Erm...if you read it carefully, that is not backing for the "Rwanda Scheme" as it operates. The poll shows 55% support for asylum seekers being "removed to their home country or to a safe country, such as Rwanda". "Such as Rwanda" is doing a lot of work there
Well, a policy of removal is supported 55 to 22. I think we can assume given that Rwanda is specifically named that those polled are not opposed to the policy by the majority as given. There is a majority in favour of removal. Starmer today has not addressed that. As such, risky for him, but would want to see polling on 'flights versus Starmers plan' to see if it shifts the dial
99% of people won't have the first clue what Starmer's plan is. And it doesn't matter what it is - the average person doesn't follow that sort of detail.
In contrast, if a plane actually takes off to Rwanda on TV that is one of the few things that will cut through with the public.
Now my own view is it's still pretty unlikely a plane will take off to Rwanda pre General Election - because some Court somewhere will stop it or Civil Servants will all refuse to process people or whatever.
But at the same time, this does feel high risk for Starmer. Because if the unlikely event of a plane going were to happen that will cut through with the public. And if Starmer has said he will stop flights that would then be seriously damaging for him.
What are you talking about?
Starmer is going to use MI5 to stop them. *MI5*. And special super anti-terrorist powers.
Sir Harry Pearce KBE will no doubt watch things regularly whilst Tom Quinn mopes about Kent and the Pas de Calais looking intensely purposeful. A few extra Union Jacks will be flown about too for good measure.
It will turn the tide.
Natalie will sort it out 👍
I'm a bit late to the Natalie Elphicke party, having been busy this week, but it does seem to me a definite but not fatal Starmer mistake. The Elphicke phenomenon in every respect represents exactly why a couple of million normally Tory voters have defected to Labour. Starmer should have said 'I am pleased she has left the Tories, but she has a long road to travel before she could be a Labour MP'.'
I'm starting to wonder if Starmer is Labour's Sunak, a bright administrator with a tin ear for politics.
He is a faintly plausible 'not this lot' grey mist, as far as I'm concerned. I have the choice between Labour or the SNP come the election - and I'm not sure I can muster the enthusiasm to apply for the right voter ID to pick between them.
Revealed: How the Tories blew the London mayoral election ... Tory party grandees and activists have admitted that a “negative” campaign, the lack of a “knockout” candidate and “ruthless” Labour targeting of Lib-Dem and Green voters made it impossible for Ms Hall to win. Other reasons included:-
The lack of a positive message. Infighting among candidates vying for the Tory mayoral nomination. A lack of campaign funds for Ms Hall and a “late” manifesto. Amateur “party apparatchiks” put in charge of the shortlisting of candidates. The failure to include Tory MP Paul Scully on the shortlist. The decision not to restart the search for a mayoral candidate. Making the Ulez central to Ms Hall’s campaign. Ms Hall being selected despite some MPs believing she was not good enough.
I wonder who is the confidential source for the pivotal importance of Tory MP Paul Scully?
Did Susan Hall not poll better in London than the Tories do in the country?
On a like-for-like basis, which would be mayoralties and PCCs, I think she polled below or close to average.
One example - in the Mayoral contest, Hall won the Ealing & Hillingdon count by 2000 but in the GLA Constituency election on the same boundaries, Labour won by 5000.
Another example - in the Bexley & Bronley boroughs, Hall won the Mayoral contest by 63,000 but the Conservative candidate won the GLA seat by only 40,000. Here's a clue - the Conservative vote for the GLA election was 20,000 lower than for the Mayoral contest - the Reform vote was 18,000 higher.
Final example - Hall won the Mayoral contest in Brent & Harrow by 8,000 - Labour won the GLA Constituency contest by 8,000. The Conservative vote was 11,000 higher for the Mayoral contest than for the GLA contest, the Labour vote was 5,000 higher,.
You can look at the Mayoral contest numbers, you can look at the GLA Constituency election numbers - they will tell two very different stories of how London voted on May 2nd.
Perfect! This is exactly the kind of comparison that is needed. If I had to guess - I would say that London Conservative suburbs responded well to a right-wing candidate and to the higher salience of the mayoral election where you can beat Khan instead of a local Labour type. Without these factors it looks like some of them went Reform. Now, this might not generalise to the whole country - perhaps outer London Tories are more right-wing than in the rest of the country. But it gives us a good guess of an answer.
Eurovision betting has seen a mild swing back. Croatia is again odds-on, and Israel back to 7/2 (still shorter than they started the day).
It would be wonderful is Israel win and then host the show in Gaza next year so all the Palestinian/Eurovision lovers can get a taste of the intolerance they are supporting. They love the usual Eurovision demographic in Gaza.
Indeed. Killing 35,000 Palestinians is pretty intolerant.
How many Hamas terrorists/rapists/murderers do you think it would be acceptable for Israel to kill?
And how many of their captive, innocent civilians do you think would be acceptable collateral in that context?
Or do you really believe that Israel should only go for about a thousand of them, in order to keep Sunal Jazeera's barchart roughly equal?
Even the US State Department believes the Hamas figures for dead and wounded are an UNDERestimate, due to bodies lying under the rubble produced by Israeli bombs and shells.
You haven't answered any of my questions
How many Hamas rapist murderers dead would be too many, in your view?
You forget that 1,000 of the Hamas Terrorists were actually killed by the IDF on 7/10 itself.
I didn't forget that
You just don't want to say how many Hamas rapists and murderers you'd want to save in that hypothetical situation
Because you think Israel killed enough of them before October 7th, according to your barchart
You think that Hamas's actions were perfectly proportionate, given the Israelis' previous brutality towards them
Or..
If you don't, answer the question
How many Hamas rapists and murderers is it acceptable for Israel to kill?
How many innocent Palestinians do you want Israel to kill?
Why do other arab countries not take refugees? Simple answer is to many palestinians are extremists and they worry about having them in their own country. Yes there are innocent palestinians....I suspect not as many as you think
They took in the Palestinians where forced out of their country at creation of Israel in 1947. That led to the destabilisation of both Lebanon and Jordan with tragic consequences, particularly in the former case.
In any event the Arab world is not homogeneous. Linguistically, there are over 30 different varieties of spoken Arabic not all of which are mutually intelligible. Palestinians speak Levantine Arabic which is spoken in Lebanon and Jordan (see above). One can draw an analogy between Portuguese, Spanish and Italian - all have their roots in Latin, and for many years written Latin was how elites communicated, but speakers do not automatically understand one another. Similar for vernacular Arabic and liturgical, written, Arabic, which is to the Arab world what Latin used to be in Europe.
So when people say why can’t the other Arab countries take them in you’re assuming that groups as distinct as different countries in Europe should have free movement. Which, given those voices are often opposed free movement across this continent, is a tad ironic.
Ukranians speak a different language to most european countries....hasn't stopped them taking in refugees from the war
So why don’t we take in Palestinian refugees as well as Ukrainian ones them?
Because we don't want to take extremists in?
So we only want centrist refugees? Whilst good to know, I'm not entirely sure how that would work in practice.
Eurovision betting has seen a mild swing back. Croatia is again odds-on, and Israel back to 7/2 (still shorter than they started the day).
It would be wonderful is Israel win and then host the show in Gaza next year so all the Palestinian/Eurovision lovers can get a taste of the intolerance they are supporting. They love the usual Eurovision demographic in Gaza.
Indeed. Killing 35,000 Palestinians is pretty intolerant.
How many Hamas terrorists/rapists/murderers do you think it would be acceptable for Israel to kill?
And how many of their captive, innocent civilians do you think would be acceptable collateral in that context?
Or do you really believe that Israel should only go for about a thousand of them, in order to keep Sunal Jazeera's barchart roughly equal?
Even the US State Department believes the Hamas figures for dead and wounded are an UNDERestimate, due to bodies lying under the rubble produced by Israeli bombs and shells.
You haven't answered any of my questions
How many Hamas rapist murderers dead would be too many, in your view?
You forget that 1,000 of the Hamas Terrorists were actually killed by the IDF on 7/10 itself.
I didn't forget that
You just don't want to say how many Hamas rapists and murderers you'd want to save in that hypothetical situation
Because you think Israel killed enough of them before October 7th, according to your barchart
You think that Hamas's actions were perfectly proportionate, given the Israelis' previous brutality towards them
Or..
If you don't, answer the question
How many Hamas rapists and murderers is it acceptable for Israel to kill?
How many innocent Palestinians do you want Israel to kill?
Why do other arab countries not take refugees? Simple answer is to many palestinians are extremists and they worry about having them in their own country. Yes there are innocent palestinians....I suspect not as many as you think
Not one arab country has come forward and said they would accept one palestinian , they shut all the gates and barricaded them.
What many seem to neglect to mention is back in 2005 israel was helping rebuild the port in gaza....a route to making palestine a go....those innocent palestinians responded by electing hamas
“Making Palestine a go”. Very generous of them. However Palestine was “a go” long before it was decided that Israel should take up most of its territory.
There was never a country called Palestine for a start
Yes there was, it was a League of Nations Mandate under our formal control from 1923 to 1948.
Eurovision betting has seen a mild swing back. Croatia is again odds-on, and Israel back to 7/2 (still shorter than they started the day).
It would be wonderful is Israel win and then host the show in Gaza next year so all the Palestinian/Eurovision lovers can get a taste of the intolerance they are supporting. They love the usual Eurovision demographic in Gaza.
Indeed. Killing 35,000 Palestinians is pretty intolerant.
How many Hamas terrorists/rapists/murderers do you think it would be acceptable for Israel to kill?
And how many of their captive, innocent civilians do you think would be acceptable collateral in that context?
Or do you really believe that Israel should only go for about a thousand of them, in order to keep Sunal Jazeera's barchart roughly equal?
Even the US State Department believes the Hamas figures for dead and wounded are an UNDERestimate, due to bodies lying under the rubble produced by Israeli bombs and shells.
You haven't answered any of my questions
How many Hamas rapist murderers dead would be too many, in your view?
You forget that 1,000 of the Hamas Terrorists were actually killed by the IDF on 7/10 itself.
I didn't forget that
You just don't want to say how many Hamas rapists and murderers you'd want to save in that hypothetical situation
Because you think Israel killed enough of them before October 7th, according to your barchart
You think that Hamas's actions were perfectly proportionate, given the Israelis' previous brutality towards them
Or..
If you don't, answer the question
How many Hamas rapists and murderers is it acceptable for Israel to kill?
How many innocent Palestinians do you want Israel to kill?
Why do other arab countries not take refugees? Simple answer is to many palestinians are extremists and they worry about having them in their own country. Yes there are innocent palestinians....I suspect not as many as you think
They took in the Palestinians where forced out of their country at creation of Israel in 1947. That led to the destabilisation of both Lebanon and Jordan with tragic consequences, particularly in the former case.
In any event the Arab world is not homogeneous. Linguistically, there are over 30 different varieties of spoken Arabic not all of which are mutually intelligible. Palestinians speak Levantine Arabic which is spoken in Lebanon and Jordan (see above). One can draw an analogy between Portuguese, Spanish and Italian - all have their roots in Latin, and for many years written Latin was how elites communicated, but speakers do not automatically understand one another. Similar for vernacular Arabic and liturgical, written, Arabic, which is to the Arab world what Latin used to be in Europe.
So when people say why can’t the other Arab countries take them in you’re assuming that groups as distinct as different countries in Europe should have free movement. Which, given those voices are often opposed free movement across this continent, is a tad ironic.
Ukranians speak a different language to most european countries....hasn't stopped them taking in refugees from the war
So why don’t we take in Palestinian refugees as well as Ukrainian ones them?
Because we don't want to take extremists in?
If you’re worried about “extremists” perhaps we could just take the kids.
Eurovision betting has seen a mild swing back. Croatia is again odds-on, and Israel back to 7/2 (still shorter than they started the day).
It would be wonderful is Israel win and then host the show in Gaza next year so all the Palestinian/Eurovision lovers can get a taste of the intolerance they are supporting. They love the usual Eurovision demographic in Gaza.
Indeed. Killing 35,000 Palestinians is pretty intolerant.
How many Hamas terrorists/rapists/murderers do you think it would be acceptable for Israel to kill?
And how many of their captive, innocent civilians do you think would be acceptable collateral in that context?
Or do you really believe that Israel should only go for about a thousand of them, in order to keep Sunal Jazeera's barchart roughly equal?
Even the US State Department believes the Hamas figures for dead and wounded are an UNDERestimate, due to bodies lying under the rubble produced by Israeli bombs and shells.
You haven't answered any of my questions
How many Hamas rapist murderers dead would be too many, in your view?
You forget that 1,000 of the Hamas Terrorists were actually killed by the IDF on 7/10 itself.
I didn't forget that
You just don't want to say how many Hamas rapists and murderers you'd want to save in that hypothetical situation
Because you think Israel killed enough of them before October 7th, according to your barchart
You think that Hamas's actions were perfectly proportionate, given the Israelis' previous brutality towards them
Or..
If you don't, answer the question
How many Hamas rapists and murderers is it acceptable for Israel to kill?
How many innocent Palestinians do you want Israel to kill?
Why do other arab countries not take refugees? Simple answer is to many palestinians are extremists and they worry about having them in their own country. Yes there are innocent palestinians....I suspect not as many as you think
Not one arab country has come forward and said they would accept one palestinian , they shut all the gates and barricaded them.
What many seem to neglect to mention is back in 2005 israel was helping rebuild the port in gaza....a route to making palestine a go....those innocent palestinians responded by electing hamas
“Making Palestine a go”. Very generous of them. However Palestine was “a go” long before it was decided that Israel should take up most of its territory.
There was never a country called palestine for a start and no dont deny it was wrong the west just arbitrarily allocating land to a jewish state.....however there have been times when there could have been a peace forged and everytime its been palestine leaders fucking it over from yasser to electing hamas
Okayyy... There was no Palestine, so there can't be any Palestinians either, the identity was created out of pure wickedness, and the so-called "Palestinians" aren't like the Jews who've been rightful owners of the land for 3000 years. Except that the kingdom of David and Solomon probably didn't exist, at least not on the physical plane, but let's not allow facts to intrude.
Do you have any clue why Hamas was elected? Clue: take a look at the apartheid wall. And the way you talk about Israel stooping to help "good" Palestinians out of the kindness of their hearts makes me want to vomit.
Jewish forces (I can't call them "Israeli" because Israel hadn't been created yet) poisoned the water in Acre in April 1948, causing a fucking typhoid epidemic. Right now, look at the huge concentrations of terrorised populations building up in southern Gaza, with all supplies having been cut off since Tuesday. The fascists who dare so disgustingly hypocritically to keep referring to genocide that happened in Europe in the early 1940s are making it ever clearer what their plans are - see e.g. the 40000 12-man tents. Today their tanks have taken the main road that divided western and eastern Rafah.
Libya has joined the South African case against Israel for genocide at the ICJ. Colombia joined it before. Ireland was going to join it...but then Varadkar unexpectedly resigned, and since then for some reason they haven't joined it. Most Arab governments don't give a shit about the Palestinians - that's one thing you are right about. Libya now clearly being an honourable exception.
Only in Vegas. While having breakfast we witness Elvis on mobility scooter meeting two showgirls (that is being polite) and having a chat.
My first thoughts if I spoke to them would be along the lines of does your mother know you dress like this and what made you think that tattoo was a good idea?
And this is supposed to make you look good?
It is a good job I didn't post my third thought as otherwise @megasaur would have had kittens because it was along the lines of g strings and the need for dieting.
Hole, dig.
Similarly. Prat. Prude. Someone who doesn't understand a joke when he sees one. As I said get a life.
If you don't I understand the difference between a joke and real life you are really sad.
Looking forward to some more harmless fun from you about all the sambos and darkies out there. You gotta av a larf innit.
@Casino_Royale what should I do? You are right in what you said but how do I deal with this guy!
Ignore him?
You don't need to have the last word. Just the best word.
Sure. And are you happy with the contempt for young women evidenced here? Specifically, how happy would you be with an elderly foreigner fantasizing about asking your daughter (if you have one) about their mother and/or their skin?
I did none of those things and never would. It was a harmless joke. I certainly wasn't famtizing.
I might also add it was you that jumped to the conclusion they were prostitutes, which they weren't which I think says it all that you interpreted what I said to mean that.
Can I suggest you read some of my past post rather than keeping this nonsense up and you will see how spectacularly wrong you are about me re discrimination.vas will regular boosters on here confirm.
I’ll help. These are runic inscriptions. Yes RUNES. But who wrote them and why?
If you’re into history it’s a fabulously surprising answer
Here’s another one. There are several. Nullifico googlissimi!
THat's much clearer - I did wonder about runes but thought it's some prat called Hurrell or Hurren.
They'll be Danes or Orcadians en route to the Holy Land, and doing a bit if sightseeing/allying/plundering en route. Wonder if it's the same lot as in the Orkneyinga Saga, which is partly about just such an adventure holiday? It's a long time since I read i t, so no idea if the places match up. But you won't let me google.
Close but no cigarillo
The answer surprised me completely. 7th century
No googling it ruins the fun
Ok here’s a big clue. The first one looks less obviously runic - as you noticed. That’s because it incorporates Roman lettering styles albeit it is in runes… oooooh
Too early for the Norse. Visigoths, then?
Very good guesses but no
Incredibly - to me - these five runic inscriptions are five Anglo Saxons from England in the 7th century. Leofwin, Herraed, Hereberehct, etc. I wasn’t aware Anglo Saxons ever used runes? Apparently they did: it is thought these five men were Anglo Saxon churchmen working - at least temporarily - in the shrine. Some had training in Latin as well, it is thought, hence the Romaniaed runes
The 7th century!!! England would still have been partly pagan back then. And these men would have called themselves… what? Jutes? Saxons? Kentish?
Anglo Saxon runes are available free at Ruthwell (I was there a fortnight ago) on the Scottish side of the Solway just beyond Annan. This astonishing cross has not only magnificent sculptures but also a variant text in Runic script of lines 39-64 of the Dream of the Rood, one of the greatest of the Anglo Saxon poems (I read English so long ago that we had to study it in the original).
Less noomy than its sister cross at Bewcastle, but both are unmissable.
Yes Anglo Saxons used runes.
I did medieval history A Level with an emphasis on England from 400-1066 so I don’t know why I forgot that Anglo Saxons used runes. I’ve always wanted to see those crosses!
But somehow I forgot. And yet today I was reminded in - of all places - a 1500 year old Christian shrine in southern Italy. I love travel
And now peace; perfect peace. And a glass of primitivo
Wine quiz, but I’m sure you already know the answer.
What popular grape variety was thought for decades to be unique to a small area of the New World but actually turns out to be Primitivo?
I know that Zinfandel is actually Primitivo, but aren’t aware that it was ever thought to be unique to the New World.
The vines that actually are unique to the New World - which are actually a different grape genus from the one that makes all European wines - make disgusting wine, under such names as Norton and Concord, and were turned to by the early settlers when they failed to get European grape varieties to grow. If you were desperate for wine, you might settle for them, but they usually taste most peculiar indeed.
Interestingly, Primitivo/Zinfandel produced tons of cheap red plonk for the gold rush diggers, but afterwards was mostly forgotten about in the US. It was by accident that during the 1970s a wine maker’s fermentation went wrong, but he thought he might be able to sell the light pale wine he ended up with, and so the ‘White Zinfandel’ craze swept across the US, mirroring the craze for Mateus Rose in Europe, filling the same spot of bringing non-wine drinkers to a drink that could, just about, be considered as wine. That rescued the grape from obscurity and in later decades other US winemakers set about making serious red wines from it, as they’ve always been doing in the part of Italy where Leon is.
I find most “serious” primitivos too dark and dense. It is highly fashionable now but it’s not really for me. It also doesn’t especially suit the Mezzogiorno climate. Unless you are up in the gargano hills (as I am)
I’m also fairly immune to the charms of Zinfandel, for that matter
Of the classics I like a strong fruity Aussie Shiraz, one of the new argie malbecs, or a great Rhone valley blend
There speaks a drinker who knocks back a bottle without food.
