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 20,791
    edited April 4
    BBC news (combined with ITV and others) at 5-6%? Surely higher? Second most visited site after youtube, more than mailonline, guardian and telegraph combined or twitter and instagram combined.
  • Options
    StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 14,521
    rkrkrk said:

    TV is still king. Do we know if there will be debates?

    Starmer probably wouldn't want to mess up his poll lead, but a bad look for an opposition leader to duck it I would guess.

    Another ingenious torture device for Rishi.

    He has to do the debates- he's the one who is twenty points behind and is desperate for something to shift. But he is likely to be terrible at them and they will probably make things worse for him.
  • Options
    SelebianSelebian Posts: 7,468
    edited April 4

    rkrkrk said:

    TV is still king. Do we know if there will be debates?

    Starmer probably wouldn't want to mess up his poll lead, but a bad look for an opposition leader to duck it I would guess.

    Based on the relative performance of the leaders at PMQs I would think Sunak will be the one to try and duck out.
    Sunak will come across quite badly I think.
    Might send Laura Trott instead if he's too chicken, hoping for the same election result as when Boris sent the little known Chief Sec to Treasury out for the debates :wink:
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,942

    rkrkrk said:

    TV is still king. Do we know if there will be debates?

    Starmer probably wouldn't want to mess up his poll lead, but a bad look for an opposition leader to duck it I would guess.

    Based on the relative performance of the leaders at PMQs I would think Sunak will be the one to try and duck out.
    Sunak will come across quite badly I think.
    He needs to take the risk though as he's miles behind. Polar opposite of the 2019 debate calculation for Bozza. And Sunak has had experience of these things...
  • Options
    williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 48,101
    edited April 4

    rkrkrk said:

    TV is still king. Do we know if there will be debates?

    Starmer probably wouldn't want to mess up his poll lead, but a bad look for an opposition leader to duck it I would guess.

    Based on the relative performance of the leaders at PMQs I would think Sunak will be the one to try and duck out.
    Sunak will come across quite badly I think.
    Starmer's physiognomy is becoming quite gammony as he ages. Could contrast badly with Sunak.
  • Options
    anothernickanothernick Posts: 3,578
    edited April 4

    rkrkrk said:

    TV is still king. Do we know if there will be debates?

    Starmer probably wouldn't want to mess up his poll lead, but a bad look for an opposition leader to duck it I would guess.

    Based on the relative performance of the leaders at PMQs I would think Sunak will be the one to try and duck out.
    Sunak will come across quite badly I think.
    He can tell us how he grew the economy, reduced NHS waiting lists and stopped the boats.

    Or not.
  • Options
    MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 25,270
    edited April 4

    rkrkrk said:

    TV is still king. Do we know if there will be debates?

    Starmer probably wouldn't want to mess up his poll lead, but a bad look for an opposition leader to duck it I would guess.

    Based on the relative performance of the leaders at PMQs I would think Sunak will be the one to try and duck out.
    Sunak will come across quite badly I think.
    Starmer's physiognomy is becoming quite gammony as he ages. Could contrast badly with Sunak.
    Starmer still has his hair which is a plus for a gammony old man. So do I for that matter.

    Sunak used to be very convincing, less so these days. Let's hope the lectern covers his big boy school trousers.
  • Options
    algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 10,575

    rkrkrk said:

    TV is still king. Do we know if there will be debates?

    Starmer probably wouldn't want to mess up his poll lead, but a bad look for an opposition leader to duck it I would guess.

    I am sure Starmer will be up for it.

    Ex-QC versus a Hedgie geek who easily gets riled? I am sure Starmer will be gagging for a TV debate or two. Sunak however will be 'too busy'.
    Starmer is only an ex-QC in the same sense as all the others. he is now a KC.
  • Options
    Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 7,557
    edited April 4
    I don't know how I'd answer the poll in the header. I consume R4, PB, a daily paper, TV news, BBC website, newspaper websites, magazines and so on, but I'd really struggle to decide what my 'primary' source is. (Although I could confidently answer 'definitely not GB News'. )
    Is it really a straightforward question? I'm not convinced.
  • Options
    AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,758
    @BatteryCorrectHorse

    FPT

    People have their own reasons . For me

    1. To bring british politicians back under the control; of their electorate
    2. To stop the disadvantage of an anglo saxon economy in a social market structure, You can have one but not both
    3. To be able to develop our own economic interest and not those of a collective
  • Options
    LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 15,365

    rkrkrk said:

    TV is still king. Do we know if there will be debates?

    Starmer probably wouldn't want to mess up his poll lead, but a bad look for an opposition leader to duck it I would guess.

    Another ingenious torture device for Rishi.

    He has to do the debates- he's the one who is twenty points behind and is desperate for something to shift. But he is likely to be terrible at them and they will probably make things worse for him.
    Maybe so, but no-one will really notice if he bombs the debates and loses by 20% instead of 15%.

    But if it's Starmer who trips up in any debate, and that ends up with Labour failing to win a majority, well, he'd never live it down.
  • Options
    eekeek Posts: 25,007
    Selebian said:

    ydoethur said:

    PB not on the list?

    Disgraceful.

    Yonder aka Populus regularly ask me if I visit PoliticalBetting.com
    The only proper response being: "No, I live there."
    Reminds me of the time a marketing survey asked me if I knew about the firm I was currently working for.

    Which meant that in a set of results that said all the money spent on advertising had been wasted a single person well outside the demographics their cared about had seen the (crap) advert multiple times and had made multiple purchases (they didn’t ask why and I wasn’t going to talk about the 98.9% discount I had received due to a currency conversion bug that wasn’t a priority to fix).
  • Options
    AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,758

    rkrkrk said:

    TV is still king. Do we know if there will be debates?

    Starmer probably wouldn't want to mess up his poll lead, but a bad look for an opposition leader to duck it I would guess.

    Based on the relative performance of the leaders at PMQs I would think Sunak will be the one to try and duck out.
    Sunak will come across quite badly I think.
    He can tell us how he grew the economy, reduced NHS waiting lists and stopped the boats.

    Or not.
    Whereas as Starmer will impersonate a trappist monk and be too frightened to say what he intends.

  • Options
    Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 7,557
    edited April 4
    Sunak's already got his script ready for the GE debates with Starmer, on an infinite loop:

    1. We are focused on the people's priorities.
    2. Stop the Boats.
    3. Labour are just going to take us back to Square One.
    4. Jeremy Corbyn.
    5. Is my helicopter ready?
    6. Back to 1.
  • Options
    bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 7,703
    FPT...
    MJW said:

    MJW said:

    Endillion said:

    Foxy said:

    Endillion said:

    Nigelb said:

    ...

    Nigelb said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    I was skim reading the...... altercation............ between CorrectHorseBattery and Barty Roberts last night.

    I must admit I'm somewhat in CHB's favour here.
    Israel has gone far to far with its response to 7th October. Their is no justification to destroying aid convoys and killing aid workers. And I don't believe them when they say it was an accident. It wasn't, and they know it.

    Barty's point is that Hamas must be destroyed, which I think we will all agree on.
    No. We all don't.
    OK, a fair point.

    I'll reconfirm.

    Barty's point is that Hamas must be destroyed, which I think we all ( except @Dura_Ace ) agree on.
    If must means accepting Barty's half a million dead, then no, we can't.
    This is a statement taken out of context. On my original post I caveated that by questioning Bart's collateral value to achieve his aim. I was specific in that I last night asked Bart for numbers. He declined and simply retorted with "whatever it takes".
    Here's the context.

    https://vf.politicalbetting.com/discussion/comment/4736911/#Comment_4736911
    BartholomewRoberts
    Mexicanpete said:
    » show previous quotes
    1. Bollocks it is!
    2. At what cost in lives, give me a number (whatever it takes isn't a number).
    3. I said pushing bastards out of windows and the like. Have you never seen Munich?
    4.
    1. Yes it is.
    2. Whatever it takes. The death toll of the Iraq War was over a quarter of a million, and this is an order of magnitude more justified than that war, so lets say double that half a million? If that's what it takes?
    3. Real life isn't a James Bond movie. Pushing a few people out of windows won't end Hamas.
    Thank you. I had lost interest after "whatever it takes" and ignored the value figure and gone to bed.

    Half a million is good to know. So we are at circa 10% down so far.

    Life must be cheap on Merseyside.