The Italians around you know that wine is to be enjoyed with a meal, and the Italian styles of wine are almost always too acidic to drink when not eating.
A bottle is only for apperitifs.
There’s only one p in aperitifs. Just saying.
I’d prefer no p in my aperitifs thank you very much. Careful in those Scottish pubs, mind..
Eurovision betting has seen a mild swing back. Croatia is again odds-on, and Israel back to 7/2 (still shorter than they started the day).
It would be wonderful is Israel win and then host the show in Gaza next year so all the Palestinian/Eurovision lovers can get a taste of the intolerance they are supporting. They love the usual Eurovision demographic in Gaza.
Indeed. Killing 35,000 Palestinians is pretty intolerant.
How many Hamas terrorists/rapists/murderers do you think it would be acceptable for Israel to kill?
And how many of their captive, innocent civilians do you think would be acceptable collateral in that context?
Or do you really believe that Israel should only go for about a thousand of them, in order to keep Sunal Jazeera's barchart roughly equal?
Even the US State Department believes the Hamas figures for dead and wounded are an UNDERestimate, due to bodies lying under the rubble produced by Israeli bombs and shells.
You haven't answered any of my questions
How many Hamas rapist murderers dead would be too many, in your view?
You forget that 1,000 of the Hamas Terrorists were actually killed by the IDF on 7/10 itself.
I didn't forget that
You just don't want to say how many Hamas rapists and murderers you'd want to save in that hypothetical situation
Because you think Israel killed enough of them before October 7th, according to your barchart
You think that Hamas's actions were perfectly proportionate, given the Israelis' previous brutality towards them
Or..
If you don't, answer the question
How many Hamas rapists and murderers is it acceptable for Israel to kill?
How many innocent Palestinians do you want Israel to kill?
Why do other arab countries not take refugees? Simple answer is to many palestinians are extremists and they worry about having them in their own country. Yes there are innocent palestinians....I suspect not as many as you think
Not one arab country has come forward and said they would accept one palestinian , they shut all the gates and barricaded them.
What many seem to neglect to mention is back in 2005 israel was helping rebuild the port in gaza....a route to making palestine a go....those innocent palestinians responded by electing hamas
These selective histories don't really do any good. The way you put it, you make it seem like the main interaction with Israel up til that point was that Israel helped rebuild a port. I mean... you know there was a lot of OTHER stuff happening, right?
It doesn't fool anyone, and it really doesn't help in any way, to pretend that this conflict is simple or that horrible actions come from nothing. Anyone who tried to paint a picture of one side being mere victims until they were set upon by the savages on the other side is just stupid and indulgent.
Do you deny that israel had a plan to rebuild gaza as a port. Simple fact is everytime palestinians get offered anything that leads to a two state solution they spit in the face of people offering it. Fuck them and fuck the middle east the whole world would be just better off without the whole lot of the religious war fuckheads on all sides
No, I just don't think it's the ONLY thing that's relevant here. I know when you're writing with crayons there's not much room on the paper for much of an essay, but at least try to get the idea in your head that this is a little more complicated than "they could have had a port, but instead they must die".
You dont think the port was an olive branch that could lead to peace?
You dont think electing a jew hating death cult was a slap in the face 2 years later?
Is the Israeli Government an Arab-hating death cult?
No... they build PORTS. Haven't you listened to a damn thing?
They were funding the rebuilding of the port of Gaza.....The palestinian response was to elect a group that hates jews.....now if we were funding the rebuilding of germany after the second world war and they elected hitler2....you dont think that might be a slap in the face and why the fuck are we helping them?
Not sure the Tories could have saved Halls campaign . She was clueless and made some unfortunate comments , she also was a Trump and Brexit supporter , not exactly a great fit for London . Without ULEZ she would have done even worse .
Eurovision betting has seen a mild swing back. Croatia is again odds-on, and Israel back to 7/2 (still shorter than they started the day).
It would be wonderful is Israel win and then host the show in Gaza next year so all the Palestinian/Eurovision lovers can get a taste of the intolerance they are supporting. They love the usual Eurovision demographic in Gaza.
Indeed. Killing 35,000 Palestinians is pretty intolerant.
How many Hamas terrorists/rapists/murderers do you think it would be acceptable for Israel to kill?
And how many of their captive, innocent civilians do you think would be acceptable collateral in that context?
Or do you really believe that Israel should only go for about a thousand of them, in order to keep Sunal Jazeera's barchart roughly equal?
Even the US State Department believes the Hamas figures for dead and wounded are an UNDERestimate, due to bodies lying under the rubble produced by Israeli bombs and shells.
You haven't answered any of my questions
How many Hamas rapist murderers dead would be too many, in your view?
You forget that 1,000 of the Hamas Terrorists were actually killed by the IDF on 7/10 itself.
I didn't forget that
You just don't want to say how many Hamas rapists and murderers you'd want to save in that hypothetical situation
Because you think Israel killed enough of them before October 7th, according to your barchart
You think that Hamas's actions were perfectly proportionate, given the Israelis' previous brutality towards them
Or..
If you don't, answer the question
How many Hamas rapists and murderers is it acceptable for Israel to kill?
How many innocent Palestinians do you want Israel to kill?
Why do other arab countries not take refugees? Simple answer is to many palestinians are extremists and they worry about having them in their own country. Yes there are innocent palestinians....I suspect not as many as you think
They took in the Palestinians where forced out of their country at creation of Israel in 1947. That led to the destabilisation of both Lebanon and Jordan with tragic consequences, particularly in the former case.
In any event the Arab world is not homogeneous. Linguistically, there are over 30 different varieties of spoken Arabic not all of which are mutually intelligible. Palestinians speak Levantine Arabic which is spoken in Lebanon and Jordan (see above). One can draw an analogy between Portuguese, Spanish and Italian - all have their roots in Latin, and for many years written Latin was how elites communicated, but speakers do not automatically understand one another. Similar for vernacular Arabic and liturgical, written, Arabic, which is to the Arab world what Latin used to be in Europe.
So when people say why can’t the other Arab countries take them in you’re assuming that groups as distinct as different countries in Europe should have free movement. Which, given those voices are often opposed free movement across this continent, is a tad ironic.
Ukranians speak a different language to most european countries....hasn't stopped them taking in refugees from the war
So why don’t we take in Palestinian refugees as well as Ukrainian ones them?
Because we don't want to take extremists in?
If you’re worried about “extremists” perhaps we could just take the kids.
Or we just dig a big hole and throw all christians, muslims and jews down it and fill it in.....would make the world a more pleasant place
Revealed: How the Tories blew the London mayoral election ... Tory party grandees and activists have admitted that a “negative” campaign, the lack of a “knockout” candidate and “ruthless” Labour targeting of Lib-Dem and Green voters made it impossible for Ms Hall to win. Other reasons included:-
The lack of a positive message. Infighting among candidates vying for the Tory mayoral nomination. A lack of campaign funds for Ms Hall and a “late” manifesto. Amateur “party apparatchiks” put in charge of the shortlisting of candidates. The failure to include Tory MP Paul Scully on the shortlist. The decision not to restart the search for a mayoral candidate. Making the Ulez central to Ms Hall’s campaign. Ms Hall being selected despite some MPs believing she was not good enough.
I wonder who is the confidential source for the pivotal importance of Tory MP Paul Scully?
Did Susan Hall not poll better in London than the Tories do in the country?
On a like-for-like basis, which would be mayoralties and PCCs, I think she polled below or close to average.
One example - in the Mayoral contest, Hall won the Ealing & Hillingdon count by 2000 but in the GLA Constituency election on the same boundaries, Labour won by 5000.
Another example - in the Bexley & Bronley boroughs, Hall won the Mayoral contest by 63,000 but the Conservative candidate won the GLA seat by only 40,000. Here's a clue - the Conservative vote for the GLA election was 20,000 lower than for the Mayoral contest - the Reform vote was 18,000 higher.
Final example - Hall won the Mayoral contest in Brent & Harrow by 8,000 - Labour won the GLA Constituency contest by 8,000. The Conservative vote was 11,000 higher for the Mayoral contest than for the GLA contest, the Labour vote was 5,000 higher,.
You can look at the Mayoral contest numbers, you can look at the GLA Constituency election numbers - they will tell two very different stories of how London voted on May 2nd.
There is a role in politics for the feisty oppositionalist. Never going to get anywhere near being in charge, but able to get the odd issue to go their way, and important in keeping the government honest.
For a long time, it was the role of the Liberals at Westminster. More recently, the various Farage parties have done the same. It's an honourable role, and a valuable one if done well. That's true even if you wouldn't want the oppositionalist in actual power in a million years.
For better or worse, that's the niche that Susan Hall fills, and fills well. That means that she had a relatively high floor, probably higher than a more sensible smooth centrist One Nation Tory would have done. She minimised the leakage to Reform, who were the threat to the Conservatives in outermost London. After all, one of the reasons that the Conservative national polling is so bad is Reform being in the mid teens. But it also limits her ceiling- and in a Mayoral election, second place is first loser. 32.7% is still a blooming awful score.
It just occured to me that Sunak, by requiring University bosses to clamp down on pro-Palestinians protests, may be in breach of his own free-speech Czar appointment, whose name I sadly forget. I remember his photo with an open-necked shirt, the sloven. Has anybody thought of bringing a private action against Sunak on those grounds?
Plus, have any of the protestors joined Tobe's Free Speech Union? I'm sure that would help
Eurovision betting has seen a mild swing back. Croatia is again odds-on, and Israel back to 7/2 (still shorter than they started the day).
It would be wonderful is Israel win and then host the show in Gaza next year so all the Palestinian/Eurovision lovers can get a taste of the intolerance they are supporting. They love the usual Eurovision demographic in Gaza.
Indeed. Killing 35,000 Palestinians is pretty intolerant.
How many Hamas terrorists/rapists/murderers do you think it would be acceptable for Israel to kill?
And how many of their captive, innocent civilians do you think would be acceptable collateral in that context?
Or do you really believe that Israel should only go for about a thousand of them, in order to keep Sunal Jazeera's barchart roughly equal?
Even the US State Department believes the Hamas figures for dead and wounded are an UNDERestimate, due to bodies lying under the rubble produced by Israeli bombs and shells.
You haven't answered any of my questions
How many Hamas rapist murderers dead would be too many, in your view?
You forget that 1,000 of the Hamas Terrorists were actually killed by the IDF on 7/10 itself.
I didn't forget that
You just don't want to say how many Hamas rapists and murderers you'd want to save in that hypothetical situation
Because you think Israel killed enough of them before October 7th, according to your barchart
You think that Hamas's actions were perfectly proportionate, given the Israelis' previous brutality towards them
Or..
If you don't, answer the question
How many Hamas rapists and murderers is it acceptable for Israel to kill?
How many innocent Palestinians do you want Israel to kill?
Why do other arab countries not take refugees? Simple answer is to many palestinians are extremists and they worry about having them in their own country. Yes there are innocent palestinians....I suspect not as many as you think
They took in the Palestinians where forced out of their country at creation of Israel in 1947. That led to the destabilisation of both Lebanon and Jordan with tragic consequences, particularly in the former case.
In any event the Arab world is not homogeneous. Linguistically, there are over 30 different varieties of spoken Arabic not all of which are mutually intelligible. Palestinians speak Levantine Arabic which is spoken in Lebanon and Jordan (see above). One can draw an analogy between Portuguese, Spanish and Italian - all have their roots in Latin, and for many years written Latin was how elites communicated, but speakers do not automatically understand one another. Similar for vernacular Arabic and liturgical, written, Arabic, which is to the Arab world what Latin used to be in Europe.
So when people say why can’t the other Arab countries take them in you’re assuming that groups as distinct as different countries in Europe should have free movement. Which, given those voices are often opposed free movement across this continent, is a tad ironic.
Ukranians speak a different language to most european countries....hasn't stopped them taking in refugees from the war
So why don’t we take in Palestinian refugees as well as Ukrainian ones them?
Because we don't want to take extremists in?
If you’re worried about “extremists” perhaps we could just take the kids.
Or we just dig a big hole and throw all christians, muslims and jews down it and fill it in.....would make the world a more pleasant place
Eurovision betting has seen a mild swing back. Croatia is again odds-on, and Israel back to 7/2 (still shorter than they started the day).
It would be wonderful is Israel win and then host the show in Gaza next year so all the Palestinian/Eurovision lovers can get a taste of the intolerance they are supporting. They love the usual Eurovision demographic in Gaza.
Indeed. Killing 35,000 Palestinians is pretty intolerant.
How many Hamas terrorists/rapists/murderers do you think it would be acceptable for Israel to kill?
And how many of their captive, innocent civilians do you think would be acceptable collateral in that context?
Or do you really believe that Israel should only go for about a thousand of them, in order to keep Sunal Jazeera's barchart roughly equal?
Even the US State Department believes the Hamas figures for dead and wounded are an UNDERestimate, due to bodies lying under the rubble produced by Israeli bombs and shells.
You haven't answered any of my questions
How many Hamas rapist murderers dead would be too many, in your view?
You forget that 1,000 of the Hamas Terrorists were actually killed by the IDF on 7/10 itself.
I didn't forget that
You just don't want to say how many Hamas rapists and murderers you'd want to save in that hypothetical situation
Because you think Israel killed enough of them before October 7th, according to your barchart
You think that Hamas's actions were perfectly proportionate, given the Israelis' previous brutality towards them
Or..
If you don't, answer the question
How many Hamas rapists and murderers is it acceptable for Israel to kill?
How many innocent Palestinians do you want Israel to kill?
Why do other arab countries not take refugees? Simple answer is to many palestinians are extremists and they worry about having them in their own country. Yes there are innocent palestinians....I suspect not as many as you think
Not one arab country has come forward and said they would accept one palestinian , they shut all the gates and barricaded them.
What many seem to neglect to mention is back in 2005 israel was helping rebuild the port in gaza....a route to making palestine a go....those innocent palestinians responded by electing hamas
“Making Palestine a go”. Very generous of them. However Palestine was “a go” long before it was decided that Israel should take up most of its territory.
There was never a country called palestine for a start and no dont deny it was wrong the west just arbitrarily allocating land to a jewish state.....however there have been times when there could have been a peace forged and everytime its been palestine leaders fucking it over from yasser to electing hamas
Funny - I thought Yasser shook hands with Rabin and there was a Gaza plus Jericho casino first agreement. And then Rabin got assassinated...and then whaddayaknow, this guy called Netanyahu turns up...and then a few years later the tanks go into Jenin and Ramallah...but you can find this all out for yourself.
Eurovision betting has seen a mild swing back. Croatia is again odds-on, and Israel back to 7/2 (still shorter than they started the day).
It would be wonderful is Israel win and then host the show in Gaza next year so all the Palestinian/Eurovision lovers can get a taste of the intolerance they are supporting. They love the usual Eurovision demographic in Gaza.
Indeed. Killing 35,000 Palestinians is pretty intolerant.
How many Hamas terrorists/rapists/murderers do you think it would be acceptable for Israel to kill?
And how many of their captive, innocent civilians do you think would be acceptable collateral in that context?
Or do you really believe that Israel should only go for about a thousand of them, in order to keep Sunal Jazeera's barchart roughly equal?
Even the US State Department believes the Hamas figures for dead and wounded are an UNDERestimate, due to bodies lying under the rubble produced by Israeli bombs and shells.
You haven't answered any of my questions
How many Hamas rapist murderers dead would be too many, in your view?
You forget that 1,000 of the Hamas Terrorists were actually killed by the IDF on 7/10 itself.
I didn't forget that
You just don't want to say how many Hamas rapists and murderers you'd want to save in that hypothetical situation
Because you think Israel killed enough of them before October 7th, according to your barchart
You think that Hamas's actions were perfectly proportionate, given the Israelis' previous brutality towards them
Or..
If you don't, answer the question
How many Hamas rapists and murderers is it acceptable for Israel to kill?
How many innocent Palestinians do you want Israel to kill?
Why do other arab countries not take refugees? Simple answer is to many palestinians are extremists and they worry about having them in their own country. Yes there are innocent palestinians....I suspect not as many as you think
They took in the Palestinians where forced out of their country at creation of Israel in 1947. That led to the destabilisation of both Lebanon and Jordan with tragic consequences, particularly in the former case.
In any event the Arab world is not homogeneous. Linguistically, there are over 30 different varieties of spoken Arabic not all of which are mutually intelligible. Palestinians speak Levantine Arabic which is spoken in Lebanon and Jordan (see above). One can draw an analogy between Portuguese, Spanish and Italian - all have their roots in Latin, and for many years written Latin was how elites communicated, but speakers do not automatically understand one another. Similar for vernacular Arabic and liturgical, written, Arabic, which is to the Arab world what Latin used to be in Europe.
So when people say why can’t the other Arab countries take them in you’re assuming that groups as distinct as different countries in Europe should have free movement. Which, given those voices are often opposed free movement across this continent, is a tad ironic.
Ukranians speak a different language to most european countries....hasn't stopped them taking in refugees from the war
So why don’t we take in Palestinian refugees as well as Ukrainian ones them?
Because we don't want to take extremists in?
If you’re worried about “extremists” perhaps we could just take the kids.
Or we just dig a big hole and throw all christians, muslims and jews down it and fill it in.....would make the world a more pleasant place
The Nazis made a start on that, didn’t end well.
The nazi's only concentrated on one of the 3.
And while I wasn't making a serious suggestion which I am sure you realised. It does seem to be the people of the book causing most of the worlds problems from evangelical far right christians to extremist jihadi muslims
Only in Vegas. While having breakfast we witness Elvis on mobility scooter meeting two showgirls (that is being polite) and having a chat.
My first thoughts if I spoke to them would be along the lines of does your mother know you dress like this and what made you think that tattoo was a good idea?
And this is supposed to make you look good?
It is a good job I didn't post my third thought as otherwise @megasaur would have had kittens because it was along the lines of g strings and the need for dieting.
Hole, dig.
Similarly. Prat. Prude. Someone who doesn't understand a joke when he sees one. As I said get a life.
If you don't I understand the difference between a joke and real life you are really sad.
Looking forward to some more harmless fun from you about all the sambos and darkies out there. You gotta av a larf innit.
@Casino_Royale what should I do? You are right in what you said but how do I deal with this guy!
Ignore him?
You don't need to have the last word. Just the best word.
Sure. And are you happy with the contempt for young women evidenced here? Specifically, how happy would you be with an elderly foreigner fantasizing about asking your daughter (if you have one) about their mother and/or their skin?
I did none of those things and never would. It was a harmless joke. I certainly wasn't famtizing.
I might also add it was you that jumped to the conclusion they were prostitutes, which they weren't which I think says it all that you interpreted what I said to mean that.
Can I suggest you read some of my past post rather than keeping this nonsense up and you will see how spectacularly wrong you are about me re discrimination.vas will regular boosters on here confirm.
Sure
Please post a picture of yourself and, if you have one, your spouse. Naked. It's just otherwise impossible to assess the ribtiklingosity of your original joke.
Revealed: How the Tories blew the London mayoral election ... Tory party grandees and activists have admitted that a “negative” campaign, the lack of a “knockout” candidate and “ruthless” Labour targeting of Lib-Dem and Green voters made it impossible for Ms Hall to win. Other reasons included:-
The lack of a positive message. Infighting among candidates vying for the Tory mayoral nomination. A lack of campaign funds for Ms Hall and a “late” manifesto. Amateur “party apparatchiks” put in charge of the shortlisting of candidates. The failure to include Tory MP Paul Scully on the shortlist. The decision not to restart the search for a mayoral candidate. Making the Ulez central to Ms Hall’s campaign. Ms Hall being selected despite some MPs believing she was not good enough.
I wonder who is the confidential source for the pivotal importance of Tory MP Paul Scully?
Did Susan Hall not poll better in London than the Tories do in the country?
On a like-for-like basis, which would be mayoralties and PCCs, I think she polled below or close to average.
One example - in the Mayoral contest, Hall won the Ealing & Hillingdon count by 2000 but in the GLA Constituency election on the same boundaries, Labour won by 5000.
Another example - in the Bexley & Bronley boroughs, Hall won the Mayoral contest by 63,000 but the Conservative candidate won the GLA seat by only 40,000. Here's a clue - the Conservative vote for the GLA election was 20,000 lower than for the Mayoral contest - the Reform vote was 18,000 higher.
Final example - Hall won the Mayoral contest in Brent & Harrow by 8,000 - Labour won the GLA Constituency contest by 8,000. The Conservative vote was 11,000 higher for the Mayoral contest than for the GLA contest, the Labour vote was 5,000 higher,.
You can look at the Mayoral contest numbers, you can look at the GLA Constituency election numbers - they will tell two very different stories of how London voted on May 2nd.
Perfect! This is exactly the kind of comparison that is needed. If I had to guess - I would say that London Conservative suburbs responded well to a right-wing candidate and to the higher salience of the mayoral election where you can beat Khan instead of a local Labour type. Without these factors it looks like some of them went Reform. Now, this might not generalise to the whole country - perhaps outer London Tories are more right-wing than in the rest of the country. But it gives us a good guess of an answer.
John Oxley (and if you're not reading him, you should) made the same point recently;
Indeed, the only place where the Tories seemed really to outperform seems as much a symptom of their problems rather than a respite from it. Despite winning comfortably in London, Sadiq Khan’s support was below the Labour average and poor compared with some of the polling. This was largely driven by the Tory vote holding up in outer London. This repeated the trend from the Uxbridge by-election, which saw the Tories do poorly compared to previous years, but not badly enough to lose it.
In some ways this makes sense. The denizens of Outer London are, really, the big winners of the Tory Party tenure. These areas are replete with people who were moderate earners but have grown rich off rising property prices. Often older, pro-Brexit, anti-immigration, and car-enthusiasts, they are on the right side of most of the fights the Tories are picking. The problem is that there simply isn’t enough of them nationally to make an electoral difference. The message may resonate in Havering and Harrow, but it isn’t getting much further.
Erm...if you read it carefully, that is not backing for the "Rwanda Scheme" as it operates. The poll shows 55% support for asylum seekers being "removed to their home country or to a safe country, such as Rwanda". "Such as Rwanda" is doing a lot of work there
Well, a policy of removal is supported 55 to 22. I think we can assume given that Rwanda is specifically named that those polled are not opposed to the policy by the majority as given. There is a majority in favour of removal. Starmer today has not addressed that. As such, risky for him, but would want to see polling on 'flights versus Starmers plan' to see if it shifts the dial
99% of people won't have the first clue what Starmer's plan is. And it doesn't matter what it is - the average person doesn't follow that sort of detail.
In contrast, if a plane actually takes off to Rwanda on TV that is one of the few things that will cut through with the public.
Now my own view is it's still pretty unlikely a plane will take off to Rwanda pre General Election - because some Court somewhere will stop it or Civil Servants will all refuse to process people or whatever.
But at the same time, this does feel high risk for Starmer. Because if the unlikely event of a plane going were to happen that will cut through with the public. And if Starmer has said he will stop flights that would then be seriously damaging for him.
What are you talking about?
Starmer is going to use MI5 to stop them. *MI5*. And special super anti-terrorist powers.
Sir Harry Pearce KBE will no doubt watch things regularly whilst Tom Quinn mopes about Kent and the Pas de Calais looking intensely purposeful. A few extra Union Jacks will be flown about too for good measure.
It will turn the tide.
Natalie will sort it out 👍
I'm a bit late to the Natalie Elphicke party, having been busy this week, but it does seem to me a definite but not fatal Starmer mistake. The Elphicke phenomenon in every respect represents exactly why a couple of million normally Tory voters have defected to Labour. Starmer should have said 'I am pleased she has left the Tories, but she has a long road to travel before she could be a Labour MP'.'
I'm starting to wonder if Starmer is Labour's Sunak, a bright administrator with a tin ear for politics.
Listening to his 'stop the boats' proposals today most of them are currently being undertaken by the government but he has stated publicly that Rwanda will stop on day one of his Premiership, thereby handing the gangs all they need to gain many more asylum seekers to their disgusting business
Whilst Rwanda is not the best policy, there are some early indications it is having some effect and a wise politician would have said that they will review the scheme once in office, rather than raise the prospect of many more crossings this summer
Yes, it’s not just really bad politics it’s stupidly damaging as well
Erm...if you read it carefully, that is not backing for the "Rwanda Scheme" as it operates. The poll shows 55% support for asylum seekers being "removed to their home country or to a safe country, such as Rwanda". "Such as Rwanda" is doing a lot of work there
Well, a policy of removal is supported 55 to 22. I think we can assume given that Rwanda is specifically named that those polled are not opposed to the policy by the majority as given. There is a majority in favour of removal. Starmer today has not addressed that. As such, risky for him, but would want to see polling on 'flights versus Starmers plan' to see if it shifts the dial
99% of people won't have the first clue what Starmer's plan is. And it doesn't matter what it is - the average person doesn't follow that sort of detail.
In contrast, if a plane actually takes off to Rwanda on TV that is one of the few things that will cut through with the public.
Now my own view is it's still pretty unlikely a plane will take off to Rwanda pre General Election - because some Court somewhere will stop it or Civil Servants will all refuse to process people or whatever.
But at the same time, this does feel high risk for Starmer. Because if the unlikely event of a plane going were to happen that will cut through with the public. And if Starmer has said he will stop flights that would then be seriously damaging for him.
What are you talking about?
Starmer is going to use MI5 to stop them. *MI5*. And special super anti-terrorist powers.
Sir Harry Pearce KBE will no doubt watch things regularly whilst Tom Quinn mopes about Kent and the Pas de Calais looking intensely purposeful. A few extra Union Jacks will be flown about too for good measure.
It will turn the tide.
Natalie will sort it out 👍
I'm a bit late to the Natalie Elphicke party, having been busy this week, but it does seem to me a definite but not fatal Starmer mistake. The Elphicke phenomenon in every respect represents exactly why a couple of million normally Tory voters have defected to Labour. Starmer should have said 'I am pleased she has left the Tories, but she has a long road to travel before she could be a Labour MP'.'
I'm starting to wonder if Starmer is Labour's Sunak, a bright administrator with a tin ear for politics.
Listening to his 'stop the boats' proposals today most of them are currently being undertaken by the government but he has stated publicly that Rwanda will stop on day one of his Premiership, thereby handing the gangs all they need to gain many more asylum seekers to their disgusting business
Whilst Rwanda is not the best policy, there are some early indications it is having some effect and a wise politician would have said that they will review the scheme once in office, rather than raise the prospect of many more crossings this summer
He can't sensibly say on this one "we'll review it in office" as he'd be slammed by both sides of the debate for that.
Eurovision betting has seen a mild swing back. Croatia is again odds-on, and Israel back to 7/2 (still shorter than they started the day).
It would be wonderful is Israel win and then host the show in Gaza next year so all the Palestinian/Eurovision lovers can get a taste of the intolerance they are supporting. They love the usual Eurovision demographic in Gaza.
Indeed. Killing 35,000 Palestinians is pretty intolerant.
How many Hamas terrorists/rapists/murderers do you think it would be acceptable for Israel to kill?
And how many of their captive, innocent civilians do you think would be acceptable collateral in that context?
Or do you really believe that Israel should only go for about a thousand of them, in order to keep Sunal Jazeera's barchart roughly equal?
Even the US State Department believes the Hamas figures for dead and wounded are an UNDERestimate, due to bodies lying under the rubble produced by Israeli bombs and shells.
You haven't answered any of my questions
How many Hamas rapist murderers dead would be too many, in your view?
You forget that 1,000 of the Hamas Terrorists were actually killed by the IDF on 7/10 itself.
I didn't forget that
You just don't want to say how many Hamas rapists and murderers you'd want to save in that hypothetical situation
Because you think Israel killed enough of them before October 7th, according to your barchart
You think that Hamas's actions were perfectly proportionate, given the Israelis' previous brutality towards them
Or..
If you don't, answer the question
How many Hamas rapists and murderers is it acceptable for Israel to kill?
How many innocent Palestinians do you want Israel to kill?
Why do other arab countries not take refugees? Simple answer is to many palestinians are extremists and they worry about having them in their own country. Yes there are innocent palestinians....I suspect not as many as you think
They took in the Palestinians where forced out of their country at creation of Israel in 1947. That led to the destabilisation of both Lebanon and Jordan with tragic consequences, particularly in the former case.
In any event the Arab world is not homogeneous. Linguistically, there are over 30 different varieties of spoken Arabic not all of which are mutually intelligible. Palestinians speak Levantine Arabic which is spoken in Lebanon and Jordan (see above). One can draw an analogy between Portuguese, Spanish and Italian - all have their roots in Latin, and for many years written Latin was how elites communicated, but speakers do not automatically understand one another. Similar for vernacular Arabic and liturgical, written, Arabic, which is to the Arab world what Latin used to be in Europe.
So when people say why can’t the other Arab countries take them in you’re assuming that groups as distinct as different countries in Europe should have free movement. Which, given those voices are often opposed free movement across this continent, is a tad ironic.
Ukranians speak a different language to most european countries....hasn't stopped them taking in refugees from the war
So why don’t we take in Palestinian refugees as well as Ukrainian ones them?
Because we don't want to take extremists in?
If you’re worried about “extremists” perhaps we could just take the kids.
Or we just dig a big hole and throw all christians, muslims and jews down it and fill it in.....would make the world a more pleasant place
The Nazis made a start on that, didn’t end well.
The Nazis only concentrated on one of the 3.
Well, they weren't keen on other groups too: Gypsies (Roma), Gays, Jehova's Witnesses, Masons, and Commies.
Thanks for the comments guys. I felt threatened by the guy mainly because he was angry and abusive and very close. So I backed off and he closed in again. And again. At which point I put a hand on his chest and asked him to back off, then took a big step sideways.
Have got the first 30 seconds on doorbell cam. Can't see his face, but he said who he is and i assume its his van passively-aggressively dumped outside. Looks to be a work van so won't be left there forever. Didn't call the police - was happy he had gone and frankly gobsmacked. Didn't think he would hit me, didn't hear any explicit threats against me or my property, he was too crap to make them.
Ironically we get on with the mother and daughter who run the other shop - we repost their stuff, we buy stuff in their shop. It isn't reciprocated but its not hostile.
This will teach me. I posted a 1 line comment on their post on our facebook group. Deadpan, saying "interesting new products range, shall we sell flowers" which is what they do - they're a florist. Who dabble in all kids of other stuff including - the new products they posted about - a load of stationery and kids items identical to what we have. Post was on for perhaps 5 minutes then I deleted it and sent a friendly email which generated a friendly reply.
Me unveiling myself as the ENGLISH [banhammer] LD candidate could be fun!
Horrid situation, sorry this happened to you. I don't think you need me to tell you where you went wrong. Some things just aren't worth saying, especially on social media.
It's worth remembering that you're not truly in competition with this other shop, because, as I understand it, your shop is a lifestyle choice - you're wealthy enough to support your family without it. Their shop is probably their livelihood. Also, their clientele and product range are probably very different to yours. It doesn't strike me as likely that anyone would ignore your shop because they got all their notepads at the Florists.
Not sure the Tories could have saved Halls campaign . She was clueless and made some unfortunate comments , she also was a Trump and Brexit supporter , not exactly a great fit for London . Without ULEZ she would have done even worse .
Her sole useful contribution is to show what the electoral basement looks like for them atm Scully would have got closer, maybe even level, he's fairly able, but he's not en vogue with the current top crop. He can be a bit clumsy with verbosity on occasion.
Erm...if you read it carefully, that is not backing for the "Rwanda Scheme" as it operates. The poll shows 55% support for asylum seekers being "removed to their home country or to a safe country, such as Rwanda". "Such as Rwanda" is doing a lot of work there
Well, a policy of removal is supported 55 to 22. I think we can assume given that Rwanda is specifically named that those polled are not opposed to the policy by the majority as given. There is a majority in favour of removal. Starmer today has not addressed that. As such, risky for him, but would want to see polling on 'flights versus Starmers plan' to see if it shifts the dial
99% of people won't have the first clue what Starmer's plan is. And it doesn't matter what it is - the average person doesn't follow that sort of detail.
In contrast, if a plane actually takes off to Rwanda on TV that is one of the few things that will cut through with the public.
Now my own view is it's still pretty unlikely a plane will take off to Rwanda pre General Election - because some Court somewhere will stop it or Civil Servants will all refuse to process people or whatever.
But at the same time, this does feel high risk for Starmer. Because if the unlikely event of a plane going were to happen that will cut through with the public. And if Starmer has said he will stop flights that would then be seriously damaging for him.
What are you talking about?
Starmer is going to use MI5 to stop them. *MI5*. And special super anti-terrorist powers.
Sir Harry Pearce KBE will no doubt watch things regularly whilst Tom Quinn mopes about Kent and the Pas de Calais looking intensely purposeful. A few extra Union Jacks will be flown about too for good measure.
It will turn the tide.
Natalie will sort it out 👍
I'm a bit late to the Natalie Elphicke party, having been busy this week, but it does seem to me a definite but not fatal Starmer mistake. The Elphicke phenomenon in every respect represents exactly why a couple of million normally Tory voters have defected to Labour. Starmer should have said 'I am pleased she has left the Tories, but she has a long road to travel before she could be a Labour MP'.'
I'm starting to wonder if Starmer is Labour's Sunak, a bright administrator with a tin ear for politics.
Listening to his 'stop the boats' proposals today most of them are currently being undertaken by the government but he has stated publicly that Rwanda will stop on day one of his Premiership, thereby handing the gangs all they need to gain many more asylum seekers to their disgusting business
Whilst Rwanda is not the best policy, there are some early indications it is having some effect and a wise politician would have said that they will review the scheme once in office, rather than raise the prospect of many more crossings this summer
Yes, it’s not just really bad politics it’s stupidly damaging as well
It could be deliberate. The last thing that SKS wants is for Rwanda to dry up the boat crossings.
Eurovision betting has seen a mild swing back. Croatia is again odds-on, and Israel back to 7/2 (still shorter than they started the day).
It would be wonderful is Israel win and then host the show in Gaza next year so all the Palestinian/Eurovision lovers can get a taste of the intolerance they are supporting. They love the usual Eurovision demographic in Gaza.
Indeed. Killing 35,000 Palestinians is pretty intolerant.
How many Hamas terrorists/rapists/murderers do you think it would be acceptable for Israel to kill?
And how many of their captive, innocent civilians do you think would be acceptable collateral in that context?
Or do you really believe that Israel should only go for about a thousand of them, in order to keep Sunal Jazeera's barchart roughly equal?
Even the US State Department believes the Hamas figures for dead and wounded are an UNDERestimate, due to bodies lying under the rubble produced by Israeli bombs and shells.
You haven't answered any of my questions
How many Hamas rapist murderers dead would be too many, in your view?
You forget that 1,000 of the Hamas Terrorists were actually killed by the IDF on 7/10 itself.
I didn't forget that
You just don't want to say how many Hamas rapists and murderers you'd want to save in that hypothetical situation
Because you think Israel killed enough of them before October 7th, according to your barchart
You think that Hamas's actions were perfectly proportionate, given the Israelis' previous brutality towards them
Or..
If you don't, answer the question
How many Hamas rapists and murderers is it acceptable for Israel to kill?
How many innocent Palestinians do you want Israel to kill?
Why do other arab countries not take refugees? Simple answer is to many palestinians are extremists and they worry about having them in their own country. Yes there are innocent palestinians....I suspect not as many as you think
Not one arab country has come forward and said they would accept one palestinian , they shut all the gates and barricaded them.
What many seem to neglect to mention is back in 2005 israel was helping rebuild the port in gaza....a route to making palestine a go....those innocent palestinians responded by electing hamas
These selective histories don't really do any good. The way you put it, you make it seem like the main interaction with Israel up til that point was that Israel helped rebuild a port. I mean... you know there was a lot of OTHER stuff happening, right?
It doesn't fool anyone, and it really doesn't help in any way, to pretend that this conflict is simple or that horrible actions come from nothing. Anyone who tried to paint a picture of one side being mere victims until they were set upon by the savages on the other side is just stupid and indulgent.
Quite.
If you were a civilian born in Southern Israel, and who had been bombarded by rockets from Gaza, and then invaded. If you knew people who had been killed, murdered or raped by Hamas. Well, you'd be pretty fucking pissed. And that would be pretty understandable.
And if you were a Palestinian in the West Bank who had been kicked out of their home by Israeli settlers, if you'd been harassed by Israeli soldiers, and if you could no longer travel to the next village because a road (for Israeli settlers) now bisected it. Well, I think you'd have an equally good reason to be pissed.
This is not Liberal Democracies vs Hitler. Nor is it Russia invading Ukraine. It's two groups of people who both have some pretty good reasons to feel wronged, and neither of whom is in any mind for compromise.
The Rwanda policy move is another unforced error from starmer. He’s making a few now
He could have make said “to my mind the Rwanda plan looks ridiculous - and inhumane - and expensive. A farce. If by some miracle it works of course we will look at it, but I strongly doubt that. Don’t you?” That’s what 90% of the country thinks and he would have left himself space and the door ajar
Thanks for the comments guys. I felt threatened by the guy mainly because he was angry and abusive and very close. So I backed off and he closed in again. And again. At which point I put a hand on his chest and asked him to back off, then took a big step sideways.
Have got the first 30 seconds on doorbell cam. Can't see his face, but he said who he is and i assume its his van passively-aggressively dumped outside. Looks to be a work van so won't be left there forever. Didn't call the police - was happy he had gone and frankly gobsmacked. Didn't think he would hit me, didn't hear any explicit threats against me or my property, he was too crap to make them.
Ironically we get on with the mother and daughter who run the other shop - we repost their stuff, we buy stuff in their shop. It isn't reciprocated but its not hostile.
This will teach me. I posted a 1 line comment on their post on our facebook group. Deadpan, saying "interesting new products range, shall we sell flowers" which is what they do - they're a florist. Who dabble in all kids of other stuff including - the new products they posted about - a load of stationery and kids items identical to what we have. Post was on for perhaps 5 minutes then I deleted it and sent a friendly email which generated a friendly reply.
Me unveiling myself as the ENGLISH [banhammer] LD candidate could be fun!
A thoroughly unpleasant individual but there are those in all communities
Thanks for the comments guys. I felt threatened by the guy mainly because he was angry and abusive and very close. So I backed off and he closed in again. And again. At which point I put a hand on his chest and asked him to back off, then took a big step sideways.
Have got the first 30 seconds on doorbell cam. Can't see his face, but he said who he is and i assume its his van passively-aggressively dumped outside. Looks to be a work van so won't be left there forever. Didn't call the police - was happy he had gone and frankly gobsmacked. Didn't think he would hit me, didn't hear any explicit threats against me or my property, he was too crap to make them.
Ironically we get on with the mother and daughter who run the other shop - we repost their stuff, we buy stuff in their shop. It isn't reciprocated but its not hostile.
This will teach me. I posted a 1 line comment on their post on our facebook group. Deadpan, saying "interesting new products range, shall we sell flowers" which is what they do - they're a florist. Who dabble in all kids of other stuff including - the new products they posted about - a load of stationery and kids items identical to what we have. Post was on for perhaps 5 minutes then I deleted it and sent a friendly email which generated a friendly reply.
Me unveiling myself as the ENGLISH [banhammer] LD candidate could be fun!
Horrid situation, sorry this happened to you. I don't think you need me to tell you where you went wrong. Some things just aren't worth saying, especially on social media.