    Top marks for reading to the end.
    "Official" death toll (possibly exaggerated) is around 32,000, and of that, between a quarter and a half (depending on whether you believe Israel or Hamas - and potentially the difference is who counts as a terrorist and who doesn't) are Hamas members.

    Presumably the half million was meant as civilians, and Hamas members do not count towards it.

    So no, we are nowhere near "10% down so far" - more like 4%. And IDF operational efficiency is getting better as the war goes on - for example, there were no civilian deaths recorded during the recent Shifa hospital operation. And all the heavy bombing has been done for a while - you'll notice the death toll has remained fairly static for some time. There is no way the death toll ends up anywhere near half a million.

    Considering the level of destruction of buildings and of social and health infrastructure that 32 000 deaths is likely to be a significant underestimate.
    Considering the identity of the people providing the number, it's likely to be a significant overestimate. And again, you need to deduct the terrorists, since Hamas is including them in the total.

    The only thing I know for certain about the actual number of civilians dead, is you have no clue.
    As someone else has already posted, Hamas’ best recruiting sergeant ATM is Netanyahu!
    Yes and all very predictable, and the reason for the Hamas attack in the first place.

    Israel of course had (and has) the right to defend itself when attacked. But that is different to it being wise or sensible to have acted as they have done. Just because you have a right to do something doesn't make it right to enforce it.
    The more interesting question is what would have been wise and sensible? Hamas' clear strategy was to put Israel in Zugzwang such that it only had some pretty terrible options. Either a war Hamas would try and ensure cost as many Palestinian lives as to break any international support or accept a terror state on your border with the express intent of wiping you out, with increasingly sophisticated military capabilities funded by another state that believes the same thing.

    We know what's happening is horrific. But the deeper question is what different paths there are, and what trade-offs a) one can accept yourself and b) Israelis could or should accept.
    I think it's unhelpful to paint this in such stark either/or terms. Israel could be occupying Gaza militarily, while being more helpful on aid and less indiscriminate in blowing stuff up. Israel could (and should) stop trying to annex the West Bank bit by bit. Israel could kick politicians who favour ethnic cleansing of Gaza out of government. It's perfectly possible for Israel to respond strongly to Hamas without behaving as they are now.
    Much of this is true in terms of behaviour - particularly the West Bank and Ben Gvir. But it doesn't change the crude logic of the war - nor would it save vast numbers of lives.

    Which is why it's not just the foul Israeli right that support the war but the general population who also want Netanyahu and his cronies (and will kick them out when get a vote) out for mismanaging things in the first place and continuing to.

    If you replaced Netanyahu with Yair Lapid tomorrow there would not be an immediate ceasefire. Meanwhile, the West Bank will take *a long* time to sort out. Vital, but not part of the immediate Hamas-inspired crisis.

    And it is important to put it in such stark terms because that is how the Israelis view it. As existential. Certainly after 7 October, they taken Hamas' rhetoric about wiping out Jews from the Middle East and that they'd do 7 October again and again quite literally and with justification. And for that matter Iran's and its intention to keep arming them.

    Therefore *any* serious effort at peace that goes beyond grandstanding and Western politicians being able to feel good needs to take that into account and offer alternative options to Israel continuing until it has destroyed Hamas, and Hamas trying to ensure as many Palestinians as possible die before they are destroyed.
    So you're saying that the Israel/Palestine situation will be difficult to sort out? I think we knew that.

    Israeli politics has shifted rightwards over the years, to a more pro-settler, pro-annexation, anti-2 state solution position. There's no reason why it can't shift back over coming years... but, sure, it will take years. Getting rid of (and preferably locking up) Bibi will help!

    Western grandstanding is largely pointless, but diplomatic pressure from the West, specifically the US, does matter.
  • Options
    MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 25,270
    ...

    rkrkrk said:

    TV is still king. Do we know if there will be debates?

    Starmer probably wouldn't want to mess up his poll lead, but a bad look for an opposition leader to duck it I would guess.

    Based on the relative performance of the leaders at PMQs I would think Sunak will be the one to try and duck out.
    Sunak will come across quite badly I think.
    He can tell us how he grew the economy, reduced NHS waiting lists and stopped the boats.

    Or not.
    Whereas as Starmer will impersonate a trappist monk and be too frightened to say what he intends.

    If Labour haven't got a manifesto by then they lose. As the incumbent overseeing a shitshow Sunak has the tougher ask. How many times in a hour or two can he say"Labour have no plan, I have a plan and my plan is working, don't let Labour take you back to square one"?
  • Options
    CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 39,856

    @BatteryCorrectHorse

    FPT

    People have their own reasons . For me

    1. To bring british politicians back under the control; of their electorate
    2. To stop the disadvantage of an anglo saxon economy in a social market structure, You can have one but not both
    3. To be able to develop our own economic interest and not those of a collective

    An Anglo-Saxon economy ... the only example I can think of is Viz magazine. Lots of four-letter words there.





  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,728

    rkrkrk said:

    TV is still king. Do we know if there will be debates?

    Starmer probably wouldn't want to mess up his poll lead, but a bad look for an opposition leader to duck it I would guess.

    Another ingenious torture device for Rishi.

    He has to do the debates- he's the one who is twenty points behind and is desperate for something to shift. But he is likely to be terrible at them and they will probably make things worse for him.
    Maybe so, but no-one will really notice if he bombs the debates and loses by 20% instead of 15%.

    But if it's Starmer who trips up in any debate, and that ends up with Labour failing to win a majority, well, he'd never live it down.
    No, those Sunak gaffes will go viral.

    British voters love kicking a man when he is down.

    Starmer will be fine. He is the master at not saying anything controversial, or indeed saying anything at all.
  • Options
    MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 25,270
    edited April 4

    Sunak's already got his script ready for the GE debates with Starmer, on an infinite loop:

    1. We are focused on the people's priorities.
    2. Stop the Boats.
    3. Labour are just going to take us back to Square One.
    4. Jeremy Corbyn.
    5. Is my helicopter ready?
    6. Back to 1.

    7. Leftie Lawyers
    8. Leftie Lawyers defending Hamas
    9. Leftie Lawyers who can't define a woman.
    10. Leftie Lawyers defending Jimmy Saville
    11 Lefty Lawyers who prosecuted Post Office sub Postmasters
    12. Leftie Layers who don't have a plan, I have a plan and it is working, don't let Leftie Lawyers take us back to square one
  • Options
    DonkeysDonkeys Posts: 578
    edited April 4
    Which country will be the first to show the Israeli ambassador a well-deserved boot?

    Ireland?
    Poland? (The ambassador suggested that only anti-Semites would call the murder of aid workers murder. You've insulted your hosts, mate. Get fucking out. True that the notion that only terrorists offer armed resistance to occupation has been dominant in western countries for years. But that can come to an end.)
  • Options
    TazTaz Posts: 11,244
    The breakdown by age would be interesting. I suspect the younger you are the less inclined to traditional media you’ll be.
  • Options
    SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 15,622
    RTE - Grealish latest Independent TD to support Harris for Taoiseach

    Another Independent TD has said that they will back Simon Harris as Taoiseach in next week's Dáil vote.

    Noel Grealish, the Galway West deputy, said he will support the Fine Gael leader, following a meeting this morning. Independent TD Cathal Berry is also meeting Mr Harris today.

    The Government has a slender majority in the Dáil, and therefore has the required support to elect Mr Harris as Taoiseach on Tuesday. However, more support is always welcome when difficult decisions lie ahead.

    Yesterday, two Independent deputies said they would support Mr Harris - Tipperary TD Michael Lowry and Denis Naughten, TD for Roscommon-Galway. Sligo-Leitrim TD Marc MacSharry had previously said he would also back Mr Harris for Taoiseach.

    In addition, two other TDs declared their support for the Fine Gael leader. Dublin Central deputy Neasa Hourigan, who is currently suspended from the Green Party, said she will be backing him. Donegal TD Joe McHugh, who resigned the Fine Gael party whip over the mica issue, said the same.

    There is a possibility of two further TDs backing Mr Harris. Independent deputies Seán Canney, TD for Galway East, and Matt Shanahan, TD for Waterford, say they are waiting to hear back from Mr Harris about their concerns.

    https://www.rte.ie/news/politics/2024/0404/1441586-harris-politics/


    SSI - So who the heck is Simon Harris TD?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Harris
  • Options
    DonkeysDonkeys Posts: 578

    @BatteryCorrectHorse

    FPT

    People have their own reasons . For me

    1. To bring british politicians back under the control; of their electorate
    2. To stop the disadvantage of an anglo saxon economy in a social market structure, You can have one but not both
    3. To be able to develop our own economic interest and not those of a collective

    The reflex response would be to ask the nonetheless acutely relevant question: what have the Angles ever done for us?
  • Options
    MightyAlexMightyAlex Posts: 1,452

    FPT...