It's worth remembering that you're not truly in competition with this other shop, because, as I understand it, your shop is a lifestyle choice - you're wealthy enough to support your family without it. Their shop is probably their livelihood. Also, their clientele and product range are probably very different to yours. It doesn't strike me as likely that anyone would ignore your shop because they got all their notepads at the Florists.
Sadly it happens seen the same in cornwall, I can sort of understand the antipathy to second home owners that come down a few weeks a year hollowing out the place, but I have seen it towards people who come down to live full time
Eurovision betting has seen a mild swing back. Croatia is again odds-on, and Israel back to 7/2 (still shorter than they started the day).
It would be wonderful is Israel win and then host the show in Gaza next year so all the Palestinian/Eurovision lovers can get a taste of the intolerance they are supporting. They love the usual Eurovision demographic in Gaza.
Indeed. Killing 35,000 Palestinians is pretty intolerant.
How many Hamas terrorists/rapists/murderers do you think it would be acceptable for Israel to kill?
And how many of their captive, innocent civilians do you think would be acceptable collateral in that context?
Or do you really believe that Israel should only go for about a thousand of them, in order to keep Sunal Jazeera's barchart roughly equal?
Even the US State Department believes the Hamas figures for dead and wounded are an UNDERestimate, due to bodies lying under the rubble produced by Israeli bombs and shells.
You haven't answered any of my questions
How many Hamas rapist murderers dead would be too many, in your view?
You forget that 1,000 of the Hamas Terrorists were actually killed by the IDF on 7/10 itself.
I didn't forget that
You just don't want to say how many Hamas rapists and murderers you'd want to save in that hypothetical situation
Because you think Israel killed enough of them before October 7th, according to your barchart
You think that Hamas's actions were perfectly proportionate, given the Israelis' previous brutality towards them
Or..
If you don't, answer the question
How many Hamas rapists and murderers is it acceptable for Israel to kill?
How many innocent Palestinians do you want Israel to kill?
Why do other arab countries not take refugees? Simple answer is to many palestinians are extremists and they worry about having them in their own country. Yes there are innocent palestinians....I suspect not as many as you think
They took in the Palestinians where forced out of their country at creation of Israel in 1947. That led to the destabilisation of both Lebanon and Jordan with tragic consequences, particularly in the former case.
In any event the Arab world is not homogeneous. Linguistically, there are over 30 different varieties of spoken Arabic not all of which are mutually intelligible. Palestinians speak Levantine Arabic which is spoken in Lebanon and Jordan (see above). One can draw an analogy between Portuguese, Spanish and Italian - all have their roots in Latin, and for many years written Latin was how elites communicated, but speakers do not automatically understand one another. Similar for vernacular Arabic and liturgical, written, Arabic, which is to the Arab world what Latin used to be in Europe.
So when people say why can’t the other Arab countries take them in you’re assuming that groups as distinct as different countries in Europe should have free movement. Which, given those voices are often opposed free movement across this continent, is a tad ironic.
Ukranians speak a different language to most european countries....hasn't stopped them taking in refugees from the war
So why don’t we take in Palestinian refugees as well as Ukrainian ones them?
Because we don't want to take extremists in?
If you’re worried about “extremists” perhaps we could just take the kids.
Or we just dig a big hole and throw all christians, muslims and jews down it and fill it in.....would make the world a more pleasant place
The Nazis made a start on that, didn’t end well.
The Nazis only concentrated on one of the 3.
Well, they weren't keen on other groups too: Gypsies (Roma), Gays, Jehova's Witnesses, Masons, and Commies.
And they weren't fond of people with disabilities or homosexuals either.
Thanks for the comments guys. I felt threatened by the guy mainly because he was angry and abusive and very close. So I backed off and he closed in again. And again. At which point I put a hand on his chest and asked him to back off, then took a big step sideways.
Have got the first 30 seconds on doorbell cam. Can't see his face, but he said who he is and i assume its his van passively-aggressively dumped outside. Looks to be a work van so won't be left there forever. Didn't call the police - was happy he had gone and frankly gobsmacked. Didn't think he would hit me, didn't hear any explicit threats against me or my property, he was too crap to make them.
Ironically we get on with the mother and daughter who run the other shop - we repost their stuff, we buy stuff in their shop. It isn't reciprocated but its not hostile.
This will teach me. I posted a 1 line comment on their post on our facebook group. Deadpan, saying "interesting new products range, shall we sell flowers" which is what they do - they're a florist. Who dabble in all kids of other stuff including - the new products they posted about - a load of stationery and kids items identical to what we have. Post was on for perhaps 5 minutes then I deleted it and sent a friendly email which generated a friendly reply.
Me unveiling myself as the ENGLISH [banhammer] LD candidate could be fun!
Horrid situation, sorry this happened to you. I don't think you need me to tell you where you went wrong. Some things just aren't worth saying, especially on social media.
It's worth remembering that you're not truly in competition with this other shop, because, as I understand it, your shop is a lifestyle choice - you're wealthy enough to support your family without it. Their shop is probably their livelihood. Also, their clientele and product range are probably very different to yours. It doesn't strike me as likely that anyone would ignore your shop because they got all their notepads at the Florists.
Our shop is not a "lifestyle choice". It is a business, and we're working bloody hard to build it. Can subsidise it now. Can't subsidise it indefinitely.
Eurovision betting has seen a mild swing back. Croatia is again odds-on, and Israel back to 7/2 (still shorter than they started the day).
It would be wonderful is Israel win and then host the show in Gaza next year so all the Palestinian/Eurovision lovers can get a taste of the intolerance they are supporting. They love the usual Eurovision demographic in Gaza.
Indeed. Killing 35,000 Palestinians is pretty intolerant.
How many Hamas terrorists/rapists/murderers do you think it would be acceptable for Israel to kill?
And how many of their captive, innocent civilians do you think would be acceptable collateral in that context?
Or do you really believe that Israel should only go for about a thousand of them, in order to keep Sunal Jazeera's barchart roughly equal?
Even the US State Department believes the Hamas figures for dead and wounded are an UNDERestimate, due to bodies lying under the rubble produced by Israeli bombs and shells.
You haven't answered any of my questions
How many Hamas rapist murderers dead would be too many, in your view?
You forget that 1,000 of the Hamas Terrorists were actually killed by the IDF on 7/10 itself.
I didn't forget that
You just don't want to say how many Hamas rapists and murderers you'd want to save in that hypothetical situation
Because you think Israel killed enough of them before October 7th, according to your barchart
You think that Hamas's actions were perfectly proportionate, given the Israelis' previous brutality towards them
Or..
If you don't, answer the question
How many Hamas rapists and murderers is it acceptable for Israel to kill?
How many innocent Palestinians do you want Israel to kill?
Why do other arab countries not take refugees? Simple answer is to many palestinians are extremists and they worry about having them in their own country. Yes there are innocent palestinians....I suspect not as many as you think
They took in the Palestinians where forced out of their country at creation of Israel in 1947. That led to the destabilisation of both Lebanon and Jordan with tragic consequences, particularly in the former case.
In any event the Arab world is not homogeneous. Linguistically, there are over 30 different varieties of spoken Arabic not all of which are mutually intelligible. Palestinians speak Levantine Arabic which is spoken in Lebanon and Jordan (see above). One can draw an analogy between Portuguese, Spanish and Italian - all have their roots in Latin, and for many years written Latin was how elites communicated, but speakers do not automatically understand one another. Similar for vernacular Arabic and liturgical, written, Arabic, which is to the Arab world what Latin used to be in Europe.
So when people say why can’t the other Arab countries take them in you’re assuming that groups as distinct as different countries in Europe should have free movement. Which, given those voices are often opposed free movement across this continent, is a tad ironic.
Ukranians speak a different language to most european countries....hasn't stopped them taking in refugees from the war
So why don’t we take in Palestinian refugees as well as Ukrainian ones them?
Because we don't want to take extremists in?
If you’re worried about “extremists” perhaps we could just take the kids.
Or we just dig a big hole and throw all christians, muslims and jews down it and fill it in.....would make the world a more pleasant place
The Nazis made a start on that, didn’t end well.
The Nazis only concentrated on one of the 3.
Well, they weren't keen on other groups too: Gypsies (Roma), Gays, Jehova's Witnesses, Masons, and Commies.
And they weren't fond of people with disabilities or homosexuals either.
Don't know their view on self ID, mind.
Georring or Gobbels as I remember would have been up for it
Eurovision betting has seen a mild swing back. Croatia is again odds-on, and Israel back to 7/2 (still shorter than they started the day).
It would be wonderful is Israel win and then host the show in Gaza next year so all the Palestinian/Eurovision lovers can get a taste of the intolerance they are supporting. They love the usual Eurovision demographic in Gaza.
Indeed. Killing 35,000 Palestinians is pretty intolerant.
How many Hamas terrorists/rapists/murderers do you think it would be acceptable for Israel to kill?
And how many of their captive, innocent civilians do you think would be acceptable collateral in that context?
Or do you really believe that Israel should only go for about a thousand of them, in order to keep Sunal Jazeera's barchart roughly equal?
Even the US State Department believes the Hamas figures for dead and wounded are an UNDERestimate, due to bodies lying under the rubble produced by Israeli bombs and shells.
You haven't answered any of my questions
How many Hamas rapist murderers dead would be too many, in your view?
You forget that 1,000 of the Hamas Terrorists were actually killed by the IDF on 7/10 itself.
I didn't forget that
You just don't want to say how many Hamas rapists and murderers you'd want to save in that hypothetical situation
Because you think Israel killed enough of them before October 7th, according to your barchart
You think that Hamas's actions were perfectly proportionate, given the Israelis' previous brutality towards them
Or..
If you don't, answer the question
How many Hamas rapists and murderers is it acceptable for Israel to kill?
How many innocent Palestinians do you want Israel to kill?
Why do other arab countries not take refugees? Simple answer is to many palestinians are extremists and they worry about having them in their own country. Yes there are innocent palestinians....I suspect not as many as you think
Not one arab country has come forward and said they would accept one palestinian , they shut all the gates and barricaded them.
What many seem to neglect to mention is back in 2005 israel was helping rebuild the port in gaza....a route to making palestine a go....those innocent palestinians responded by electing hamas
These selective histories don't really do any good. The way you put it, you make it seem like the main interaction with Israel up til that point was that Israel helped rebuild a port. I mean... you know there was a lot of OTHER stuff happening, right?
It doesn't fool anyone, and it really doesn't help in any way, to pretend that this conflict is simple or that horrible actions come from nothing. Anyone who tried to paint a picture of one side being mere victims until they were set upon by the savages on the other side is just stupid and indulgent.
Quite.
If you were a civilian born in Southern Israel, and who had been bombarded by rockets from Gaza, and then invaded. If you knew people who had been killed, murdered or raped by Hamas. Well, you'd be pretty fucking pissed. And that would be pretty understandable.
And if you were a Palestinian in the West Bank who had been kicked out of their home by Israeli settlers, if you'd been harassed by Israeli soldiers, and if you could no longer travel to the next village because a road (for Israeli settlers) now bisected it. Well, I think you'd have an equally good reason to be pissed.
This is not Liberal Democracies vs Hitler. Nor is it Russia invading Ukraine. It's two groups of people who both have some pretty good reasons to feel wronged, and neither of whom is in any mind for compromise.
Except, has there been any significant pause in neighbouring peoples trying to wipe Israel off the map since its creation?
Israel has reached multiple agreements with their murderous neighbours. The neighbours keep trying to murder them
Eurovision betting has seen a mild swing back. Croatia is again odds-on, and Israel back to 7/2 (still shorter than they started the day).
It would be wonderful is Israel win and then host the show in Gaza next year so all the Palestinian/Eurovision lovers can get a taste of the intolerance they are supporting. They love the usual Eurovision demographic in Gaza.
Indeed. Killing 35,000 Palestinians is pretty intolerant.
How many Hamas terrorists/rapists/murderers do you think it would be acceptable for Israel to kill?
And how many of their captive, innocent civilians do you think would be acceptable collateral in that context?
Or do you really believe that Israel should only go for about a thousand of them, in order to keep Sunal Jazeera's barchart roughly equal?
Even the US State Department believes the Hamas figures for dead and wounded are an UNDERestimate, due to bodies lying under the rubble produced by Israeli bombs and shells.
You haven't answered any of my questions
How many Hamas rapist murderers dead would be too many, in your view?
You forget that 1,000 of the Hamas Terrorists were actually killed by the IDF on 7/10 itself.
I didn't forget that
You just don't want to say how many Hamas rapists and murderers you'd want to save in that hypothetical situation
Because you think Israel killed enough of them before October 7th, according to your barchart
You think that Hamas's actions were perfectly proportionate, given the Israelis' previous brutality towards them
Or..
If you don't, answer the question
How many Hamas rapists and murderers is it acceptable for Israel to kill?
How many innocent Palestinians do you want Israel to kill?
Why do other arab countries not take refugees? Simple answer is to many palestinians are extremists and they worry about having them in their own country. Yes there are innocent palestinians....I suspect not as many as you think
They took in the Palestinians where forced out of their country at creation of Israel in 1947. That led to the destabilisation of both Lebanon and Jordan with tragic consequences, particularly in the former case.
In any event the Arab world is not homogeneous. Linguistically, there are over 30 different varieties of spoken Arabic not all of which are mutually intelligible. Palestinians speak Levantine Arabic which is spoken in Lebanon and Jordan (see above). One can draw an analogy between Portuguese, Spanish and Italian - all have their roots in Latin, and for many years written Latin was how elites communicated, but speakers do not automatically understand one another. Similar for vernacular Arabic and liturgical, written, Arabic, which is to the Arab world what Latin used to be in Europe.
So when people say why can’t the other Arab countries take them in you’re assuming that groups as distinct as different countries in Europe should have free movement. Which, given those voices are often opposed free movement across this continent, is a tad ironic.
Ukranians speak a different language to most european countries....hasn't stopped them taking in refugees from the war
So why don’t we take in Palestinian refugees as well as Ukrainian ones them?
Because we don't want to take extremists in?
If you’re worried about “extremists” perhaps we could just take the kids.
Or we just dig a big hole and throw all christians, muslims and jews down it and fill it in.....would make the world a more pleasant place
The Nazis made a start on that, didn’t end well.
The Nazis only concentrated on one of the 3.
Well, they weren't keen on other groups too: Gypsies (Roma), Gays, Jehova's Witnesses, Masons, and Commies.
And they weren't fond of people with disabilities or homosexuals either.
Don't know their view on self ID, mind.
Georring or Gobbels as I remember would have been up for it
Eurovision betting has seen a mild swing back. Croatia is again odds-on, and Israel back to 7/2 (still shorter than they started the day).
It would be wonderful is Israel win and then host the show in Gaza next year so all the Palestinian/Eurovision lovers can get a taste of the intolerance they are supporting. They love the usual Eurovision demographic in Gaza.
Indeed. Killing 35,000 Palestinians is pretty intolerant.
How many Hamas terrorists/rapists/murderers do you think it would be acceptable for Israel to kill?
And how many of their captive, innocent civilians do you think would be acceptable collateral in that context?
Or do you really believe that Israel should only go for about a thousand of them, in order to keep Sunal Jazeera's barchart roughly equal?
Even the US State Department believes the Hamas figures for dead and wounded are an UNDERestimate, due to bodies lying under the rubble produced by Israeli bombs and shells.
You haven't answered any of my questions
How many Hamas rapist murderers dead would be too many, in your view?
You forget that 1,000 of the Hamas Terrorists were actually killed by the IDF on 7/10 itself.
I didn't forget that
You just don't want to say how many Hamas rapists and murderers you'd want to save in that hypothetical situation
Because you think Israel killed enough of them before October 7th, according to your barchart
You think that Hamas's actions were perfectly proportionate, given the Israelis' previous brutality towards them
Or..
If you don't, answer the question
How many Hamas rapists and murderers is it acceptable for Israel to kill?
How many innocent Palestinians do you want Israel to kill?
Why do other arab countries not take refugees? Simple answer is to many palestinians are extremists and they worry about having them in their own country. Yes there are innocent palestinians....I suspect not as many as you think
Not one arab country has come forward and said they would accept one palestinian , they shut all the gates and barricaded them.
What many seem to neglect to mention is back in 2005 israel was helping rebuild the port in gaza....a route to making palestine a go....those innocent palestinians responded by electing hamas
These selective histories don't really do any good. The way you put it, you make it seem like the main interaction with Israel up til that point was that Israel helped rebuild a port. I mean... you know there was a lot of OTHER stuff happening, right?
It doesn't fool anyone, and it really doesn't help in any way, to pretend that this conflict is simple or that horrible actions come from nothing. Anyone who tried to paint a picture of one side being mere victims until they were set upon by the savages on the other side is just stupid and indulgent.
Quite.
If you were a civilian born in Southern Israel, and who had been bombarded by rockets from Gaza, and then invaded. If you knew people who had been killed, murdered or raped by Hamas. Well, you'd be pretty fucking pissed. And that would be pretty understandable.
And if you were a Palestinian in the West Bank who had been kicked out of their home by Israeli settlers, if you'd been harassed by Israeli soldiers, and if you could no longer travel to the next village because a road (for Israeli settlers) now bisected it. Well, I think you'd have an equally good reason to be pissed.
This is not Liberal Democracies vs Hitler. Nor is it Russia invading Ukraine. It's two groups of people who both have some pretty good reasons to feel wronged, and neither of whom is in any mind for compromise.
Except, has there been any significant pause in neighbouring peoples trying to wipe Israel off the map since its creation?
Israel has reached multiple agreements with their murderous neighbours. The neighbours keep trying to murder them
Moving the fence isn't exactly equivalent
I do not think for a moment the israelis are right....I am merely pointing out the palestinians are not innocent either
Will the Tories be successful in blaming Labour when the crossings continue ?
I fully expect we’ll see the right wing papers saying that the asylum seekers have been told of Labours policy and now are flooding because Labour are expected to win the GE .
Erm...if you read it carefully, that is not backing for the "Rwanda Scheme" as it operates. The poll shows 55% support for asylum seekers being "removed to their home country or to a safe country, such as Rwanda". "Such as Rwanda" is doing a lot of work there
Well, a policy of removal is supported 55 to 22. I think we can assume given that Rwanda is specifically named that those polled are not opposed to the policy by the majority as given. There is a majority in favour of removal. Starmer today has not addressed that. As such, risky for him, but would want to see polling on 'flights versus Starmers plan' to see if it shifts the dial
99% of people won't have the first clue what Starmer's plan is. And it doesn't matter what it is - the average person doesn't follow that sort of detail.
In contrast, if a plane actually takes off to Rwanda on TV that is one of the few things that will cut through with the public.
Now my own view is it's still pretty unlikely a plane will take off to Rwanda pre General Election - because some Court somewhere will stop it or Civil Servants will all refuse to process people or whatever.
But at the same time, this does feel high risk for Starmer. Because if the unlikely event of a plane going were to happen that will cut through with the public. And if Starmer has said he will stop flights that would then be seriously damaging for him.
What are you talking about?
Starmer is going to use MI5 to stop them. *MI5*. And special super anti-terrorist powers.
Sir Harry Pearce KBE will no doubt watch things regularly whilst Tom Quinn mopes about Kent and the Pas de Calais looking intensely purposeful. A few extra Union Jacks will be flown about too for good measure.
It will turn the tide.
Natalie will sort it out 👍
I'm a bit late to the Natalie Elphicke party, having been busy this week, but it does seem to me a definite but not fatal Starmer mistake. The Elphicke phenomenon in every respect represents exactly why a couple of million normally Tory voters have defected to Labour. Starmer should have said 'I am pleased she has left the Tories, but she has a long road to travel before she could be a Labour MP'.'
I'm starting to wonder if Starmer is Labour's Sunak, a bright administrator with a tin ear for politics.
Listening to his 'stop the boats' proposals today most of them are currently being undertaken by the government but he has stated publicly that Rwanda will stop on day one of his Premiership, thereby handing the gangs all they need to gain many more asylum seekers to their disgusting business
Whilst Rwanda is not the best policy, there are some early indications it is having some effect and a wise politician would have said that they will review the scheme once in office, rather than raise the prospect of many more crossings this summer
He can't sensibly say on this one "we'll review it in office" as he'd be slammed by both sides of the debate for that.
His statement today was an absolute gift to the people smugglers who can now actively reassure their asylum seekers they need have no fear of Rwanda as Starmer will be in office within 6 months
I expect record numbers for the rest of the year unless Sunak does get flights away and it is seen as a deterrent
Another GE post The Tories seem to have arsed up Walsall Council, suspending the leader who has now swanned off with his cabinet to form an indy blue group losing them control. Therefore despite a fairly good showing for Street here, Walsall North going back to Labour looks good value as voters usually arent keen on chaos, even if polls tighten (its ca 15% swing from 2019)
Eurovision betting has seen a mild swing back. Croatia is again odds-on, and Israel back to 7/2 (still shorter than they started the day).
It would be wonderful is Israel win and then host the show in Gaza next year so all the Palestinian/Eurovision lovers can get a taste of the intolerance they are supporting. They love the usual Eurovision demographic in Gaza.
Indeed. Killing 35,000 Palestinians is pretty intolerant.
How many Hamas terrorists/rapists/murderers do you think it would be acceptable for Israel to kill?
And how many of their captive, innocent civilians do you think would be acceptable collateral in that context?
Or do you really believe that Israel should only go for about a thousand of them, in order to keep Sunal Jazeera's barchart roughly equal?
Even the US State Department believes the Hamas figures for dead and wounded are an UNDERestimate, due to bodies lying under the rubble produced by Israeli bombs and shells.
You haven't answered any of my questions
How many Hamas rapist murderers dead would be too many, in your view?
You forget that 1,000 of the Hamas Terrorists were actually killed by the IDF on 7/10 itself.
I didn't forget that
You just don't want to say how many Hamas rapists and murderers you'd want to save in that hypothetical situation
Because you think Israel killed enough of them before October 7th, according to your barchart
You think that Hamas's actions were perfectly proportionate, given the Israelis' previous brutality towards them
Or..
If you don't, answer the question
How many Hamas rapists and murderers is it acceptable for Israel to kill?
How many innocent Palestinians do you want Israel to kill?
Why do other arab countries not take refugees? Simple answer is to many palestinians are extremists and they worry about having them in their own country. Yes there are innocent palestinians....I suspect not as many as you think
Not one arab country has come forward and said they would accept one palestinian , they shut all the gates and barricaded them.
What many seem to neglect to mention is back in 2005 israel was helping rebuild the port in gaza....a route to making palestine a go....those innocent palestinians responded by electing hamas
These selective histories don't really do any good. The way you put it, you make it seem like the main interaction with Israel up til that point was that Israel helped rebuild a port. I mean... you know there was a lot of OTHER stuff happening, right?
It doesn't fool anyone, and it really doesn't help in any way, to pretend that this conflict is simple or that horrible actions come from nothing. Anyone who tried to paint a picture of one side being mere victims until they were set upon by the savages on the other side is just stupid and indulgent.
Quite.
If you were a civilian born in Southern Israel, and who had been bombarded by rockets from Gaza, and then invaded. If you knew people who had been killed, murdered or raped by Hamas. Well, you'd be pretty fucking pissed. And that would be pretty understandable.
And if you were a Palestinian in the West Bank who had been kicked out of their home by Israeli settlers, if you'd been harassed by Israeli soldiers, and if you could no longer travel to the next village because a road (for Israeli settlers) now bisected it. Well, I think you'd have an equally good reason to be pissed.
This is not Liberal Democracies vs Hitler. Nor is it Russia invading Ukraine. It's two groups of people who both have some pretty good reasons to feel wronged, and neither of whom is in any mind for compromise.
Except, has there been any significant pause in neighbouring peoples trying to wipe Israel off the map since its creation?
Israel has reached multiple agreements with their murderous neighbours. The neighbours keep trying to murder them
Moving the fence isn't exactly equivalent
I do not think for a moment the israelis are right....I am merely pointing out the palestinians are not innocent either
Eurovision betting has seen a mild swing back. Croatia is again odds-on, and Israel back to 7/2 (still shorter than they started the day).
It would be wonderful is Israel win and then host the show in Gaza next year so all the Palestinian/Eurovision lovers can get a taste of the intolerance they are supporting. They love the usual Eurovision demographic in Gaza.
Indeed. Killing 35,000 Palestinians is pretty intolerant.
How many Hamas terrorists/rapists/murderers do you think it would be acceptable for Israel to kill?
And how many of their captive, innocent civilians do you think would be acceptable collateral in that context?
Or do you really believe that Israel should only go for about a thousand of them, in order to keep Sunal Jazeera's barchart roughly equal?
Even the US State Department believes the Hamas figures for dead and wounded are an UNDERestimate, due to bodies lying under the rubble produced by Israeli bombs and shells.
You haven't answered any of my questions
How many Hamas rapist murderers dead would be too many, in your view?
You forget that 1,000 of the Hamas Terrorists were actually killed by the IDF on 7/10 itself.
I didn't forget that
You just don't want to say how many Hamas rapists and murderers you'd want to save in that hypothetical situation
Because you think Israel killed enough of them before October 7th, according to your barchart
You think that Hamas's actions were perfectly proportionate, given the Israelis' previous brutality towards them
Or..
If you don't, answer the question
How many Hamas rapists and murderers is it acceptable for Israel to kill?
How many innocent Palestinians do you want Israel to kill?
Why do other arab countries not take refugees? Simple answer is to many palestinians are extremists and they worry about having them in their own country. Yes there are innocent palestinians....I suspect not as many as you think
They took in the Palestinians where forced out of their country at creation of Israel in 1947. That led to the destabilisation of both Lebanon and Jordan with tragic consequences, particularly in the former case.
In any event the Arab world is not homogeneous. Linguistically, there are over 30 different varieties of spoken Arabic not all of which are mutually intelligible. Palestinians speak Levantine Arabic which is spoken in Lebanon and Jordan (see above). One can draw an analogy between Portuguese, Spanish and Italian - all have their roots in Latin, and for many years written Latin was how elites communicated, but speakers do not automatically understand one another. Similar for vernacular Arabic and liturgical, written, Arabic, which is to the Arab world what Latin used to be in Europe.
So when people say why can’t the other Arab countries take them in you’re assuming that groups as distinct as different countries in Europe should have free movement. Which, given those voices are often opposed free movement across this continent, is a tad ironic.
Ukranians speak a different language to most european countries....hasn't stopped them taking in refugees from the war
So why don’t we take in Palestinian refugees as well as Ukrainian ones them?
Because we don't want to take extremists in?
If you’re worried about “extremists” perhaps we could just take the kids.
Or we just dig a big hole and throw all christians, muslims and jews down it and fill it in.....would make the world a more pleasant place
The Nazis made a start on that, didn’t end well.
The Nazis only concentrated on one of the 3.
Well, they weren't keen on other groups too: Gypsies (Roma), Gays, Jehova's Witnesses, Masons, and Commies.
And they weren't fond of people with disabilities or homosexuals either.
It just occured to me that Sunak, by requiring University bosses to clamp down on pro-Palestinians protests, may be in breach of his own free-speech Czar appointment, whose name I sadly forget. I remember his photo with an open-necked shirt, the sloven. Has anybody thought of bringing a private action against Sunak on those grounds?
Plus, have any of the protestors joined Tobe's Free Speech Union? I'm sure that would help
😀😀😀
I’ve got to be honest I haven’t seen any protests at the Uni. Mainly, I think, because the students are all shitting themselves about exams/sunbathing by the Uni lake.
Will the Tories be successful in blaming Labour when the crossings continue ?
I fully expect we’ll see the right wing papers saying that the asylum seekers have been told of Labours policy and now are flooding because Labour are expected to win the GE .
It is the obvious conclusion and a wiser politician would have measured his words better
Will the Tories be successful in blaming Labour when the crossings continue ?
I fully expect we’ll see the right wing papers saying that the asylum seekers have been told of Labours policy and now are flooding because Labour are expected to win the GE .
It's a downside risk for him, he needs the public to believe in his kool aid more than Sunak's. Harder if flights take off, easier if dinghies keep coming in record numbers
Erm...if you read it carefully, that is not backing for the "Rwanda Scheme" as it operates. The poll shows 55% support for asylum seekers being "removed to their home country or to a safe country, such as Rwanda". "Such as Rwanda" is doing a lot of work there
Well, a policy of removal is supported 55 to 22. I think we can assume given that Rwanda is specifically named that those polled are not opposed to the policy by the majority as given. There is a majority in favour of removal. Starmer today has not addressed that. As such, risky for him, but would want to see polling on 'flights versus Starmers plan' to see if it shifts the dial
99% of people won't have the first clue what Starmer's plan is. And it doesn't matter what it is - the average person doesn't follow that sort of detail.
In contrast, if a plane actually takes off to Rwanda on TV that is one of the few things that will cut through with the public.
Now my own view is it's still pretty unlikely a plane will take off to Rwanda pre General Election - because some Court somewhere will stop it or Civil Servants will all refuse to process people or whatever.
But at the same time, this does feel high risk for Starmer. Because if the unlikely event of a plane going were to happen that will cut through with the public. And if Starmer has said he will stop flights that would then be seriously damaging for him.
What are you talking about?
Starmer is going to use MI5 to stop them. *MI5*. And special super anti-terrorist powers.
Sir Harry Pearce KBE will no doubt watch things regularly whilst Tom Quinn mopes about Kent and the Pas de Calais looking intensely purposeful. A few extra Union Jacks will be flown about too for good measure.
It will turn the tide.
Natalie will sort it out 👍
I'm a bit late to the Natalie Elphicke party, having been busy this week, but it does seem to me a definite but not fatal Starmer mistake. The Elphicke phenomenon in every respect represents exactly why a couple of million normally Tory voters have defected to Labour. Starmer should have said 'I am pleased she has left the Tories, but she has a long road to travel before she could be a Labour MP'.'
I'm starting to wonder if Starmer is Labour's Sunak, a bright administrator with a tin ear for politics.
Listening to his 'stop the boats' proposals today most of them are currently being undertaken by the government but he has stated publicly that Rwanda will stop on day one of his Premiership, thereby handing the gangs all they need to gain many more asylum seekers to their disgusting business
Whilst Rwanda is not the best policy, there are some early indications it is having some effect and a wise politician would have said that they will review the scheme once in office, rather than raise the prospect of many more crossings this summer
He can't sensibly say on this one "we'll review it in office" as he'd be slammed by both sides of the debate for that.
His statement today was an absolute gift to the people smugglers who can now actively reassure their asylum seekers they need have no fear of Rwanda as Starmer will be in office within 6 months
I expect record numbers for the rest of the year unless Sunak does get flights away and it is seen as a deterrent
And so PB reverts to its happy place of slagging off Labour. Bit earlier than I expected but this'll be it for the next decade or more.
Erm...if you read it carefully, that is not backing for the "Rwanda Scheme" as it operates. The poll shows 55% support for asylum seekers being "removed to their home country or to a safe country, such as Rwanda". "Such as Rwanda" is doing a lot of work there
Well, a policy of removal is supported 55 to 22. I think we can assume given that Rwanda is specifically named that those polled are not opposed to the policy by the majority as given. There is a majority in favour of removal. Starmer today has not addressed that. As such, risky for him, but would want to see polling on 'flights versus Starmers plan' to see if it shifts the dial
99% of people won't have the first clue what Starmer's plan is. And it doesn't matter what it is - the average person doesn't follow that sort of detail.
In contrast, if a plane actually takes off to Rwanda on TV that is one of the few things that will cut through with the public.
Now my own view is it's still pretty unlikely a plane will take off to Rwanda pre General Election - because some Court somewhere will stop it or Civil Servants will all refuse to process people or whatever.
But at the same time, this does feel high risk for Starmer. Because if the unlikely event of a plane going were to happen that will cut through with the public. And if Starmer has said he will stop flights that would then be seriously damaging for him.
What are you talking about?
Starmer is going to use MI5 to stop them. *MI5*. And special super anti-terrorist powers.
Sir Harry Pearce KBE will no doubt watch things regularly whilst Tom Quinn mopes about Kent and the Pas de Calais looking intensely purposeful. A few extra Union Jacks will be flown about too for good measure.
It will turn the tide.
Natalie will sort it out 👍
I'm a bit late to the Natalie Elphicke party, having been busy this week, but it does seem to me a definite but not fatal Starmer mistake. The Elphicke phenomenon in every respect represents exactly why a couple of million normally Tory voters have defected to Labour. Starmer should have said 'I am pleased she has left the Tories, but she has a long road to travel before she could be a Labour MP'.'
I'm starting to wonder if Starmer is Labour's Sunak, a bright administrator with a tin ear for politics.
Listening to his 'stop the boats' proposals today most of them are currently being undertaken by the government but he has stated publicly that Rwanda will stop on day one of his Premiership, thereby handing the gangs all they need to gain many more asylum seekers to their disgusting business
Whilst Rwanda is not the best policy, there are some early indications it is having some effect and a wise politician would have said that they will review the scheme once in office, rather than raise the prospect of many more crossings this summer
He can't sensibly say on this one "we'll review it in office" as he'd be slammed by both sides of the debate for that.
His statement today was an absolute gift to the people smugglers who can now actively reassure their asylum seekers they need have no fear of Rwanda as Starmer will be in office within 6 months
I expect record numbers for the rest of the year unless Sunak does get flights away and it is seen as a deterrent
And so PB reverts to its happy place of slagging off Labour. Bit earlier than I expected but this'll be it for the next decade or more.
Labour needs to be slagged off, so do the tories, the lib dems, the greens and the snp because none of them have answers to fix things
Eurovision betting has seen a mild swing back. Croatia is again odds-on, and Israel back to 7/2 (still shorter than they started the day).
It would be wonderful is Israel win and then host the show in Gaza next year so all the Palestinian/Eurovision lovers can get a taste of the intolerance they are supporting. They love the usual Eurovision demographic in Gaza.
Indeed. Killing 35,000 Palestinians is pretty intolerant.
How many Hamas terrorists/rapists/murderers do you think it would be acceptable for Israel to kill?
And how many of their captive, innocent civilians do you think would be acceptable collateral in that context?
Or do you really believe that Israel should only go for about a thousand of them, in order to keep Sunal Jazeera's barchart roughly equal?
Even the US State Department believes the Hamas figures for dead and wounded are an UNDERestimate, due to bodies lying under the rubble produced by Israeli bombs and shells.
You haven't answered any of my questions
How many Hamas rapist murderers dead would be too many, in your view?
You forget that 1,000 of the Hamas Terrorists were actually killed by the IDF on 7/10 itself.
I didn't forget that
You just don't want to say how many Hamas rapists and murderers you'd want to save in that hypothetical situation
Because you think Israel killed enough of them before October 7th, according to your barchart
You think that Hamas's actions were perfectly proportionate, given the Israelis' previous brutality towards them
Or..
If you don't, answer the question
How many Hamas rapists and murderers is it acceptable for Israel to kill?
How many innocent Palestinians do you want Israel to kill?
Why do other arab countries not take refugees? Simple answer is to many palestinians are extremists and they worry about having them in their own country. Yes there are innocent palestinians....I suspect not as many as you think
They took in the Palestinians where forced out of their country at creation of Israel in 1947. That led to the destabilisation of both Lebanon and Jordan with tragic consequences, particularly in the former case.
In any event the Arab world is not homogeneous. Linguistically, there are over 30 different varieties of spoken Arabic not all of which are mutually intelligible. Palestinians speak Levantine Arabic which is spoken in Lebanon and Jordan (see above). One can draw an analogy between Portuguese, Spanish and Italian - all have their roots in Latin, and for many years written Latin was how elites communicated, but speakers do not automatically understand one another. Similar for vernacular Arabic and liturgical, written, Arabic, which is to the Arab world what Latin used to be in Europe.
So when people say why can’t the other Arab countries take them in you’re assuming that groups as distinct as different countries in Europe should have free movement. Which, given those voices are often opposed free movement across this continent, is a tad ironic.
Ukranians speak a different language to most european countries....hasn't stopped them taking in refugees from the war
So why don’t we take in Palestinian refugees as well as Ukrainian ones them?
Because we don't want to take extremists in?
If you’re worried about “extremists” perhaps we could just take the kids.
Or we just dig a big hole and throw all christians, muslims and jews down it and fill it in.....would make the world a more pleasant place
The Nazis made a start on that, didn’t end well.
The Nazis only concentrated on one of the 3.
Well, they weren't keen on other groups too: Gypsies (Roma), Gays, Jehova's Witnesses, Masons, and Commies.
On the bright side, at least Jimmy Carr would find the extermination of one of them hilarious.
Erm...if you read it carefully, that is not backing for the "Rwanda Scheme" as it operates. The poll shows 55% support for asylum seekers being "removed to their home country or to a safe country, such as Rwanda". "Such as Rwanda" is doing a lot of work there
Well, a policy of removal is supported 55 to 22. I think we can assume given that Rwanda is specifically named that those polled are not opposed to the policy by the majority as given. There is a majority in favour of removal. Starmer today has not addressed that. As such, risky for him, but would want to see polling on 'flights versus Starmers plan' to see if it shifts the dial
99% of people won't have the first clue what Starmer's plan is. And it doesn't matter what it is - the average person doesn't follow that sort of detail.
In contrast, if a plane actually takes off to Rwanda on TV that is one of the few things that will cut through with the public.
Now my own view is it's still pretty unlikely a plane will take off to Rwanda pre General Election - because some Court somewhere will stop it or Civil Servants will all refuse to process people or whatever.
But at the same time, this does feel high risk for Starmer. Because if the unlikely event of a plane going were to happen that will cut through with the public. And if Starmer has said he will stop flights that would then be seriously damaging for him.
What are you talking about?
Starmer is going to use MI5 to stop them. *MI5*. And special super anti-terrorist powers.
Sir Harry Pearce KBE will no doubt watch things regularly whilst Tom Quinn mopes about Kent and the Pas de Calais looking intensely purposeful. A few extra Union Jacks will be flown about too for good measure.
It will turn the tide.
Natalie will sort it out 👍
I'm a bit late to the Natalie Elphicke party, having been busy this week, but it does seem to me a definite but not fatal Starmer mistake. The Elphicke phenomenon in every respect represents exactly why a couple of million normally Tory voters have defected to Labour. Starmer should have said 'I am pleased she has left the Tories, but she has a long road to travel before she could be a Labour MP'.'
I'm starting to wonder if Starmer is Labour's Sunak, a bright administrator with a tin ear for politics.
Listening to his 'stop the boats' proposals today most of them are currently being undertaken by the government but he has stated publicly that Rwanda will stop on day one of his Premiership, thereby handing the gangs all they need to gain many more asylum seekers to their disgusting business
Whilst Rwanda is not the best policy, there are some early indications it is having some effect and a wise politician would have said that they will review the scheme once in office, rather than raise the prospect of many more crossings this summer
He can't sensibly say on this one "we'll review it in office" as he'd be slammed by both sides of the debate for that.
His statement today was an absolute gift to the people smugglers who can now actively reassure their asylum seekers they need have no fear of Rwanda as Starmer will be in office within 6 months
I expect record numbers for the rest of the year unless Sunak does get flights away and it is seen as a deterrent
And so PB reverts to its happy place of slagging off Labour. Bit earlier than I expected but this'll be it for the next decade or more.