    MJW said:

    MJW said:

    Endillion said:

    Foxy said:

    Endillion said:

    Nigelb said:

    ...

    Nigelb said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    I was skim reading the...... altercation............ between CorrectHorseBattery and Barty Roberts last night.

    I must admit I'm somewhat in CHB's favour here.
    Israel has gone far to far with its response to 7th October. Their is no justification to destroying aid convoys and killing aid workers. And I don't believe them when they say it was an accident. It wasn't, and they know it.

    Barty's point is that Hamas must be destroyed, which I think we will all agree on.
    No. We all don't.
    OK, a fair point.

    I'll reconfirm.

    Barty's point is that Hamas must be destroyed, which I think we all ( except @Dura_Ace ) agree on.
    If must means accepting Barty's half a million dead, then no, we can't.
    This is a statement taken out of context. On my original post I caveated that by questioning Bart's collateral value to achieve his aim. I was specific in that I last night asked Bart for numbers. He declined and simply retorted with "whatever it takes".
    Here's the context.

    https://vf.politicalbetting.com/discussion/comment/4736911/#Comment_4736911
    BartholomewRoberts
    Mexicanpete said:
    » show previous quotes
    1. Bollocks it is!
    2. At what cost in lives, give me a number (whatever it takes isn't a number).
    3. I said pushing bastards out of windows and the like. Have you never seen Munich?
    4.
    1. Yes it is.
    2. Whatever it takes. The death toll of the Iraq War was over a quarter of a million, and this is an order of magnitude more justified than that war, so lets say double that half a million? If that's what it takes?
    3. Real life isn't a James Bond movie. Pushing a few people out of windows won't end Hamas.
    Thank you. I had lost interest after "whatever it takes" and ignored the value figure and gone to bed.

    Half a million is good to know. So we are at circa 10% down so far.

    Life must be cheap on Merseyside.

    Top marks for reading to the end.
    "Official" death toll (possibly exaggerated) is around 32,000, and of that, between a quarter and a half (depending on whether you believe Israel or Hamas - and potentially the difference is who counts as a terrorist and who doesn't) are Hamas members.

    Presumably the half million was meant as civilians, and Hamas members do not count towards it.

    So no, we are nowhere near "10% down so far" - more like 4%. And IDF operational efficiency is getting better as the war goes on - for example, there were no civilian deaths recorded during the recent Shifa hospital operation. And all the heavy bombing has been done for a while - you'll notice the death toll has remained fairly static for some time. There is no way the death toll ends up anywhere near half a million.

    Considering the level of destruction of buildings and of social and health infrastructure that 32 000 deaths is likely to be a significant underestimate.
    Considering the identity of the people providing the number, it's likely to be a significant overestimate. And again, you need to deduct the terrorists, since Hamas is including them in the total.

    The only thing I know for certain about the actual number of civilians dead, is you have no clue.
    As someone else has already posted, Hamas’ best recruiting sergeant ATM is Netanyahu!
    Yes and all very predictable, and the reason for the Hamas attack in the first place.

    Israel of course had (and has) the right to defend itself when attacked. But that is different to it being wise or sensible to have acted as they have done. Just because you have a right to do something doesn't make it right to enforce it.
    The more interesting question is what would have been wise and sensible? Hamas' clear strategy was to put Israel in Zugzwang such that it only had some pretty terrible options. Either a war Hamas would try and ensure cost as many Palestinian lives as to break any international support or accept a terror state on your border with the express intent of wiping you out, with increasingly sophisticated military capabilities funded by another state that believes the same thing.

    We know what's happening is horrific. But the deeper question is what different paths there are, and what trade-offs a) one can accept yourself and b) Israelis could or should accept.
    I think it's unhelpful to paint this in such stark either/or terms. Israel could be occupying Gaza militarily, while being more helpful on aid and less indiscriminate in blowing stuff up. Israel could (and should) stop trying to annex the West Bank bit by bit. Israel could kick politicians who favour ethnic cleansing of Gaza out of government. It's perfectly possible for Israel to respond strongly to Hamas without behaving as they are now.
    Much of this is true in terms of behaviour - particularly the West Bank and Ben Gvir. But it doesn't change the crude logic of the war - nor would it save vast numbers of lives.

    Which is why it's not just the foul Israeli right that support the war but the general population who also want Netanyahu and his cronies (and will kick them out when get a vote) out for mismanaging things in the first place and continuing to.

    If you replaced Netanyahu with Yair Lapid tomorrow there would not be an immediate ceasefire. Meanwhile, the West Bank will take *a long* time to sort out. Vital, but not part of the immediate Hamas-inspired crisis.

    And it is important to put it in such stark terms because that is how the Israelis view it. As existential. Certainly after 7 October, they taken Hamas' rhetoric about wiping out Jews from the Middle East and that they'd do 7 October again and again quite literally and with justification. And for that matter Iran's and its intention to keep arming them.

    Therefore *any* serious effort at peace that goes beyond grandstanding and Western politicians being able to feel good needs to take that into account and offer alternative options to Israel continuing until it has destroyed Hamas, and Hamas trying to ensure as many Palestinians as possible die before they are destroyed.
    So you're saying that the Israel/Palestine situation will be difficult to sort out? I think we knew that.

    Israeli politics has shifted rightwards over the years, to a more pro-settler, pro-annexation, anti-2 state solution position. There's no reason why it can't shift back over coming years... but, sure, it will take years. Getting rid of (and preferably locking up) Bibi will help!

    Western grandstanding is largely pointless, but diplomatic pressure from the West, specifically the US, does matter.
    I believe Israel's demography means its likely to stay right wing and probably shift further towards a Jewish fundamentalist position. 'The West' will have to decide if this is a country worth supporting over the next few decades.
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,728

    FPT...

    MJW said:

    MJW said:

    Endillion said:

    Foxy said:

    Endillion said:

    Nigelb said:

    ...

    Nigelb said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    I was skim reading the...... altercation............ between CorrectHorseBattery and Barty Roberts last night.

    I must admit I'm somewhat in CHB's favour here.
    Israel has gone far to far with its response to 7th October. Their is no justification to destroying aid convoys and killing aid workers. And I don't believe them when they say it was an accident. It wasn't, and they know it.

    Barty's point is that Hamas must be destroyed, which I think we will all agree on.
    No. We all don't.
    OK, a fair point.

    I'll reconfirm.

    Barty's point is that Hamas must be destroyed, which I think we all ( except @Dura_Ace ) agree on.
    If must means accepting Barty's half a million dead, then no, we can't.
    This is a statement taken out of context. On my original post I caveated that by questioning Bart's collateral value to achieve his aim. I was specific in that I last night asked Bart for numbers. He declined and simply retorted with "whatever it takes".
    Here's the context.

    https://vf.politicalbetting.com/discussion/comment/4736911/#Comment_4736911
    BartholomewRoberts
    Mexicanpete said:
    » show previous quotes
    1. Bollocks it is!
    2. At what cost in lives, give me a number (whatever it takes isn't a number).
    3. I said pushing bastards out of windows and the like. Have you never seen Munich?
    4.
    1. Yes it is.
    2. Whatever it takes. The death toll of the Iraq War was over a quarter of a million, and this is an order of magnitude more justified than that war, so lets say double that half a million? If that's what it takes?
    3. Real life isn't a James Bond movie. Pushing a few people out of windows won't end Hamas.
    Thank you. I had lost interest after "whatever it takes" and ignored the value figure and gone to bed.

    Half a million is good to know. So we are at circa 10% down so far.

    Life must be cheap on Merseyside.

    Top marks for reading to the end.
    "Official" death toll (possibly exaggerated) is around 32,000, and of that, between a quarter and a half (depending on whether you believe Israel or Hamas - and potentially the difference is who counts as a terrorist and who doesn't) are Hamas members.

    Presumably the half million was meant as civilians, and Hamas members do not count towards it.

    So no, we are nowhere near "10% down so far" - more like 4%. And IDF operational efficiency is getting better as the war goes on - for example, there were no civilian deaths recorded during the recent Shifa hospital operation. And all the heavy bombing has been done for a while - you'll notice the death toll has remained fairly static for some time. There is no way the death toll ends up anywhere near half a million.

    Considering the level of destruction of buildings and of social and health infrastructure that 32 000 deaths is likely to be a significant underestimate.
    Considering the identity of the people providing the number, it's likely to be a significant overestimate. And again, you need to deduct the terrorists, since Hamas is including them in the total.

    The only thing I know for certain about the actual number of civilians dead, is you have no clue.
    As someone else has already posted, Hamas’ best recruiting sergeant ATM is Netanyahu!
    Yes and all very predictable, and the reason for the Hamas attack in the first place.

    Israel of course had (and has) the right to defend itself when attacked. But that is different to it being wise or sensible to have acted as they have done. Just because you have a right to do something doesn't make it right to enforce it.
    The more interesting question is what would have been wise and sensible? Hamas' clear strategy was to put Israel in Zugzwang such that it only had some pretty terrible options. Either a war Hamas would try and ensure cost as many Palestinian lives as to break any international support or accept a terror state on your border with the express intent of wiping you out, with increasingly sophisticated military capabilities funded by another state that believes the same thing.

    We know what's happening is horrific. But the deeper question is what different paths there are, and what trade-offs a) one can accept yourself and b) Israelis could or should accept.
    I think it's unhelpful to paint this in such stark either/or terms. Israel could be occupying Gaza militarily, while being more helpful on aid and less indiscriminate in blowing stuff up. Israel could (and should) stop trying to annex the West Bank bit by bit. Israel could kick politicians who favour ethnic cleansing of Gaza out of government. It's perfectly possible for Israel to respond strongly to Hamas without behaving as they are now.
    Much of this is true in terms of behaviour - particularly the West Bank and Ben Gvir. But it doesn't change the crude logic of the war - nor would it save vast numbers of lives.

    Which is why it's not just the foul Israeli right that support the war but the general population who also want Netanyahu and his cronies (and will kick them out when get a vote) out for mismanaging things in the first place and continuing to.

    If you replaced Netanyahu with Yair Lapid tomorrow there would not be an immediate ceasefire. Meanwhile, the West Bank will take *a long* time to sort out. Vital, but not part of the immediate Hamas-inspired crisis.

    And it is important to put it in such stark terms because that is how the Israelis view it. As existential. Certainly after 7 October, they taken Hamas' rhetoric about wiping out Jews from the Middle East and that they'd do 7 October again and again quite literally and with justification. And for that matter Iran's and its intention to keep arming them.

    Therefore *any* serious effort at peace that goes beyond grandstanding and Western politicians being able to feel good needs to take that into account and offer alternative options to Israel continuing until it has destroyed Hamas, and Hamas trying to ensure as many Palestinians as possible die before they are destroyed.
    So you're saying that the Israel/Palestine situation will be difficult to sort out? I think we knew that.

    Israeli politics has shifted rightwards over the years, to a more pro-settler, pro-annexation, anti-2 state solution position. There's no reason why it can't shift back over coming years... but, sure, it will take years. Getting rid of (and preferably locking up) Bibi will help!

    Western grandstanding is largely pointless, but diplomatic pressure from the West, specifically the US, does matter.
    I think the demographics of Israel point to an ever more radical position. Haredi have big families (hence why Liberal Israelis resent them being exempt from military service). Similarly the schools are controlled by the orthodox, so the children of secular Israelis get indoctrinated from a young age. This article from the New Yorker gives a picture of what is going on.

    https://www.newyorker.com/news/letter-from-jerusalem/how-the-religious-right-transformed-israeli-education

    So we have a self-radicalising state, and every sign of that accelerating. While secular liberal Israel still exists, it is being phased out. Its a mirror image of the self radicalisation of the Palestinians and other neighbours. The secular, nationalist PLO supplanted by Hamas for example.

    It doesn't bode well for future peace from either side.

  • Options
    SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 15,622
    AP (via Seattle Times) - Months ahead of the presidential election, Nebraska’s GOP governor wants a winner-take-all system [for Nebraska's electoral votes]

    With only months to go before what is shaping up to be a hotly contested presidential election, Nebraska’s Republican governor is calling on state lawmakers to move forward with a “winner-take-all” system of awarding Electoral College votes. . . .

    Nebraska and Maine are the only states that split their electoral votes by congressional district, and both have done so in recent presidential elections. Both states’ lawmakers have also made moves to switch to a winner-take-all system and have found themselves frustrated in that effort.

    In Nebraska, the system has confounded Republicans, who have been unable to force the state into a winner-take-all system since Barack Obama became the first presidential contender to shave off one of the state’s five electoral votes in 2008. It happened again in 2020, when President Joe Biden captured Nebraska’s 2nd District electoral vote.

    In the 2016 presidential election, one of Maine’s four electoral votes went to former President Donald Trump. Now, Maine Republicans stand opposed to an effort that would ditch its split system and instead join a multistate compact that would allocate all its electoral votes to whoever wins the national popular vote for president — even if that conflicts with Maine’s popular vote for president.

    A spokesperson for Democratic Maine Gov. Janet Mills said the governor has not said whether she’ll sign the bill, which received final approval Wednesday in the Maine Senate. But even if it’s signed, it would be on hold until the other states approve the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. . . .

    Despite [Gov.] Pillen’s call to pass a winner-take-all change, it seems unlikely that Nebraska lawmakers would have time to get the bill out of committee, much less advance it through three rounds of debate, with only six days left in the current session. Some Nebraska lawmakers acknowledged as much.

    SSI - Note that Nebraska is the only US state with a one-house legislature - aka "the Unicameral".
  • Options
    Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 25,496

    ydoethur said:

    PB not on the list?

    Disgraceful.

    Social meeja shirley?
    We're more antisocial media.
  • Options
    kinabalukinabalu Posts: 39,293
    Starmer wants 2 head to heads with Sunak is what I hear.
  • Options
    SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 15,622
    In USA, "Anglo-Saxon" is short for "British/German/Scandinavian heritage".

    As in the once-common but now fast-dying acronym "WASP" = White Anglo-Saxon Protestant.
  • Options
    BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,720

    ydoethur said:

    PB not on the list?

    Disgraceful.

    Social meeja shirley?
    We're more antisocial media.
    More antisocial media than normal antisocial media?
  • Options
    carnforthcarnforth Posts: 3,230
    kinabalu said:

    Starmer wants 2 head to heads with Sunak is what I hear.

    No fun. We need best of three. No ties.
  • Options
    BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,720

    Sunak's already got his script ready for the GE debates with Starmer, on an infinite loop:

    1. We are focused on the people's priorities.
    2. Stop the Boats.
    3. Labour are just going to take us back to Square One.
    4. Jeremy Corbyn.
    5. Is my helicopter ready?
    6. Back to 1.

    7. Leftie Lawyers
    8. Leftie Lawyers defending Hamas
    9. Leftie Lawyers who can't define a woman.
    10. Leftie Lawyers defending Jimmy Saville
    11 Lefty Lawyers who prosecuted Post Office sub Postmasters
    12. Leftie Layers who don't have a plan, I have a plan and it is working, don't let Leftie Lawyers take us back to square one
    Square one looks pretty attractive from here tbh.
  • Options
    CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 39,856
    edited April 4
    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/apr/04/israel-ultra-orthodox-jews-haredim-benjamin-netanyahu-court-military-conscription-gaza-war

    Interesting piece on the ultra-orthodox whom the Israeli state support to do religious studies and exempt from conscription - a policy which has now been banned by a court.

    Absolutely no idea what effect this will have beyond what is said in the report.
  • Options
    noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 20,791
    carnforth said:

    kinabalu said:

    Starmer wants 2 head to heads with Sunak is what I hear.

    No fun. We need best of three. No ties.
    No ties? Labour could have kept Corbyn after all.
  • Options
    StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 14,521
    carnforth said:

    kinabalu said:

    Starmer wants 2 head to heads with Sunak is what I hear.

    No fun. We need best of three. No ties.
    Rory Stewart has entered the chat.
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,728
    Carnyx said:

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/apr/04/israel-ultra-orthodox-jews-haredim-benjamin-netanyahu-court-military-conscription-gaza-war

    Interesting piece on the ultra-orthodox whom the Israeli state support to do religious studies and exempt from conscription - a policy which has now been banned by a court.

    Absolutely no idea what effect this will have beyond what is said in the report.