I've always slagged them off. I don't like them. That's something they now have in common with the Tories, Lib Dems and Greens. Which makes my vote next time interesting. Fingers crossed an interesting 'other' stands
Erm...if you read it carefully, that is not backing for the "Rwanda Scheme" as it operates. The poll shows 55% support for asylum seekers being "removed to their home country or to a safe country, such as Rwanda". "Such as Rwanda" is doing a lot of work there
Well, a policy of removal is supported 55 to 22. I think we can assume given that Rwanda is specifically named that those polled are not opposed to the policy by the majority as given. There is a majority in favour of removal. Starmer today has not addressed that. As such, risky for him, but would want to see polling on 'flights versus Starmers plan' to see if it shifts the dial
99% of people won't have the first clue what Starmer's plan is. And it doesn't matter what it is - the average person doesn't follow that sort of detail.
In contrast, if a plane actually takes off to Rwanda on TV that is one of the few things that will cut through with the public.
Now my own view is it's still pretty unlikely a plane will take off to Rwanda pre General Election - because some Court somewhere will stop it or Civil Servants will all refuse to process people or whatever.
But at the same time, this does feel high risk for Starmer. Because if the unlikely event of a plane going were to happen that will cut through with the public. And if Starmer has said he will stop flights that would then be seriously damaging for him.
What are you talking about?
Starmer is going to use MI5 to stop them. *MI5*. And special super anti-terrorist powers.
Sir Harry Pearce KBE will no doubt watch things regularly whilst Tom Quinn mopes about Kent and the Pas de Calais looking intensely purposeful. A few extra Union Jacks will be flown about too for good measure.
It will turn the tide.
Natalie will sort it out 👍
I'm a bit late to the Natalie Elphicke party, having been busy this week, but it does seem to me a definite but not fatal Starmer mistake. The Elphicke phenomenon in every respect represents exactly why a couple of million normally Tory voters have defected to Labour. Starmer should have said 'I am pleased she has left the Tories, but she has a long road to travel before she could be a Labour MP'.'
I'm starting to wonder if Starmer is Labour's Sunak, a bright administrator with a tin ear for politics.
Listening to his 'stop the boats' proposals today most of them are currently being undertaken by the government but he has stated publicly that Rwanda will stop on day one of his Premiership, thereby handing the gangs all they need to gain many more asylum seekers to their disgusting business
Whilst Rwanda is not the best policy, there are some early indications it is having some effect and a wise politician would have said that they will review the scheme once in office, rather than raise the prospect of many more crossings this summer
He can't sensibly say on this one "we'll review it in office" as he'd be slammed by both sides of the debate for that.
His statement today was an absolute gift to the people smugglers who can now actively reassure their asylum seekers they need have no fear of Rwanda as Starmer will be in office within 6 months
I expect record numbers for the rest of the year unless Sunak does get flights away and it is seen as a deterrent
And so PB reverts to its happy place of slagging off Labour. Bit earlier than I expected but this'll be it for the next decade or more.
As a matter of interest do you not see the consequences of his statement today and no political party is going to get a free pass
Revealed: How the Tories blew the London mayoral election ... Tory party grandees and activists have admitted that a “negative” campaign, the lack of a “knockout” candidate and “ruthless” Labour targeting of Lib-Dem and Green voters made it impossible for Ms Hall to win. Other reasons included:-
The lack of a positive message. Infighting among candidates vying for the Tory mayoral nomination. A lack of campaign funds for Ms Hall and a “late” manifesto. Amateur “party apparatchiks” put in charge of the shortlisting of candidates. The failure to include Tory MP Paul Scully on the shortlist. The decision not to restart the search for a mayoral candidate. Making the Ulez central to Ms Hall’s campaign. Ms Hall being selected despite some MPs believing she was not good enough.
I wonder who is the confidential source for the pivotal importance of Tory MP Paul Scully?
Did Susan Hall not poll better in London than the Tories do in the country?
On a like-for-like basis, which would be mayoralties and PCCs, I think she polled below or close to average.
One example - in the Mayoral contest, Hall won the Ealing & Hillingdon count by 2000 but in the GLA Constituency election on the same boundaries, Labour won by 5000.
Another example - in the Bexley & Bronley boroughs, Hall won the Mayoral contest by 63,000 but the Conservative candidate won the GLA seat by only 40,000. Here's a clue - the Conservative vote for the GLA election was 20,000 lower than for the Mayoral contest - the Reform vote was 18,000 higher.
Final example - Hall won the Mayoral contest in Brent & Harrow by 8,000 - Labour won the GLA Constituency contest by 8,000. The Conservative vote was 11,000 higher for the Mayoral contest than for the GLA contest, the Labour vote was 5,000 higher,.
You can look at the Mayoral contest numbers, you can look at the GLA Constituency election numbers - they will tell two very different stories of how London voted on May 2nd.
Perfect! This is exactly the kind of comparison that is needed. If I had to guess - I would say that London Conservative suburbs responded well to a right-wing candidate and to the higher salience of the mayoral election where you can beat Khan instead of a local Labour type. Without these factors it looks like some of them went Reform. Now, this might not generalise to the whole country - perhaps outer London Tories are more right-wing than in the rest of the country. But it gives us a good guess of an answer.
John Oxley (and if you're not reading him, you should) made the same point recently;
Indeed, the only place where the Tories seemed really to outperform seems as much a symptom of their problems rather than a respite from it. Despite winning comfortably in London, Sadiq Khan’s support was below the Labour average and poor compared with some of the polling. This was largely driven by the Tory vote holding up in outer London. This repeated the trend from the Uxbridge by-election, which saw the Tories do poorly compared to previous years, but not badly enough to lose it.
In some ways this makes sense. The denizens of Outer London are, really, the big winners of the Tory Party tenure. These areas are replete with people who were moderate earners but have grown rich off rising property prices. Often older, pro-Brexit, anti-immigration, and car-enthusiasts, they are on the right side of most of the fights the Tories are picking. The problem is that there simply isn’t enough of them nationally to make an electoral difference. The message may resonate in Havering and Harrow, but it isn’t getting much further.
Yes, I'm being a bit modest in saying that outer London Tories are "perhaps" more right-wing than average. My true view is that, for residential self-sorting reasons, this is probably the most right-wing Tory region in the whole country - recalling that there is a continuum with east Herts and south west Essex. Considering one district I am familiar with, Upminster, it is inconceivable to me that it would vote for Starmer under any circs - yet its predecessor seat went red in 1997. Eventually younger professionals will respond to the relatively decent property prices and move to these areas. But it won't matter electorally for a decade or two.
The same people that said Boris Johnson would be in power for a decade are now saying SKS was wrong to take Natalie Elphicke. Okay.
I think we should be minded to listen to what @CorrectHorseBattery said before he was sadly banned: "SKS is constantly underrated. Play him down at your peril."
Erm...if you read it carefully, that is not backing for the "Rwanda Scheme" as it operates. The poll shows 55% support for asylum seekers being "removed to their home country or to a safe country, such as Rwanda". "Such as Rwanda" is doing a lot of work there
Well, a policy of removal is supported 55 to 22. I think we can assume given that Rwanda is specifically named that those polled are not opposed to the policy by the majority as given. There is a majority in favour of removal. Starmer today has not addressed that. As such, risky for him, but would want to see polling on 'flights versus Starmers plan' to see if it shifts the dial
99% of people won't have the first clue what Starmer's plan is. And it doesn't matter what it is - the average person doesn't follow that sort of detail.
In contrast, if a plane actually takes off to Rwanda on TV that is one of the few things that will cut through with the public.
Now my own view is it's still pretty unlikely a plane will take off to Rwanda pre General Election - because some Court somewhere will stop it or Civil Servants will all refuse to process people or whatever.
But at the same time, this does feel high risk for Starmer. Because if the unlikely event of a plane going were to happen that will cut through with the public. And if Starmer has said he will stop flights that would then be seriously damaging for him.
What are you talking about?
Starmer is going to use MI5 to stop them. *MI5*. And special super anti-terrorist powers.
Sir Harry Pearce KBE will no doubt watch things regularly whilst Tom Quinn mopes about Kent and the Pas de Calais looking intensely purposeful. A few extra Union Jacks will be flown about too for good measure.
It will turn the tide.
Natalie will sort it out 👍
I'm a bit late to the Natalie Elphicke party, having been busy this week, but it does seem to me a definite but not fatal Starmer mistake. The Elphicke phenomenon in every respect represents exactly why a couple of million normally Tory voters have defected to Labour. Starmer should have said 'I am pleased she has left the Tories, but she has a long road to travel before she could be a Labour MP'.'
I'm starting to wonder if Starmer is Labour's Sunak, a bright administrator with a tin ear for politics.
Listening to his 'stop the boats' proposals today most of them are currently being undertaken by the government but he has stated publicly that Rwanda will stop on day one of his Premiership, thereby handing the gangs all they need to gain many more asylum seekers to their disgusting business
Whilst Rwanda is not the best policy, there are some early indications it is having some effect and a wise politician would have said that they will review the scheme once in office, rather than raise the prospect of many more crossings this summer
He can't sensibly say on this one "we'll review it in office" as he'd be slammed by both sides of the debate for that.
His statement today was an absolute gift to the people smugglers who can now actively reassure their asylum seekers they need have no fear of Rwanda as Starmer will be in office within 6 months
I expect record numbers for the rest of the year unless Sunak does get flights away and it is seen as a deterrent
I expect record numbers too, because the Rwanda scheme was always going to have zero effect on asylum seekers, who are already prepared to take far greater risks in crossing the channel.
However, it sounds like you will now be blaming the inevitable failure of Sunak's doomed scheme on Starmer. Have I got that right?
Eurovision betting has seen a mild swing back. Croatia is again odds-on, and Israel back to 7/2 (still shorter than they started the day).
It would be wonderful is Israel win and then host the show in Gaza next year so all the Palestinian/Eurovision lovers can get a taste of the intolerance they are supporting. They love the usual Eurovision demographic in Gaza.
Indeed. Killing 35,000 Palestinians is pretty intolerant.
How many Hamas terrorists/rapists/murderers do you think it would be acceptable for Israel to kill?
And how many of their captive, innocent civilians do you think would be acceptable collateral in that context?
Or do you really believe that Israel should only go for about a thousand of them, in order to keep Sunal Jazeera's barchart roughly equal?
Even the US State Department believes the Hamas figures for dead and wounded are an UNDERestimate, due to bodies lying under the rubble produced by Israeli bombs and shells.
You haven't answered any of my questions
How many Hamas rapist murderers dead would be too many, in your view?
You forget that 1,000 of the Hamas Terrorists were actually killed by the IDF on 7/10 itself.
I didn't forget that
You just don't want to say how many Hamas rapists and murderers you'd want to save in that hypothetical situation
Because you think Israel killed enough of them before October 7th, according to your barchart
You think that Hamas's actions were perfectly proportionate, given the Israelis' previous brutality towards them
Or..
If you don't, answer the question
How many Hamas rapists and murderers is it acceptable for Israel to kill?
How many innocent Palestinians do you want Israel to kill?
Why do other arab countries not take refugees? Simple answer is to many palestinians are extremists and they worry about having them in their own country. Yes there are innocent palestinians....I suspect not as many as you think
They took in the Palestinians where forced out of their country at creation of Israel in 1947. That led to the destabilisation of both Lebanon and Jordan with tragic consequences, particularly in the former case.
In any event the Arab world is not homogeneous. Linguistically, there are over 30 different varieties of spoken Arabic not all of which are mutually intelligible. Palestinians speak Levantine Arabic which is spoken in Lebanon and Jordan (see above). One can draw an analogy between Portuguese, Spanish and Italian - all have their roots in Latin, and for many years written Latin was how elites communicated, but speakers do not automatically understand one another. Similar for vernacular Arabic and liturgical, written, Arabic, which is to the Arab world what Latin used to be in Europe.
So when people say why can’t the other Arab countries take them in you’re assuming that groups as distinct as different countries in Europe should have free movement. Which, given those voices are often opposed free movement across this continent, is a tad ironic.
Ukranians speak a different language to most european countries....hasn't stopped them taking in refugees from the war
So why don’t we take in Palestinian refugees as well as Ukrainian ones them?
Because we don't want to take extremists in?
If you’re worried about “extremists” perhaps we could just take the kids.
Or we just dig a big hole and throw all christians, muslims and jews down it and fill it in.....would make the world a more pleasant place
The Nazis made a start on that, didn’t end well.
The nazi's only concentrated on one of the 3.
And while I wasn't making a serious suggestion which I am sure you realised. It does seem to be the people of the book causing most of the worlds problems from evangelical far right christians to extremist jihadi muslims
The NSDAP did give *some* Christians a very difficult time, tbf, right down to a trip to the KZ-Lagern. Not sure of the Goettglaubige count as Christians, either, biut IANAE.
"UN Security Council members urge investigation into Gaza mass graves
The Security Council members have expressed “deep concern” over reports that hundreds of bodies – including women, children and the elderly – were uncovered in mass graves in and around Gaza’s Nasser and al-Shifa Hospitals."
Erm...if you read it carefully, that is not backing for the "Rwanda Scheme" as it operates. The poll shows 55% support for asylum seekers being "removed to their home country or to a safe country, such as Rwanda". "Such as Rwanda" is doing a lot of work there
Well, a policy of removal is supported 55 to 22. I think we can assume given that Rwanda is specifically named that those polled are not opposed to the policy by the majority as given. There is a majority in favour of removal. Starmer today has not addressed that. As such, risky for him, but would want to see polling on 'flights versus Starmers plan' to see if it shifts the dial
99% of people won't have the first clue what Starmer's plan is. And it doesn't matter what it is - the average person doesn't follow that sort of detail.
In contrast, if a plane actually takes off to Rwanda on TV that is one of the few things that will cut through with the public.
Now my own view is it's still pretty unlikely a plane will take off to Rwanda pre General Election - because some Court somewhere will stop it or Civil Servants will all refuse to process people or whatever.
But at the same time, this does feel high risk for Starmer. Because if the unlikely event of a plane going were to happen that will cut through with the public. And if Starmer has said he will stop flights that would then be seriously damaging for him.
What are you talking about?
Starmer is going to use MI5 to stop them. *MI5*. And special super anti-terrorist powers.
Sir Harry Pearce KBE will no doubt watch things regularly whilst Tom Quinn mopes about Kent and the Pas de Calais looking intensely purposeful. A few extra Union Jacks will be flown about too for good measure.
It will turn the tide.
Natalie will sort it out 👍
I'm a bit late to the Natalie Elphicke party, having been busy this week, but it does seem to me a definite but not fatal Starmer mistake. The Elphicke phenomenon in every respect represents exactly why a couple of million normally Tory voters have defected to Labour. Starmer should have said 'I am pleased she has left the Tories, but she has a long road to travel before she could be a Labour MP'.'
I'm starting to wonder if Starmer is Labour's Sunak, a bright administrator with a tin ear for politics.
Listening to his 'stop the boats' proposals today most of them are currently being undertaken by the government but he has stated publicly that Rwanda will stop on day one of his Premiership, thereby handing the gangs all they need to gain many more asylum seekers to their disgusting business
Whilst Rwanda is not the best policy, there are some early indications it is having some effect and a wise politician would have said that they will review the scheme once in office, rather than raise the prospect of many more crossings this summer
He can't sensibly say on this one "we'll review it in office" as he'd be slammed by both sides of the debate for that.
His statement today was an absolute gift to the people smugglers who can now actively reassure their asylum seekers they need have no fear of Rwanda as Starmer will be in office within 6 months
I expect record numbers for the rest of the year unless Sunak does get flights away and it is seen as a deterrent
And so PB reverts to its happy place of slagging off Labour. Bit earlier than I expected but this'll be it for the next decade or more.
I've always slagged them off. I don't like them. That's something they now have in common with the Tories, Lib Dems and Greens. Which makes my vote next time interesting. Fingers crossed an interesting 'other' stands
Eurovision betting has seen a mild swing back. Croatia is again odds-on, and Israel back to 7/2 (still shorter than they started the day).
It would be wonderful is Israel win and then host the show in Gaza next year so all the Palestinian/Eurovision lovers can get a taste of the intolerance they are supporting. They love the usual Eurovision demographic in Gaza.
Indeed. Killing 35,000 Palestinians is pretty intolerant.
How many Hamas terrorists/rapists/murderers do you think it would be acceptable for Israel to kill?
And how many of their captive, innocent civilians do you think would be acceptable collateral in that context?
Or do you really believe that Israel should only go for about a thousand of them, in order to keep Sunal Jazeera's barchart roughly equal?
Even the US State Department believes the Hamas figures for dead and wounded are an UNDERestimate, due to bodies lying under the rubble produced by Israeli bombs and shells.
You haven't answered any of my questions
How many Hamas rapist murderers dead would be too many, in your view?
You forget that 1,000 of the Hamas Terrorists were actually killed by the IDF on 7/10 itself.
I didn't forget that
You just don't want to say how many Hamas rapists and murderers you'd want to save in that hypothetical situation
Because you think Israel killed enough of them before October 7th, according to your barchart
You think that Hamas's actions were perfectly proportionate, given the Israelis' previous brutality towards them
Or..
If you don't, answer the question
How many Hamas rapists and murderers is it acceptable for Israel to kill?
How many innocent Palestinians do you want Israel to kill?
Why do other arab countries not take refugees? Simple answer is to many palestinians are extremists and they worry about having them in their own country. Yes there are innocent palestinians....I suspect not as many as you think
They took in the Palestinians where forced out of their country at creation of Israel in 1947. That led to the destabilisation of both Lebanon and Jordan with tragic consequences, particularly in the former case.
In any event the Arab world is not homogeneous. Linguistically, there are over 30 different varieties of spoken Arabic not all of which are mutually intelligible. Palestinians speak Levantine Arabic which is spoken in Lebanon and Jordan (see above). One can draw an analogy between Portuguese, Spanish and Italian - all have their roots in Latin, and for many years written Latin was how elites communicated, but speakers do not automatically understand one another. Similar for vernacular Arabic and liturgical, written, Arabic, which is to the Arab world what Latin used to be in Europe.
So when people say why can’t the other Arab countries take them in you’re assuming that groups as distinct as different countries in Europe should have free movement. Which, given those voices are often opposed free movement across this continent, is a tad ironic.
Ukranians speak a different language to most european countries....hasn't stopped them taking in refugees from the war
So why don’t we take in Palestinian refugees as well as Ukrainian ones them?
Because we don't want to take extremists in?
If you’re worried about “extremists” perhaps we could just take the kids.
Or we just dig a big hole and throw all christians, muslims and jews down it and fill it in.....would make the world a more pleasant place
The Nazis made a start on that, didn’t end well.
The nazi's only concentrated on one of the 3.
And while I wasn't making a serious suggestion which I am sure you realised. It does seem to be the people of the book causing most of the worlds problems from evangelical far right christians to extremist jihadi muslims
The NSDAP did give *some* Christians a very difficult time, tbf, right down to a trip to the KZ-Lagern. Not sure of the Goettglaubige count as Christians, either, biut IANAE.
Erm...if you read it carefully, that is not backing for the "Rwanda Scheme" as it operates. The poll shows 55% support for asylum seekers being "removed to their home country or to a safe country, such as Rwanda". "Such as Rwanda" is doing a lot of work there
Well, a policy of removal is supported 55 to 22. I think we can assume given that Rwanda is specifically named that those polled are not opposed to the policy by the majority as given. There is a majority in favour of removal. Starmer today has not addressed that. As such, risky for him, but would want to see polling on 'flights versus Starmers plan' to see if it shifts the dial
99% of people won't have the first clue what Starmer's plan is. And it doesn't matter what it is - the average person doesn't follow that sort of detail.
In contrast, if a plane actually takes off to Rwanda on TV that is one of the few things that will cut through with the public.
Now my own view is it's still pretty unlikely a plane will take off to Rwanda pre General Election - because some Court somewhere will stop it or Civil Servants will all refuse to process people or whatever.