    Haredi children now are 25% of the school population so exempting them from military service has a lot more significance than it did in 1948 when there were a handful.

    A further issue is that the ultraorthodox refuse to serve in mixed sex units, which are presently common in the IDF.
  • Options
    OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 32,027

    Sunak's already got his script ready for the GE debates with Starmer, on an infinite loop:

    1. We are focused on the people's priorities.
    2. Stop the Boats.
    3. Labour are just going to take us back to Square One.
    4. Jeremy Corbyn.
    5. Is my helicopter ready?
    6. Back to 1.

    The problem with the "back to square one" argument being that things are generally so broken and bloody awful now square one sounds like a distant demi paradise - can we have a bit of that now please...

    It'll be a social media election, lots of basically lying videos (eg. of the London is feral kind as of late) and meme's. Can't see it working. The Tories are now basically toxic with the general public.
    I’ve a couple of very nasty ones pop up on my Facebook page; Starmer and Saville for example.
    Not seen a similar one about the Tories yet; perhaps Labour etc are letting the Tory record speak for itself!
  • Options
    StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 14,521

    Sunak's already got his script ready for the GE debates with Starmer, on an infinite loop:

    1. We are focused on the people's priorities.
    2. Stop the Boats.
    3. Labour are just going to take us back to Square One.
    4. Jeremy Corbyn.
    5. Is my helicopter ready?
    6. Back to 1.

    The problem with the "back to square one" argument being that things are generally so broken and bloody awful now square one sounds like a distant demi paradise - can we have a bit of that now please...

    It'll be a social media election, lots of basically lying videos (eg. of the London is feral kind as of late) and meme's. Can't see it working. The Tories are now basically toxic with the general public.
    Besides- how much value do all these advertisers, meme generators and campaign gurus really add? I suspect less than they like to think.
  • Options
    CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 39,856
    Foxy said:

    Carnyx said:

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/apr/04/israel-ultra-orthodox-jews-haredim-benjamin-netanyahu-court-military-conscription-gaza-war

    Interesting piece on the ultra-orthodox whom the Israeli state support to do religious studies and exempt from conscription - a policy which has now been banned by a court.

    Absolutely no idea what effect this will have beyond what is said in the report.

    Haredi children now are 25% of the school population so exempting them from military service has a lot more significance than it did in 1948 when there were a handful.

    A further issue is that the ultraorthodox refuse to serve in mixed sex units, which are presently common in the IDF.
    It won't help either that some of them don't even support the state of Israel (I think?) because unscriptural (?).
  • Options
    Gordon Brown made a speech when he introduced the 2010 Labour manifesto.

    Everything he said came to pass.

    Whatever you think about him, we'd have been better in every conceivable way had he remained in charge.
  • Options
    Jim_MillerJim_Miller Posts: 2,516
    FPT: These poll findings give me some reason to hope:
    "Despite the country’s deep political polarization, most Americans share many core beliefs about what it means to be an American, according to a new poll.

    The poll from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research found that about 9 in 10 U.S. adults say the right to vote, the right to equal protection under the law and the right to privacy are extremely important or very important to the United States’ identity as a nation. The survey also found that 84% feel the same way about the freedom of religion."
    source: https://apnews.com/article/ap-poll-democracy-rights-freedoms-election-b1047da72551e13554a3959487e5181a
    poll: https://apnorc.org/projects/most-say-democracy-is-important-for-the-u-s-identity-but-few-think-it-is-functioning-well/
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,728
    Carnyx said:

    Foxy said:

    Carnyx said:

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/apr/04/israel-ultra-orthodox-jews-haredim-benjamin-netanyahu-court-military-conscription-gaza-war

    Interesting piece on the ultra-orthodox whom the Israeli state support to do religious studies and exempt from conscription - a policy which has now been banned by a court.

    Absolutely no idea what effect this will have beyond what is said in the report.

    Haredi children now are 25% of the school population so exempting them from military service has a lot more significance than it did in 1948 when there were a handful.

    A further issue is that the ultraorthodox refuse to serve in mixed sex units, which are presently common in the IDF.
    It won't help either that some of them don't even support the state of Israel (I think?) because unscriptural (?).
    Yes, that is true. The anti-zionist Haredi are the ones that are sometimes seen at the Pro-Palestinian marches. I understand that the argument is that it is premature to form an Israeli state prior to the appearance of the Messiah.

    Israel has a very diverse Jewish population drawn from all lands , with very different languages, values and degree of secularity. Since the beginning, Israel has consciously tried to unify this as far as possible by systematic national policies. Particularly in recent years this has become controlled by the orthodox and ultra-orthodox.


  • Options
    eristdooferistdoof Posts: 4,900
    "Where do Britons primarily source news from?"
    I was expecting at least 5% answering Political Betting!
  • Options
    Jim_MillerJim_Miller Posts: 2,516
    Also from previous thread (discussion)::
    If I wanted to increase the manufacturing of vehicles in the UK, I would study the policies pursued by Michigan (decline) and those pursued by Kentucky (increase) in recent decades.

    "Let’s start with automotive success – Did you know Kentucky is the nation’s top producer of cars, light trucks and SUVs per capita?

    More than 5.7 million vehicles were made in Kentucky over the last five years including Ford F-Series Super Duty trucks, General Motors’ Corvettes, Ford Escape SUVs, Toyota Camry sedans and Lexus ES300h hybrid vehicles. Ford operates two plants in Louisville, Toyota’s largest production facility is in Georgetown and General Motors’ Corvette manufacturing plant is located in Bowling Green."

    source: https://buildingkentucky.com/news/kentucky-means-business-how-manufacturing-drives-the-commonwealth-forward/




  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,728

    FPT: These poll findings give me some reason to hope:
    "Despite the country’s deep political polarization, most Americans share many core beliefs about what it means to be an American, according to a new poll.

    The poll from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research found that about 9 in 10 U.S. adults say the right to vote, the right to equal protection under the law and the right to privacy are extremely important or very important to the United States’ identity as a nation. The survey also found that 84% feel the same way about the freedom of religion."
    source: https://apnews.com/article/ap-poll-democracy-rights-freedoms-election-b1047da72551e13554a3959487e5181a
    poll: https://apnorc.org/projects/most-say-democracy-is-important-for-the-u-s-identity-but-few-think-it-is-functioning-well/

    This is very positive too:

    https://www.theatlantic.com/books/archive/2024/04/the-unclaimed-pamela-prickett-stefan-timmermans/677957/?gift=Q2xxhS27Csx4yHsp7QhJgRuNtN6EVTg5ibsoUrpiExc&utm_source=copy-link&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=share
  • Options
    williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 48,101

    Gordon Brown made a speech when he introduced the 2010 Labour manifesto.

    Everything he said came to pass.

    Whatever you think about him, we'd have been better in every conceivable way had he remained in charge.

    Labour in 2010 were promising to cut deeper than Thatcher and Brown was pushing brainwaves like forcing immigrants to do volunteer work to prove their commitment to Britain.
  • Options
    Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 25,496
    ...

    Gordon Brown made a speech when he introduced the 2010 Labour manifesto.

    Everything he said came to pass.

    Whatever you think about him, we'd have been better in every conceivable way had he remained in charge.

    Of his faculties?
  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 114,526

    Gordon Brown made a speech when he introduced the 2010 Labour manifesto.

    Everything he said came to pass.

    Whatever you think about him, we'd have been better in every conceivable way had he remained in charge.

    Labour in 2010 were promising to cut deeper than Thatcher and Brown was pushing brainwaves like forcing immigrants to do volunteer work to prove their commitment to Britain.
    Don't forget gulags for slags.
  • Options
    eristdooferistdoof Posts: 4,900
    Foxy said:

    Carnyx said:

    Foxy said:

    Carnyx said:

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/apr/04/israel-ultra-orthodox-jews-haredim-benjamin-netanyahu-court-military-conscription-gaza-war

    Interesting piece on the ultra-orthodox whom the Israeli state support to do religious studies and exempt from conscription - a policy which has now been banned by a court.

    Absolutely no idea what effect this will have beyond what is said in the report.

    Haredi children now are 25% of the school population so exempting them from military service has a lot more significance than it did in 1948 when there were a handful.

    A further issue is that the ultraorthodox refuse to serve in mixed sex units, which are presently common in the IDF.
    It won't help either that some of them don't even support the state of Israel (I think?) because unscriptural (?).
    Yes, that is true. The anti-zionist Haredi are the ones that are sometimes seen at the Pro-Palestinian marches. I understand that the argument is that it is premature to form an Israeli state prior to the appearance of the Messiah.

    Israel has a very diverse Jewish population drawn from all lands , with very different languages, values and degree of secularity. Since the beginning, Israel has consciously tried to unify this as far as possible by systematic national policies. Particularly in recent years this has become controlled by the orthodox and ultra-orthodox.


    "Since the beginning, Israel has consciously tried to unify this as far as possible by systematic national policies"
    Another policy was to make Hebrew the national language. As far as I understand almost no-one at the end of WWII had Hebrew as a first language, but was widely learnt by Jews as a religious language. By making Hebrew the official Israeli language now much (? most) of the population speaks Hebrew as a first language.
  • Options
    OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 32,027

    Gordon Brown made a speech when he introduced the 2010 Labour manifesto.

    Everything he said came to pass.

    Whatever you think about him, we'd have been better in every conceivable way had he remained in charge.

    To be fair, Labour was in a mess. He might have been right, but he didn’t come across as being ‘in charge’!
    What he needed was a tough, no-nonsense deputy like John Prescott.
    Or, given half a dozen more seats, a real Social Democrat LibDem leader like Kennedy.
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,728
    eristdoof said:

    Foxy said:

    Carnyx said:

    Foxy said:

    Carnyx said:

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/apr/04/israel-ultra-orthodox-jews-haredim-benjamin-netanyahu-court-military-conscription-gaza-war

    Interesting piece on the ultra-orthodox whom the Israeli state support to do religious studies and exempt from conscription - a policy which has now been banned by a court.

    Absolutely no idea what effect this will have beyond what is said in the report.

    Haredi children now are 25% of the school population so exempting them from military service has a lot more significance than it did in 1948 when there were a handful.

    A further issue is that the ultraorthodox refuse to serve in mixed sex units, which are presently common in the IDF.
    It won't help either that some of them don't even support the state of Israel (I think?) because unscriptural (?).
    Yes, that is true. The anti-zionist Haredi are the ones that are sometimes seen at the Pro-Palestinian marches. I understand that the argument is that it is premature to form an Israeli state prior to the appearance of the Messiah.

    Israel has a very diverse Jewish population drawn from all lands , with very different languages, values and degree of secularity. Since the beginning, Israel has consciously tried to unify this as far as possible by systematic national policies. Particularly in recent years this has become controlled by the orthodox and ultra-orthodox.


    "Since the beginning, Israel has consciously tried to unify this as far as possible by systematic national policies"
    Another policy was to make Hebrew the national language. As far as I understand almost no-one at the end of WWII had Hebrew as a first language, but was widely learnt by Jews as a religious language. By making Hebrew the official Israeli language now much (? most) of the population speaks Hebrew as a first language.
    Yes, the use of Hebrew was as a deliberate policy to form a national society. Other languages were considered, notably Yiddish. At the beginning there was some objection to Hebrew as it was considered as not suitable for secular conversation, but only for religious discussion.
  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 114,526
    edited April 4
    Michael Gove confirms he is a duplicitous snake.

    Michael Gove has admitted that he showed “moral cowardice” by failing to be upfront with David Cameron about his plans to play a leading role in the Brexit referendum campaign.

    In an interview for his Political Currency podcast George Osborne, the former chancellor, said Gove had told Cameron in the Downing Street plan that he would “not play a prominent role in the campaign”. “Did you deceive David?” Osborne asked. “He certainly felt betrayed.”

    Gove, who is now the levelling up secretary, said that while he did not believe he had deceived Cameron he ended up “going further than you’d imagine or anticipated at the beginning of the campaign”, adding: “I didn’t want to take part in the debates, the TV shows that I ultimately took part in or play a prominent role.”

    However, he said that during the campaign he was urged by Dominic Cummings, who oversaw the Vote Leave campaign, and others to take a more prominent role with the argument: “If you don’t do this, they’ll have Farage on.” He said he was told that he would let people down if he failed to do so. “I didn’t believe I deceived, but as I mentioned, I do think that I could have been clearer earlier.

    “And I think that was an example of on the one hand, cowardice on my part, moral cowardice … on the other hand, a recognition that perhaps there’s this feeling in politics, perhaps something will turn up, perhaps this moment won’t come when we have to make that decision,” he said. “But I think David entirely fairly, should have expected me to have been more upfront earlier.”


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/michael-gove-brexit-vote-george-osborne-david-cameron-vgpvzcfnh
  • Options
    SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 15,622

    Sunak's already got his script ready for the GE debates with Starmer, on an infinite loop:

    1. We are focused on the people's priorities.
    2. Stop the Boats.
    3. Labour are just going to take us back to Square One.
    4. Jeremy Corbyn.
    5. Is my helicopter ready?
    6. Back to 1.

    The problem with the "back to square one" argument being that things are generally so broken and bloody awful now square one sounds like a distant demi paradise - can we have a bit of that now please...

    It'll be a social media election, lots of basically lying videos (eg. of the London is feral kind as of late) and meme's. Can't see it working. The Tories are now basically toxic with the general public.
    I’ve a couple of very nasty ones pop up on my Facebook page; Starmer and Saville for example.
    Not seen a similar one about the Tories yet; perhaps Labour etc are letting the Tory record speak for itself!
    Have they persuaded you yet . . . that CUP24 is a pack of VERY-desperate, Trump-loving bottom feeders?
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,728

    Michael Gove confirms he is a duplicitous snake.

    Michael Gove has admitted that he showed “moral cowardice” by failing to be upfront with David Cameron about his plans to play a leading role in the Brexit referendum campaign.

    In an interview for his Political Currency podcast George Osborne, the former chancellor, said Gove had told Cameron in the Downing Street plan that he would “not play a prominent role in the campaign”. “Did you deceive David?” Osborne asked. “He certainly felt betrayed.”

    Gove, who is now the levelling up secretary, said that while he did not believe he had deceived Cameron he ended up “going further than you’d imagine or anticipated at the beginning of the campaign”, adding: “I didn’t want to take part in the debates, the TV shows that I ultimately took part in or play a prominent role.”

    However, he said that during the campaign he was urged by Dominic Cummings, who oversaw the Vote Leave campaign, and others to take a more prominent role with the argument: “If you don’t do this, they’ll have Farage on.” He said he was told that he would let people down if he failed to do so. “I didn’t believe I deceived, but as I mentioned, I do think that I could have been clearer earlier.

    “And I think that was an example of on the one hand, cowardice on my part, moral cowardice … on the other hand, a recognition that perhaps there’s this feeling in politics, perhaps something will turn up, perhaps this moment won’t come when we have to make that decision,” he said. “But I think David entirely fairly, should have expected me to have been more upfront earlier.”


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/michael-gove-brexit-vote-george-osborne-david-cameron-vgpvzcfnh

    Though he has come to understand that referendums have no place in our system of government. A bit late!

    “My single piece of advice to any future PM is never, ever have a referendum on anything.” Michael Gove to @George_Osborne & @edballs

    https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1775915195916861860?t=7X5OU0tAnEe_YS1puzGngA&s=19
  • Options
    geoffwgeoffw Posts: 8,176

    Michael Gove confirms he is a duplicitous snake.

    Michael Gove has admitted that he showed “moral cowardice” by failing to be upfront with David Cameron about his plans to play a leading role in the Brexit referendum campaign.

    In an interview for his Political Currency podcast George Osborne, the former chancellor, said Gove had told Cameron in the Downing Street plan that he would “not play a prominent role in the campaign”. “Did you deceive David?” Osborne asked. “He certainly felt betrayed.”

    Gove, who is now the levelling up secretary, said that while he did not believe he had deceived Cameron he ended up “going further than you’d imagine or anticipated at the beginning of the campaign”, adding: “I didn’t want to take part in the debates, the TV shows that I ultimately took part in or play a prominent role.”

    However, he said that during the campaign he was urged by Dominic Cummings, who oversaw the Vote Leave campaign, and others to take a more prominent role with the argument: “If you don’t do this, they’ll have Farage on.” He said he was told that he would let people down if he failed to do so. “I didn’t believe I deceived, but as I mentioned, I do think that I could have been clearer earlier.

    “And I think that was an example of on the one hand, cowardice on my part, moral cowardice … on the other hand, a recognition that perhaps there’s this feeling in politics, perhaps something will turn up, perhaps this moment won’t come when we have to make that decision,” he said. “But I think David entirely fairly, should have expected me to have been more upfront earlier.”