But at the same time, this does feel high risk for Starmer. Because if the unlikely event of a plane going were to happen that will cut through with the public. And if Starmer has said he will stop flights that would then be seriously damaging for him.
What are you talking about?
Starmer is going to use MI5 to stop them. *MI5*. And special super anti-terrorist powers.
Sir Harry Pearce KBE will no doubt watch things regularly whilst Tom Quinn mopes about Kent and the Pas de Calais looking intensely purposeful. A few extra Union Jacks will be flown about too for good measure.
It will turn the tide.
Natalie will sort it out 👍
I'm a bit late to the Natalie Elphicke party, having been busy this week, but it does seem to me a definite but not fatal Starmer mistake. The Elphicke phenomenon in every respect represents exactly why a couple of million normally Tory voters have defected to Labour. Starmer should have said 'I am pleased she has left the Tories, but she has a long road to travel before she could be a Labour MP'.'
I'm starting to wonder if Starmer is Labour's Sunak, a bright administrator with a tin ear for politics.
Listening to his 'stop the boats' proposals today most of them are currently being undertaken by the government but he has stated publicly that Rwanda will stop on day one of his Premiership, thereby handing the gangs all they need to gain many more asylum seekers to their disgusting business
Whilst Rwanda is not the best policy, there are some early indications it is having some effect and a wise politician would have said that they will review the scheme once in office, rather than raise the prospect of many more crossings this summer
He can't sensibly say on this one "we'll review it in office" as he'd be slammed by both sides of the debate for that.
His statement today was an absolute gift to the people smugglers who can now actively reassure their asylum seekers they need have no fear of Rwanda as Starmer will be in office within 6 months
I expect record numbers for the rest of the year unless Sunak does get flights away and it is seen as a deterrent
And so PB reverts to its happy place of slagging off Labour. Bit earlier than I expected but this'll be it for the next decade or more.
As a matter of interest do you not see the consequences of his statement today and no political party is going to get a free pass
I see you are preparing your argument that it's all SKS's fault...
Erm...if you read it carefully, that is not backing for the "Rwanda Scheme" as it operates. The poll shows 55% support for asylum seekers being "removed to their home country or to a safe country, such as Rwanda". "Such as Rwanda" is doing a lot of work there
Well, a policy of removal is supported 55 to 22. I think we can assume given that Rwanda is specifically named that those polled are not opposed to the policy by the majority as given. There is a majority in favour of removal. Starmer today has not addressed that. As such, risky for him, but would want to see polling on 'flights versus Starmers plan' to see if it shifts the dial
99% of people won't have the first clue what Starmer's plan is. And it doesn't matter what it is - the average person doesn't follow that sort of detail.
In contrast, if a plane actually takes off to Rwanda on TV that is one of the few things that will cut through with the public.
Now my own view is it's still pretty unlikely a plane will take off to Rwanda pre General Election - because some Court somewhere will stop it or Civil Servants will all refuse to process people or whatever.
But at the same time, this does feel high risk for Starmer. Because if the unlikely event of a plane going were to happen that will cut through with the public. And if Starmer has said he will stop flights that would then be seriously damaging for him.
What are you talking about?
Starmer is going to use MI5 to stop them. *MI5*. And special super anti-terrorist powers.
Sir Harry Pearce KBE will no doubt watch things regularly whilst Tom Quinn mopes about Kent and the Pas de Calais looking intensely purposeful. A few extra Union Jacks will be flown about too for good measure.
It will turn the tide.
Natalie will sort it out 👍
I'm a bit late to the Natalie Elphicke party, having been busy this week, but it does seem to me a definite but not fatal Starmer mistake. The Elphicke phenomenon in every respect represents exactly why a couple of million normally Tory voters have defected to Labour. Starmer should have said 'I am pleased she has left the Tories, but she has a long road to travel before she could be a Labour MP'.'
I'm starting to wonder if Starmer is Labour's Sunak, a bright administrator with a tin ear for politics.
Listening to his 'stop the boats' proposals today most of them are currently being undertaken by the government but he has stated publicly that Rwanda will stop on day one of his Premiership, thereby handing the gangs all they need to gain many more asylum seekers to their disgusting business
Whilst Rwanda is not the best policy, there are some early indications it is having some effect and a wise politician would have said that they will review the scheme once in office, rather than raise the prospect of many more crossings this summer
He can't sensibly say on this one "we'll review it in office" as he'd be slammed by both sides of the debate for that.
His statement today was an absolute gift to the people smugglers who can now actively reassure their asylum seekers they need have no fear of Rwanda as Starmer will be in office within 6 months
I expect record numbers for the rest of the year unless Sunak does get flights away and it is seen as a deterrent
I expect record numbers too, because the Rwanda scheme was always going to have zero effect on asylum seekers, who are already prepared to take far greater risks in crossing the channel.
However, it sounds like you will now be blaming the inevitable failure of Sunak's doomed scheme on Starmer. Have I got that right?
It was unwise to give the people smugglers the confidence that Rwanda will not happen when there are early indications it is having some effect, and of course many think and want Rwanda to fail but the concept is being considered by France, Germany , Italy and the EU itself and a deterrent of some form is badly needed
Eurovision betting has seen a mild swing back. Croatia is again odds-on, and Israel back to 7/2 (still shorter than they started the day).
It would be wonderful is Israel win and then host the show in Gaza next year so all the Palestinian/Eurovision lovers can get a taste of the intolerance they are supporting. They love the usual Eurovision demographic in Gaza.
Indeed. Killing 35,000 Palestinians is pretty intolerant.
How many Hamas terrorists/rapists/murderers do you think it would be acceptable for Israel to kill?
And how many of their captive, innocent civilians do you think would be acceptable collateral in that context?
Or do you really believe that Israel should only go for about a thousand of them, in order to keep Sunal Jazeera's barchart roughly equal?
Even the US State Department believes the Hamas figures for dead and wounded are an UNDERestimate, due to bodies lying under the rubble produced by Israeli bombs and shells.
You haven't answered any of my questions
How many Hamas rapist murderers dead would be too many, in your view?
You forget that 1,000 of the Hamas Terrorists were actually killed by the IDF on 7/10 itself.
I didn't forget that
You just don't want to say how many Hamas rapists and murderers you'd want to save in that hypothetical situation
Because you think Israel killed enough of them before October 7th, according to your barchart
You think that Hamas's actions were perfectly proportionate, given the Israelis' previous brutality towards them
Or..
If you don't, answer the question
How many Hamas rapists and murderers is it acceptable for Israel to kill?
How many innocent Palestinians do you want Israel to kill?
Why do other arab countries not take refugees? Simple answer is to many palestinians are extremists and they worry about having them in their own country. Yes there are innocent palestinians....I suspect not as many as you think
They took in the Palestinians where forced out of their country at creation of Israel in 1947. That led to the destabilisation of both Lebanon and Jordan with tragic consequences, particularly in the former case.
In any event the Arab world is not homogeneous. Linguistically, there are over 30 different varieties of spoken Arabic not all of which are mutually intelligible. Palestinians speak Levantine Arabic which is spoken in Lebanon and Jordan (see above). One can draw an analogy between Portuguese, Spanish and Italian - all have their roots in Latin, and for many years written Latin was how elites communicated, but speakers do not automatically understand one another. Similar for vernacular Arabic and liturgical, written, Arabic, which is to the Arab world what Latin used to be in Europe.
So when people say why can’t the other Arab countries take them in you’re assuming that groups as distinct as different countries in Europe should have free movement. Which, given those voices are often opposed free movement across this continent, is a tad ironic.
Ukranians speak a different language to most european countries....hasn't stopped them taking in refugees from the war
So why don’t we take in Palestinian refugees as well as Ukrainian ones them?
Because we don't want to take extremists in?
If you’re worried about “extremists” perhaps we could just take the kids.
Or we just dig a big hole and throw all christians, muslims and jews down it and fill it in.....would make the world a more pleasant place
The Nazis made a start on that, didn’t end well.
The nazi's only concentrated on one of the 3.
And while I wasn't making a serious suggestion which I am sure you realised. It does seem to be the people of the book causing most of the worlds problems from evangelical far right christians to extremist jihadi muslims
The NSDAP did give *some* Christians a very difficult time, tbf, right down to a trip to the KZ-Lagern. Not sure of the Goettglaubige count as Christians, either, biut IANAE.
They'd've gone after all the Christians eventually. Nazi Germany depended on having an ever-expanding circle of people to torment and to murder. Bear in mind that when they started murdering Jews on an industrial scale they were also planning to exterminate the Slavs by taking their land and starving them to death. Like the Tunguska meteorite, their existence was marked by an expanding circle of mass graves pointing back to the point of origin. They would have never been satisfied.
Erm...if you read it carefully, that is not backing for the "Rwanda Scheme" as it operates. The poll shows 55% support for asylum seekers being "removed to their home country or to a safe country, such as Rwanda". "Such as Rwanda" is doing a lot of work there
Well, a policy of removal is supported 55 to 22. I think we can assume given that Rwanda is specifically named that those polled are not opposed to the policy by the majority as given. There is a majority in favour of removal. Starmer today has not addressed that. As such, risky for him, but would want to see polling on 'flights versus Starmers plan' to see if it shifts the dial
99% of people won't have the first clue what Starmer's plan is. And it doesn't matter what it is - the average person doesn't follow that sort of detail.
In contrast, if a plane actually takes off to Rwanda on TV that is one of the few things that will cut through with the public.
Now my own view is it's still pretty unlikely a plane will take off to Rwanda pre General Election - because some Court somewhere will stop it or Civil Servants will all refuse to process people or whatever.
But at the same time, this does feel high risk for Starmer. Because if the unlikely event of a plane going were to happen that will cut through with the public. And if Starmer has said he will stop flights that would then be seriously damaging for him.
What are you talking about?
Starmer is going to use MI5 to stop them. *MI5*. And special super anti-terrorist powers.
Sir Harry Pearce KBE will no doubt watch things regularly whilst Tom Quinn mopes about Kent and the Pas de Calais looking intensely purposeful. A few extra Union Jacks will be flown about too for good measure.
It will turn the tide.
Natalie will sort it out 👍
I'm a bit late to the Natalie Elphicke party, having been busy this week, but it does seem to me a definite but not fatal Starmer mistake. The Elphicke phenomenon in every respect represents exactly why a couple of million normally Tory voters have defected to Labour. Starmer should have said 'I am pleased she has left the Tories, but she has a long road to travel before she could be a Labour MP'.'
I'm starting to wonder if Starmer is Labour's Sunak, a bright administrator with a tin ear for politics.
Listening to his 'stop the boats' proposals today most of them are currently being undertaken by the government but he has stated publicly that Rwanda will stop on day one of his Premiership, thereby handing the gangs all they need to gain many more asylum seekers to their disgusting business
Whilst Rwanda is not the best policy, there are some early indications it is having some effect and a wise politician would have said that they will review the scheme once in office, rather than raise the prospect of many more crossings this summer
He can't sensibly say on this one "we'll review it in office" as he'd be slammed by both sides of the debate for that.
His statement today was an absolute gift to the people smugglers who can now actively reassure their asylum seekers they need have no fear of Rwanda as Starmer will be in office within 6 months
I expect record numbers for the rest of the year unless Sunak does get flights away and it is seen as a deterrent
And so PB reverts to its happy place of slagging off Labour. Bit earlier than I expected but this'll be it for the next decade or more.
I've always slagged them off. I don't like them. That's something they now have in common with the Tories, Lib Dems and Greens. Which makes my vote next time interesting. Fingers crossed an interesting 'other' stands
Count Binface!
If only he'd come to Norwich! Maybe the SDP will grace my city. If not then my visceral dislike of Clive Lewis will trump all and I'll have to vote for whomever looks best placed to evict him. Probably the Greens, sadly, as I don't want to turn into Swampy.
Erm...if you read it carefully, that is not backing for the "Rwanda Scheme" as it operates. The poll shows 55% support for asylum seekers being "removed to their home country or to a safe country, such as Rwanda". "Such as Rwanda" is doing a lot of work there
Well, a policy of removal is supported 55 to 22. I think we can assume given that Rwanda is specifically named that those polled are not opposed to the policy by the majority as given. There is a majority in favour of removal. Starmer today has not addressed that. As such, risky for him, but would want to see polling on 'flights versus Starmers plan' to see if it shifts the dial
99% of people won't have the first clue what Starmer's plan is. And it doesn't matter what it is - the average person doesn't follow that sort of detail.
In contrast, if a plane actually takes off to Rwanda on TV that is one of the few things that will cut through with the public.
Now my own view is it's still pretty unlikely a plane will take off to Rwanda pre General Election - because some Court somewhere will stop it or Civil Servants will all refuse to process people or whatever.
But at the same time, this does feel high risk for Starmer. Because if the unlikely event of a plane going were to happen that will cut through with the public. And if Starmer has said he will stop flights that would then be seriously damaging for him.
What are you talking about?
Starmer is going to use MI5 to stop them. *MI5*. And special super anti-terrorist powers.
Sir Harry Pearce KBE will no doubt watch things regularly whilst Tom Quinn mopes about Kent and the Pas de Calais looking intensely purposeful. A few extra Union Jacks will be flown about too for good measure.
It will turn the tide.
Natalie will sort it out 👍
I'm a bit late to the Natalie Elphicke party, having been busy this week, but it does seem to me a definite but not fatal Starmer mistake. The Elphicke phenomenon in every respect represents exactly why a couple of million normally Tory voters have defected to Labour. Starmer should have said 'I am pleased she has left the Tories, but she has a long road to travel before she could be a Labour MP'.'
I'm starting to wonder if Starmer is Labour's Sunak, a bright administrator with a tin ear for politics.
Listening to his 'stop the boats' proposals today most of them are currently being undertaken by the government but he has stated publicly that Rwanda will stop on day one of his Premiership, thereby handing the gangs all they need to gain many more asylum seekers to their disgusting business
Whilst Rwanda is not the best policy, there are some early indications it is having some effect and a wise politician would have said that they will review the scheme once in office, rather than raise the prospect of many more crossings this summer
He can't sensibly say on this one "we'll review it in office" as he'd be slammed by both sides of the debate for that.
His statement today was an absolute gift to the people smugglers who can now actively reassure their asylum seekers they need have no fear of Rwanda as Starmer will be in office within 6 months
I expect record numbers for the rest of the year unless Sunak does get flights away and it is seen as a deterrent
And so PB reverts to its happy place of slagging off Labour. Bit earlier than I expected but this'll be it for the next decade or more.
I've always slagged them off. I don't like them. That's something they now have in common with the Tories, Lib Dems and Greens. Which makes my vote next time interesting. Fingers crossed an interesting 'other' stands
Well, yes, I recognise a "plague on all your houses" line when I see it but what would you like?
I keep hearing no one has the answers, what are the answers, does anyone understand the questions?
What kind of country, society and economy do you want?
Erm...if you read it carefully, that is not backing for the "Rwanda Scheme" as it operates. The poll shows 55% support for asylum seekers being "removed to their home country or to a safe country, such as Rwanda". "Such as Rwanda" is doing a lot of work there
Well, a policy of removal is supported 55 to 22. I think we can assume given that Rwanda is specifically named that those polled are not opposed to the policy by the majority as given. There is a majority in favour of removal. Starmer today has not addressed that. As such, risky for him, but would want to see polling on 'flights versus Starmers plan' to see if it shifts the dial
99% of people won't have the first clue what Starmer's plan is. And it doesn't matter what it is - the average person doesn't follow that sort of detail.
In contrast, if a plane actually takes off to Rwanda on TV that is one of the few things that will cut through with the public.
Now my own view is it's still pretty unlikely a plane will take off to Rwanda pre General Election - because some Court somewhere will stop it or Civil Servants will all refuse to process people or whatever.
But at the same time, this does feel high risk for Starmer. Because if the unlikely event of a plane going were to happen that will cut through with the public. And if Starmer has said he will stop flights that would then be seriously damaging for him.
What are you talking about?
Starmer is going to use MI5 to stop them. *MI5*. And special super anti-terrorist powers.
Sir Harry Pearce KBE will no doubt watch things regularly whilst Tom Quinn mopes about Kent and the Pas de Calais looking intensely purposeful. A few extra Union Jacks will be flown about too for good measure.
It will turn the tide.
Natalie will sort it out 👍
I'm a bit late to the Natalie Elphicke party, having been busy this week, but it does seem to me a definite but not fatal Starmer mistake. The Elphicke phenomenon in every respect represents exactly why a couple of million normally Tory voters have defected to Labour. Starmer should have said 'I am pleased she has left the Tories, but she has a long road to travel before she could be a Labour MP'.'
I'm starting to wonder if Starmer is Labour's Sunak, a bright administrator with a tin ear for politics.
Listening to his 'stop the boats' proposals today most of them are currently being undertaken by the government but he has stated publicly that Rwanda will stop on day one of his Premiership, thereby handing the gangs all they need to gain many more asylum seekers to their disgusting business
Whilst Rwanda is not the best policy, there are some early indications it is having some effect and a wise politician would have said that they will review the scheme once in office, rather than raise the prospect of many more crossings this summer
He can't sensibly say on this one "we'll review it in office" as he'd be slammed by both sides of the debate for that.
His statement today was an absolute gift to the people smugglers who can now actively reassure their asylum seekers they need have no fear of Rwanda as Starmer will be in office within 6 months
I expect record numbers for the rest of the year unless Sunak does get flights away and it is seen as a deterrent
I expect record numbers too, because the Rwanda scheme was always going to have zero effect on asylum seekers, who are already prepared to take far greater risks in crossing the channel.
However, it sounds like you will now be blaming the inevitable failure of Sunak's doomed scheme on Starmer. Have I got that right?
It was unwise to give the people smugglers the confidence that Rwanda will not happen when there are early indications it is having some effect, and of course many think and want Rwanda to fail but the concept is being considered by France, Germany , Italy and the EU itself and a deterrent of some form is badly needed
Erm...if you read it carefully, that is not backing for the "Rwanda Scheme" as it operates. The poll shows 55% support for asylum seekers being "removed to their home country or to a safe country, such as Rwanda". "Such as Rwanda" is doing a lot of work there
Well, a policy of removal is supported 55 to 22. I think we can assume given that Rwanda is specifically named that those polled are not opposed to the policy by the majority as given. There is a majority in favour of removal. Starmer today has not addressed that. As such, risky for him, but would want to see polling on 'flights versus Starmers plan' to see if it shifts the dial
99% of people won't have the first clue what Starmer's plan is. And it doesn't matter what it is - the average person doesn't follow that sort of detail.
In contrast, if a plane actually takes off to Rwanda on TV that is one of the few things that will cut through with the public.
Now my own view is it's still pretty unlikely a plane will take off to Rwanda pre General Election - because some Court somewhere will stop it or Civil Servants will all refuse to process people or whatever.
But at the same time, this does feel high risk for Starmer. Because if the unlikely event of a plane going were to happen that will cut through with the public. And if Starmer has said he will stop flights that would then be seriously damaging for him.
What are you talking about?
Starmer is going to use MI5 to stop them. *MI5*. And special super anti-terrorist powers.
Sir Harry Pearce KBE will no doubt watch things regularly whilst Tom Quinn mopes about Kent and the Pas de Calais looking intensely purposeful. A few extra Union Jacks will be flown about too for good measure.
It will turn the tide.
Natalie will sort it out 👍
I'm a bit late to the Natalie Elphicke party, having been busy this week, but it does seem to me a definite but not fatal Starmer mistake. The Elphicke phenomenon in every respect represents exactly why a couple of million normally Tory voters have defected to Labour. Starmer should have said 'I am pleased she has left the Tories, but she has a long road to travel before she could be a Labour MP'.'
I'm starting to wonder if Starmer is Labour's Sunak, a bright administrator with a tin ear for politics.