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/michael-gove-brexit-vote-george-osborne-david-cameron-vgpvzcfnh

    So the levelling-up secretary couldn't level with his boss
  • Options

    Gordon Brown made a speech when he introduced the 2010 Labour manifesto.

    Everything he said came to pass.

    Whatever you think about him, we'd have been better in every conceivable way had he remained in charge.

    The Gordon Brown that unleashed the forces of hell on his own Chancellor for speaking the truth?

    The Gordon Brown who hired people who smeared a grieving David Cameron?

    That Gordon Brown?
    Yes. Better than every PM we've had since, maybe slightly worse all told than Cameron but Cameron gave us Brexit.
  • Options
    kinabalukinabalu Posts: 39,293

    Gordon Brown made a speech when he introduced the 2010 Labour manifesto.

    Everything he said came to pass.

    Whatever you think about him, we'd have been better in every conceivable way had he remained in charge.

    The Gordon Brown that unleashed the forces of hell on his own Chancellor for speaking the truth?

    The Gordon Brown who hired people who smeared a grieving David Cameron?

    That Gordon Brown?
    Giant of a man though. Think everyone agrees on that.
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,728
    kinabalu said:

    Gordon Brown made a speech when he introduced the 2010 Labour manifesto.

    Everything he said came to pass.

    Whatever you think about him, we'd have been better in every conceivable way had he remained in charge.

    The Gordon Brown that unleashed the forces of hell on his own Chancellor for speaking the truth?

    The Gordon Brown who hired people who smeared a grieving David Cameron?

    That Gordon Brown?
    Giant of a man though. Think everyone agrees on that.
    Not me.

    He is a large part for why I voted Conservative in 2010. He was a very poor PM, and only marginally better as Chancellor.
  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 114,526
    kinabalu said:

    Gordon Brown made a speech when he introduced the 2010 Labour manifesto.

    Everything he said came to pass.

    Whatever you think about him, we'd have been better in every conceivable way had he remained in charge.

    The Gordon Brown that unleashed the forces of hell on his own Chancellor for speaking the truth?

    The Gordon Brown who hired people who smeared a grieving David Cameron?

    That Gordon Brown?
    Giant of a man though. Think everyone agrees on that.
    Nope.

    Although perhaps I am being harsh about the man who abolished boom & bust and saved the world.
  • Options
    kinabalukinabalu Posts: 39,293
    Flawed but formidable then.
  • Options

    kinabalu said:

    Gordon Brown made a speech when he introduced the 2010 Labour manifesto.

    Everything he said came to pass.

    Whatever you think about him, we'd have been better in every conceivable way had he remained in charge.

    The Gordon Brown that unleashed the forces of hell on his own Chancellor for speaking the truth?

    The Gordon Brown who hired people who smeared a grieving David Cameron?

    That Gordon Brown?
    Giant of a man though. Think everyone agrees on that.
    Nope.

    Although perhaps I am being harsh about the man who abolished boom & bust and saved the world.
    Your man David gave us Brexit.
  • Options
    kinabalu said:

    Flawed but formidable then.

    He was a good chancellor and a poor PM. And a thoroughly decent chap.

    Still much better than Johnson, Truss and Sunak.
  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 114,526
    edited April 4

    kinabalu said:

    Gordon Brown made a speech when he introduced the 2010 Labour manifesto.

    Everything he said came to pass.

    Whatever you think about him, we'd have been better in every conceivable way had he remained in charge.

    The Gordon Brown that unleashed the forces of hell on his own Chancellor for speaking the truth?

    The Gordon Brown who hired people who smeared a grieving David Cameron?

    That Gordon Brown?
    Giant of a man though. Think everyone agrees on that.
    Nope.

    Although perhaps I am being harsh about the man who abolished boom & bust and saved the world.
    Your man David gave us Brexit.
    The will of the people, Brexit could have been easily avoided if your boys Brown and Blair had actually given us a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty as they promised.
  • Options
    carnforthcarnforth Posts: 3,230

    kinabalu said:

    Gordon Brown made a speech when he introduced the 2010 Labour manifesto.

    Everything he said came to pass.

    Whatever you think about him, we'd have been better in every conceivable way had he remained in charge.

    The Gordon Brown that unleashed the forces of hell on his own Chancellor for speaking the truth?

    The Gordon Brown who hired people who smeared a grieving David Cameron?

    That Gordon Brown?
    Giant of a man though. Think everyone agrees on that.
    Nope.

    Although perhaps I am being harsh about the man who abolished boom & bust and saved the world.
    Gordon Brown was assumed to be a Titan because he was Taciturn. It's a Scottish trick we English fall for.
  • Options
    StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 14,521

    Michael Gove confirms he is a duplicitous snake.

    Michael Gove has admitted that he showed “moral cowardice” by failing to be upfront with David Cameron about his plans to play a leading role in the Brexit referendum campaign.

    In an interview for his Political Currency podcast George Osborne, the former chancellor, said Gove had told Cameron in the Downing Street plan that he would “not play a prominent role in the campaign”. “Did you deceive David?” Osborne asked. “He certainly felt betrayed.”

    Gove, who is now the levelling up secretary, said that while he did not believe he had deceived Cameron he ended up “going further than you’d imagine or anticipated at the beginning of the campaign”, adding: “I didn’t want to take part in the debates, the TV shows that I ultimately took part in or play a prominent role.”

    However, he said that during the campaign he was urged by Dominic Cummings, who oversaw the Vote Leave campaign, and others to take a more prominent role with the argument: “If you don’t do this, they’ll have Farage on.” He said he was told that he would let people down if he failed to do so. “I didn’t believe I deceived, but as I mentioned, I do think that I could have been clearer earlier.

    “And I think that was an example of on the one hand, cowardice on my part, moral cowardice … on the other hand, a recognition that perhaps there’s this feeling in politics, perhaps something will turn up, perhaps this moment won’t come when we have to make that decision,” he said. “But I think David entirely fairly, should have expected me to have been more upfront earlier.”


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/michael-gove-brexit-vote-george-osborne-david-cameron-vgpvzcfnh

    Someone has started realising what the first line in their obituary is going to be.
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,320

    Michael Gove confirms he is a duplicitous snake.

    Michael Gove has admitted that he showed “moral cowardice” by failing to be upfront with David Cameron about his plans to play a leading role in the Brexit referendum campaign.

    In an interview for his Political Currency podcast George Osborne, the former chancellor, said Gove had told Cameron in the Downing Street plan that he would “not play a prominent role in the campaign”. “Did you deceive David?” Osborne asked. “He certainly felt betrayed.”

    Gove, who is now the levelling up secretary, said that while he did not believe he had deceived Cameron he ended up “going further than you’d imagine or anticipated at the beginning of the campaign”, adding: “I didn’t want to take part in the debates, the TV shows that I ultimately took part in or play a prominent role.”

    However, he said that during the campaign he was urged by Dominic Cummings, who oversaw the Vote Leave campaign, and others to take a more prominent role with the argument: “If you don’t do this, they’ll have Farage on.” He said he was told that he would let people down if he failed to do so. “I didn’t believe I deceived, but as I mentioned, I do think that I could have been clearer earlier.

    “And I think that was an example of on the one hand, cowardice on my part, moral cowardice … on the other hand, a recognition that perhaps there’s this feeling in politics, perhaps something will turn up, perhaps this moment won’t come when we have to make that decision,” he said. “But I think David entirely fairly, should have expected me to have been more upfront earlier.”


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/michael-gove-brexit-vote-george-osborne-david-cameron-vgpvzcfnh

    Someone has started realising what the first line in their obituary is going to be.
    'Duplicitous snake?' If I'm writing it, that would be much the politest thing I'd say.
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 91,897

    kinabalu said:

    Gordon Brown made a speech when he introduced the 2010 Labour manifesto.

    Everything he said came to pass.

    Whatever you think about him, we'd have been better in every conceivable way had he remained in charge.

    The Gordon Brown that unleashed the forces of hell on his own Chancellor for speaking the truth?

    The Gordon Brown who hired people who smeared a grieving David Cameron?

    That Gordon Brown?
    Giant of a man though. Think everyone agrees on that.
    Nope.

    Although perhaps I am being harsh about the man who abolished boom & bust and saved the world.
    Your man David gave us Brexit.
    He gave the public a choice. He opened a door and told us not to go through it. I get lots of people regard doing that as a mistake, but as someone who did vote to go through that door I don't feel I can fairly blame him for that when I should have listened to him about it.

    I don't regard Brown in any particular ill way, I remember thinking he did not come across as badly as his campaign team obviously thought he did, given their panicky overreactions to his less polished manner.
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 91,897
    ydoethur said:

    Michael Gove confirms he is a duplicitous snake.

    Michael Gove has admitted that he showed “moral cowardice” by failing to be upfront with David Cameron about his plans to play a leading role in the Brexit referendum campaign.

    In an interview for his Political Currency podcast George Osborne, the former chancellor, said Gove had told Cameron in the Downing Street plan that he would “not play a prominent role in the campaign”. “Did you deceive David?” Osborne asked. “He certainly felt betrayed.”

    Gove, who is now the levelling up secretary, said that while he did not believe he had deceived Cameron he ended up “going further than you’d imagine or anticipated at the beginning of the campaign”, adding: “I didn’t want to take part in the debates, the TV shows that I ultimately took part in or play a prominent role.”

    However, he said that during the campaign he was urged by Dominic Cummings, who oversaw the Vote Leave campaign, and others to take a more prominent role with the argument: “If you don’t do this, they’ll have Farage on.” He said he was told that he would let people down if he failed to do so. “I didn’t believe I deceived, but as I mentioned, I do think that I could have been clearer earlier.

    “And I think that was an example of on the one hand, cowardice on my part, moral cowardice … on the other hand, a recognition that perhaps there’s this feeling in politics, perhaps something will turn up, perhaps this moment won’t come when we have to make that decision,” he said. “But I think David entirely fairly, should have expected me to have been more upfront earlier.”


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/michael-gove-brexit-vote-george-osborne-david-cameron-vgpvzcfnh

    Someone has started realising what the first line in their obituary is going to be.
    'Duplicitous snake?' If I'm writing it, that would be much the politest thing I'd say.
    If he puts duplicitous snake as his autobiography title that would be admirably bold.
  • Options

    kinabalu said:

    Gordon Brown made a speech when he introduced the 2010 Labour manifesto.

    Everything he said came to pass.

    Whatever you think about him, we'd have been better in every conceivable way had he remained in charge.

    The Gordon Brown that unleashed the forces of hell on his own Chancellor for speaking the truth?

    The Gordon Brown who hired people who smeared a grieving David Cameron?

    That Gordon Brown?
    Giant of a man though. Think everyone agrees on that.
    Nope.

    Although perhaps I am being harsh about the man who abolished boom & bust and saved the world.
    Your man David gave us Brexit.
    The will of the people, Brexit could have been easily avoided if your boys Brown and Blair had actually given us a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty as they promised.
    David could have avoided Brexit altogether if he had any balls.
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,728

    kinabalu said:

    Flawed but formidable then.

    He was a good chancellor and a poor PM. And a thoroughly decent chap.

    Still much better than Johnson, Truss and Sunak.
    There's only 60 million Britons that clear that fairly low bar. Most of the rest are children or mad as a box of frogs.
  • Options
    OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 32,027

    Sunak's already got his script ready for the GE debates with Starmer, on an infinite loop:

    1. We are focused on the people's priorities.
    2. Stop the Boats.
    3. Labour are just going to take us back to Square One.
    4. Jeremy Corbyn.
    5. Is my helicopter ready?
    6. Back to 1.

    The problem with the "back to square one" argument being that things are generally so broken and bloody awful now square one sounds like a distant demi paradise - can we have a bit of that now please...

    It'll be a social media election, lots of basically lying videos (eg. of the London is feral kind as of late) and meme's. Can't see it working. The Tories are now basically toxic with the general public.
    I’ve a couple of very nasty ones pop up on my Facebook page; Starmer and Saville for example.
    Not seen a similar one about the Tories yet; perhaps Labour etc are letting the Tory record speak for itself!
    Have they persuaded you yet . . . that CUP24 is a pack of VERY-desperate, Trump-loving bottom feeders?
    I don’t need persuading!
  • Options
    As to "he saved the world". That is what Barack Obama said.
  • Options
    Foxy said:

    kinabalu said:

    Flawed but formidable then.

    He was a good chancellor and a poor PM. And a thoroughly decent chap.

    Still much better than Johnson, Truss and Sunak.
    There's only 60 million Britons that clear that fairly low bar. Most of the rest are children or mad as a box of frogs.
    I am planning to stand soon. Horses for all courses.
  • Options
    No_Offence_AlanNo_Offence_Alan Posts: 3,842
    Foxy said:

    kinabalu said:

    Gordon Brown made a speech when he introduced the 2010 Labour manifesto.

    Everything he said came to pass.

    Whatever you think about him, we'd have been better in every conceivable way had he remained in charge.

    The Gordon Brown that unleashed the forces of hell on his own Chancellor for speaking the truth?

    The Gordon Brown who hired people who smeared a grieving David Cameron?

    That Gordon Brown?
    Giant of a man though. Think everyone agrees on that.
    Not me.

    He is a large part for why I voted Conservative in 2010. He was a very poor PM, and only marginally better as Chancellor.
    He wasn't that great a chancellor either.
    He destroyed productivity in this country by increasing the tax on pension funds, and then regulating them so they had to prioritise "investing" in government bonds and in property.
  • Options
    Of course, the greatest PM is Tony Blair. I do wish he would come back.
  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 114,526
    ydoethur said:

    Michael Gove confirms he is a duplicitous snake.

    Michael Gove has admitted that he showed “moral cowardice” by failing to be upfront with David Cameron about his plans to play a leading role in the Brexit referendum campaign.

    In an interview for his Political Currency podcast George Osborne, the former chancellor, said Gove had told Cameron in the Downing Street plan that he would “not play a prominent role in the campaign”. “Did you deceive David?” Osborne asked. “He certainly felt betrayed.”

    Gove, who is now the levelling up secretary, said that while he did not believe he had deceived Cameron he ended up “going further than you’d imagine or anticipated at the beginning of the campaign”, adding: “I didn’t want to take part in the debates, the TV shows that I ultimately took part in or play a prominent role.”

    However, he said that during the campaign he was urged by Dominic Cummings, who oversaw the Vote Leave campaign, and others to take a more prominent role with the argument: “If you don’t do this, they’ll have Farage on.” He said he was told that he would let people down if he failed to do so. “I didn’t believe I deceived, but as I mentioned, I do think that I could have been clearer earlier.

    “And I think that was an example of on the one hand, cowardice on my part, moral cowardice … on the other hand, a recognition that perhaps there’s this feeling in politics, perhaps something will turn up, perhaps this moment won’t come when we have to make that decision,” he said. “But I think David entirely fairly, should have expected me to have been more upfront earlier.”


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/michael-gove-brexit-vote-george-osborne-david-cameron-vgpvzcfnh

    Someone has started realising what the first line in their obituary is going to be.
    'Duplicitous snake?' If I'm writing it, that would be much the politest thing I'd say.
    I was being polite too.

    I might called him an utter [moderated], a piece of [redacted] and a [censored] Max Verstappen.

    David Cameron missed a trick by not appointing me as his consigliere during the referendum, I would have dealt with Gove.
  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 114,526

    Of course, the greatest PM is Tony Blair. I do wish he would come back.

    Yet you get outraged by the deaths in Gaza yet defend the man responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths in Iraq.
  • Options
    AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,758

    Of course, the greatest PM is Tony Blair. I do wish he would come back.

    43 million Iraqis disagree
  • Options
    AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,758

    kinabalu said:

    Gordon Brown made a speech when he introduced the 2010 Labour manifesto.

    Everything he said came to pass.

    Whatever you think about him, we'd have been better in every conceivable way had he remained in charge.

    The Gordon Brown that unleashed the forces of hell on his own Chancellor for speaking the truth?

    The Gordon Brown who hired people who smeared a grieving David Cameron?

    That Gordon Brown?
    Giant of a man though. Think everyone agrees on that.
    Nope.

    Although perhaps I am being harsh about the man who abolished boom & bust and saved the world.
    Your man David gave us Brexit.
    The will of the people, Brexit could have been easily avoided if your boys Brown and Blair had actually given us a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty as they promised.
    Quite

    And they would have won it.
  • Options
    Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 49,362

    As to "he saved the world". That is what Barack Obama said.

    "Obama Beach!"
This discussion has been closed.