Listening to his 'stop the boats' proposals today most of them are currently being undertaken by the government but he has stated publicly that Rwanda will stop on day one of his Premiership, thereby handing the gangs all they need to gain many more asylum seekers to their disgusting business
Whilst Rwanda is not the best policy, there are some early indications it is having some effect and a wise politician would have said that they will review the scheme once in office, rather than raise the prospect of many more crossings this summer
He can't sensibly say on this one "we'll review it in office" as he'd be slammed by both sides of the debate for that.
His statement today was an absolute gift to the people smugglers who can now actively reassure their asylum seekers they need have no fear of Rwanda as Starmer will be in office within 6 months
I expect record numbers for the rest of the year unless Sunak does get flights away and it is seen as a deterrent
I expect record numbers too, because the Rwanda scheme was always going to have zero effect on asylum seekers, who are already prepared to take far greater risks in crossing the channel.
However, it sounds like you will now be blaming the inevitable failure of Sunak's doomed scheme on Starmer. Have I got that right?
It was unwise to give the people smugglers the confidence that Rwanda will not happen when there are early indications it is having some effect, and of course many think and want Rwanda to fail but the concept is being considered by France, Germany , Italy and the EU itself and a deterrent of some form is badly needed
There are no good indications it is having an effect. Some Irish politicians said some things for their own reasons, and subsequently admitted they weren't basing their comments off any concrete evidence. The number of crossings, the best indicator of whether it has been a success or not, has increased.
Erm...if you read it carefully, that is not backing for the "Rwanda Scheme" as it operates. The poll shows 55% support for asylum seekers being "removed to their home country or to a safe country, such as Rwanda". "Such as Rwanda" is doing a lot of work there
Well, a policy of removal is supported 55 to 22. I think we can assume given that Rwanda is specifically named that those polled are not opposed to the policy by the majority as given. There is a majority in favour of removal. Starmer today has not addressed that. As such, risky for him, but would want to see polling on 'flights versus Starmers plan' to see if it shifts the dial
99% of people won't have the first clue what Starmer's plan is. And it doesn't matter what it is - the average person doesn't follow that sort of detail.
In contrast, if a plane actually takes off to Rwanda on TV that is one of the few things that will cut through with the public.
Now my own view is it's still pretty unlikely a plane will take off to Rwanda pre General Election - because some Court somewhere will stop it or Civil Servants will all refuse to process people or whatever.
But at the same time, this does feel high risk for Starmer. Because if the unlikely event of a plane going were to happen that will cut through with the public. And if Starmer has said he will stop flights that would then be seriously damaging for him.
What are you talking about?
Starmer is going to use MI5 to stop them. *MI5*. And special super anti-terrorist powers.
Sir Harry Pearce KBE will no doubt watch things regularly whilst Tom Quinn mopes about Kent and the Pas de Calais looking intensely purposeful. A few extra Union Jacks will be flown about too for good measure.
It will turn the tide.
Natalie will sort it out 👍
I'm a bit late to the Natalie Elphicke party, having been busy this week, but it does seem to me a definite but not fatal Starmer mistake. The Elphicke phenomenon in every respect represents exactly why a couple of million normally Tory voters have defected to Labour. Starmer should have said 'I am pleased she has left the Tories, but she has a long road to travel before she could be a Labour MP'.'
I'm starting to wonder if Starmer is Labour's Sunak, a bright administrator with a tin ear for politics.
Listening to his 'stop the boats' proposals today most of them are currently being undertaken by the government but he has stated publicly that Rwanda will stop on day one of his Premiership, thereby handing the gangs all they need to gain many more asylum seekers to their disgusting business
Whilst Rwanda is not the best policy, there are some early indications it is having some effect and a wise politician would have said that they will review the scheme once in office, rather than raise the prospect of many more crossings this summer
He can't sensibly say on this one "we'll review it in office" as he'd be slammed by both sides of the debate for that.
His statement today was an absolute gift to the people smugglers who can now actively reassure their asylum seekers they need have no fear of Rwanda as Starmer will be in office within 6 months
I expect record numbers for the rest of the year unless Sunak does get flights away and it is seen as a deterrent
And so PB reverts to its happy place of slagging off Labour. Bit earlier than I expected but this'll be it for the next decade or more.
I've always slagged them off. I don't like them. That's something they now have in common with the Tories, Lib Dems and Greens. Which makes my vote next time interesting. Fingers crossed an interesting 'other' stands
Well, yes, I recognise a "plague on all your houses" line when I see it but what would you like?
I keep hearing no one has the answers, what are the answers, does anyone understand the questions?
What kind of country, society and economy do you want?
Scandinavian services funded by other peoples taxes.
The same people that said Boris Johnson would be in power for a decade are now saying SKS was wrong to take Natalie Elphicke. Okay.
I think we should be minded to listen to what @CorrectHorseBattery said before he was sadly banned: "SKS is constantly underrated. Play him down at your peril."
Erm...if you read it carefully, that is not backing for the "Rwanda Scheme" as it operates. The poll shows 55% support for asylum seekers being "removed to their home country or to a safe country, such as Rwanda". "Such as Rwanda" is doing a lot of work there
Well, a policy of removal is supported 55 to 22. I think we can assume given that Rwanda is specifically named that those polled are not opposed to the policy by the majority as given. There is a majority in favour of removal. Starmer today has not addressed that. As such, risky for him, but would want to see polling on 'flights versus Starmers plan' to see if it shifts the dial
99% of people won't have the first clue what Starmer's plan is. And it doesn't matter what it is - the average person doesn't follow that sort of detail.
In contrast, if a plane actually takes off to Rwanda on TV that is one of the few things that will cut through with the public.
Now my own view is it's still pretty unlikely a plane will take off to Rwanda pre General Election - because some Court somewhere will stop it or Civil Servants will all refuse to process people or whatever.
But at the same time, this does feel high risk for Starmer. Because if the unlikely event of a plane going were to happen that will cut through with the public. And if Starmer has said he will stop flights that would then be seriously damaging for him.
What are you talking about?
Starmer is going to use MI5 to stop them. *MI5*. And special super anti-terrorist powers.
Sir Harry Pearce KBE will no doubt watch things regularly whilst Tom Quinn mopes about Kent and the Pas de Calais looking intensely purposeful. A few extra Union Jacks will be flown about too for good measure.
It will turn the tide.
Natalie will sort it out 👍
I'm a bit late to the Natalie Elphicke party, having been busy this week, but it does seem to me a definite but not fatal Starmer mistake. The Elphicke phenomenon in every respect represents exactly why a couple of million normally Tory voters have defected to Labour. Starmer should have said 'I am pleased she has left the Tories, but she has a long road to travel before she could be a Labour MP'.'
I'm starting to wonder if Starmer is Labour's Sunak, a bright administrator with a tin ear for politics.
Listening to his 'stop the boats' proposals today most of them are currently being undertaken by the government but he has stated publicly that Rwanda will stop on day one of his Premiership, thereby handing the gangs all they need to gain many more asylum seekers to their disgusting business
Whilst Rwanda is not the best policy, there are some early indications it is having some effect and a wise politician would have said that they will review the scheme once in office, rather than raise the prospect of many more crossings this summer
He can't sensibly say on this one "we'll review it in office" as he'd be slammed by both sides of the debate for that.
His statement today was an absolute gift to the people smugglers who can now actively reassure their asylum seekers they need have no fear of Rwanda as Starmer will be in office within 6 months
I expect record numbers for the rest of the year unless Sunak does get flights away and it is seen as a deterrent
And so PB reverts to its happy place of slagging off Labour. Bit earlier than I expected but this'll be it for the next decade or more.
As a matter of interest do you not see the consequences of his statement today and no political party is going to get a free pass
I see you are preparing your argument that it's all SKS's fault...
The irony is he will be in meetings with other EU countries to agree similar schemes to Rwanda within weeks of taking office
Erm...if you read it carefully, that is not backing for the "Rwanda Scheme" as it operates. The poll shows 55% support for asylum seekers being "removed to their home country or to a safe country, such as Rwanda". "Such as Rwanda" is doing a lot of work there
Well, a policy of removal is supported 55 to 22. I think we can assume given that Rwanda is specifically named that those polled are not opposed to the policy by the majority as given. There is a majority in favour of removal. Starmer today has not addressed that. As such, risky for him, but would want to see polling on 'flights versus Starmers plan' to see if it shifts the dial
99% of people won't have the first clue what Starmer's plan is. And it doesn't matter what it is - the average person doesn't follow that sort of detail.
In contrast, if a plane actually takes off to Rwanda on TV that is one of the few things that will cut through with the public.
Now my own view is it's still pretty unlikely a plane will take off to Rwanda pre General Election - because some Court somewhere will stop it or Civil Servants will all refuse to process people or whatever.
But at the same time, this does feel high risk for Starmer. Because if the unlikely event of a plane going were to happen that will cut through with the public. And if Starmer has said he will stop flights that would then be seriously damaging for him.
What are you talking about?
Starmer is going to use MI5 to stop them. *MI5*. And special super anti-terrorist powers.
Sir Harry Pearce KBE will no doubt watch things regularly whilst Tom Quinn mopes about Kent and the Pas de Calais looking intensely purposeful. A few extra Union Jacks will be flown about too for good measure.
It will turn the tide.
Natalie will sort it out 👍
I'm a bit late to the Natalie Elphicke party, having been busy this week, but it does seem to me a definite but not fatal Starmer mistake. The Elphicke phenomenon in every respect represents exactly why a couple of million normally Tory voters have defected to Labour. Starmer should have said 'I am pleased she has left the Tories, but she has a long road to travel before she could be a Labour MP'.'
I'm starting to wonder if Starmer is Labour's Sunak, a bright administrator with a tin ear for politics.
Listening to his 'stop the boats' proposals today most of them are currently being undertaken by the government but he has stated publicly that Rwanda will stop on day one of his Premiership, thereby handing the gangs all they need to gain many more asylum seekers to their disgusting business
Whilst Rwanda is not the best policy, there are some early indications it is having some effect and a wise politician would have said that they will review the scheme once in office, rather than raise the prospect of many more crossings this summer
He can't sensibly say on this one "we'll review it in office" as he'd be slammed by both sides of the debate for that.
His statement today was an absolute gift to the people smugglers who can now actively reassure their asylum seekers they need have no fear of Rwanda as Starmer will be in office within 6 months
I expect record numbers for the rest of the year unless Sunak does get flights away and it is seen as a deterrent
And so PB reverts to its happy place of slagging off Labour. Bit earlier than I expected but this'll be it for the next decade or more.
I've always slagged them off. I don't like them. That's something they now have in common with the Tories, Lib Dems and Greens. Which makes my vote next time interesting. Fingers crossed an interesting 'other' stands
Well, yes, I recognise a "plague on all your houses" line when I see it but what would you like?
I keep hearing no one has the answers, what are the answers, does anyone understand the questions?
What kind of country, society and economy do you want?
Very good questions Stodge, and something I'm giving much thought to. And answers are not readily forthcoming. Because ultimately I think we are a society in the Last Days of Rome (West generally) and things should be drastically different. How is, as yet, a foreign country to me. So I'm in anarchy/burn it to the ground mode and mood in the hope the flames inspire
The same people that said Boris Johnson would be in power for a decade are now saying SKS was wrong to take Natalie Elphicke. Okay.
I think we should be minded to listen to what @CorrectHorseBattery said before he was sadly banned: "SKS is constantly underrated. Play him down at your peril."
I was one half of the duo on here who were most vocal about the possibility that Boris Johnson in 2021 had a good chance of increasing his majority at the next election. And I've also now been one of the few who are willing to say a good word about Starmer's choice to accept the defection of Natalie Elphicke.
Not sure that it makes any difference to underestimating Starmer. All it says is that there's a wide spread of views on here and necessarily most of us will be wrong most of the time.
Erm...if you read it carefully, that is not backing for the "Rwanda Scheme" as it operates. The poll shows 55% support for asylum seekers being "removed to their home country or to a safe country, such as Rwanda". "Such as Rwanda" is doing a lot of work there
Well, a policy of removal is supported 55 to 22. I think we can assume given that Rwanda is specifically named that those polled are not opposed to the policy by the majority as given. There is a majority in favour of removal. Starmer today has not addressed that. As such, risky for him, but would want to see polling on 'flights versus Starmers plan' to see if it shifts the dial
99% of people won't have the first clue what Starmer's plan is. And it doesn't matter what it is - the average person doesn't follow that sort of detail.
In contrast, if a plane actually takes off to Rwanda on TV that is one of the few things that will cut through with the public.
Now my own view is it's still pretty unlikely a plane will take off to Rwanda pre General Election - because some Court somewhere will stop it or Civil Servants will all refuse to process people or whatever.
But at the same time, this does feel high risk for Starmer. Because if the unlikely event of a plane going were to happen that will cut through with the public. And if Starmer has said he will stop flights that would then be seriously damaging for him.
What are you talking about?
Starmer is going to use MI5 to stop them. *MI5*. And special super anti-terrorist powers.
Sir Harry Pearce KBE will no doubt watch things regularly whilst Tom Quinn mopes about Kent and the Pas de Calais looking intensely purposeful. A few extra Union Jacks will be flown about too for good measure.
It will turn the tide.
Natalie will sort it out 👍
I'm a bit late to the Natalie Elphicke party, having been busy this week, but it does seem to me a definite but not fatal Starmer mistake. The Elphicke phenomenon in every respect represents exactly why a couple of million normally Tory voters have defected to Labour. Starmer should have said 'I am pleased she has left the Tories, but she has a long road to travel before she could be a Labour MP'.'
I'm starting to wonder if Starmer is Labour's Sunak, a bright administrator with a tin ear for politics.
Listening to his 'stop the boats' proposals today most of them are currently being undertaken by the government but he has stated publicly that Rwanda will stop on day one of his Premiership, thereby handing the gangs all they need to gain many more asylum seekers to their disgusting business
Whilst Rwanda is not the best policy, there are some early indications it is having some effect and a wise politician would have said that they will review the scheme once in office, rather than raise the prospect of many more crossings this summer
He can't sensibly say on this one "we'll review it in office" as he'd be slammed by both sides of the debate for that.
His statement today was an absolute gift to the people smugglers who can now actively reassure their asylum seekers they need have no fear of Rwanda as Starmer will be in office within 6 months
I expect record numbers for the rest of the year unless Sunak does get flights away and it is seen as a deterrent
I expect record numbers too, because the Rwanda scheme was always going to have zero effect on asylum seekers, who are already prepared to take far greater risks in crossing the channel.
However, it sounds like you will now be blaming the inevitable failure of Sunak's doomed scheme on Starmer. Have I got that right?
It was unwise to give the people smugglers the confidence that Rwanda will not happen when there are early indications it is having some effect, and of course many think and want Rwanda to fail but the concept is being considered by France, Germany , Italy and the EU itself and a deterrent of some form is badly needed
"Early indications it's having some effect"? Have you seen the recent boat migrant numbers?
Erm...if you read it carefully, that is not backing for the "Rwanda Scheme" as it operates. The poll shows 55% support for asylum seekers being "removed to their home country or to a safe country, such as Rwanda". "Such as Rwanda" is doing a lot of work there
Well, a policy of removal is supported 55 to 22. I think we can assume given that Rwanda is specifically named that those polled are not opposed to the policy by the majority as given. There is a majority in favour of removal. Starmer today has not addressed that. As such, risky for him, but would want to see polling on 'flights versus Starmers plan' to see if it shifts the dial
99% of people won't have the first clue what Starmer's plan is. And it doesn't matter what it is - the average person doesn't follow that sort of detail.
In contrast, if a plane actually takes off to Rwanda on TV that is one of the few things that will cut through with the public.
Now my own view is it's still pretty unlikely a plane will take off to Rwanda pre General Election - because some Court somewhere will stop it or Civil Servants will all refuse to process people or whatever.
But at the same time, this does feel high risk for Starmer. Because if the unlikely event of a plane going were to happen that will cut through with the public. And if Starmer has said he will stop flights that would then be seriously damaging for him.
What are you talking about?
Starmer is going to use MI5 to stop them. *MI5*. And special super anti-terrorist powers.
Sir Harry Pearce KBE will no doubt watch things regularly whilst Tom Quinn mopes about Kent and the Pas de Calais looking intensely purposeful. A few extra Union Jacks will be flown about too for good measure.
It will turn the tide.
Natalie will sort it out 👍
I'm a bit late to the Natalie Elphicke party, having been busy this week, but it does seem to me a definite but not fatal Starmer mistake. The Elphicke phenomenon in every respect represents exactly why a couple of million normally Tory voters have defected to Labour. Starmer should have said 'I am pleased she has left the Tories, but she has a long road to travel before she could be a Labour MP'.'
I'm starting to wonder if Starmer is Labour's Sunak, a bright administrator with a tin ear for politics.
Listening to his 'stop the boats' proposals today most of them are currently being undertaken by the government but he has stated publicly that Rwanda will stop on day one of his Premiership, thereby handing the gangs all they need to gain many more asylum seekers to their disgusting business
Whilst Rwanda is not the best policy, there are some early indications it is having some effect and a wise politician would have said that they will review the scheme once in office, rather than raise the prospect of many more crossings this summer
He can't sensibly say on this one "we'll review it in office" as he'd be slammed by both sides of the debate for that.
His statement today was an absolute gift to the people smugglers who can now actively reassure their asylum seekers they need have no fear of Rwanda as Starmer will be in office within 6 months
I expect record numbers for the rest of the year unless Sunak does get flights away and it is seen as a deterrent
I expect record numbers too, because the Rwanda scheme was always going to have zero effect on asylum seekers, who are already prepared to take far greater risks in crossing the channel.
However, it sounds like you will now be blaming the inevitable failure of Sunak's doomed scheme on Starmer. Have I got that right?
It was unwise to give the people smugglers the confidence that Rwanda will not happen when there are early indications it is having some effect, and of course many think and want Rwanda to fail but the concept is being considered by France, Germany , Italy and the EU itself and a deterrent of some form is badly needed
"Early indications it's having some effect"? Have you seen the recent boat migrant numbers?
It’s tricky because there are a lot of factors behind the numbers. Bad weather in channel and Rwanda is working. Fine gentle channel and Rwanda isn’t working. The stuff out of Ireland may or may not have been politically motivated rubbish but at the moment we don’t know.
Only in Vegas. While having breakfast we witness Elvis on mobility scooter meeting two showgirls (that is being polite) and having a chat.
My first thoughts if I spoke to them would be along the lines of does your mother know you dress like this and what made you think that tattoo was a good idea?
And this is supposed to make you look good?
It is a good job I didn't post my third thought as otherwise @megasaur would have had kittens because it was along the lines of g strings and the need for dieting.
Hole, dig.
Similarly. Prat. Prude. Someone who doesn't understand a joke when he sees one. As I said get a life.
If you don't I understand the difference between a joke and real life you are really sad.
Looking forward to some more harmless fun from you about all the sambos and darkies out there. You gotta av a larf innit.
@Casino_Royale what should I do? You are right in what you said but how do I deal with this guy!
Ignore him?
You don't need to have the last word. Just the best word.
Sure. And are you happy with the contempt for young women evidenced here? Specifically, how happy would you be with an elderly foreigner fantasizing about asking your daughter (if you have one) about their mother and/or their skin?
I did none of those things and never would. It was a harmless joke. I certainly wasn't famtizing.
I might also add it was you that jumped to the conclusion they were prostitutes, which they weren't which I think says it all that you interpreted what I said to mean that.
Can I suggest you read some of my past post rather than keeping this nonsense up and you will see how spectacularly wrong you are about me re discrimination.vas will regular boosters on here confirm.
Sure
Please post a picture of yourself and, if you have one, your spouse. Naked. It's just otherwise impossible to assess the ribtiklingosity of your original joke.
Might I remind you it was you who assumed I was referring to them as prostitutes which I never did and you assumed incorrectly. I was just posting jokingly about the tackiness of the photo ops with Elvis Presley's and imitation showgirls.
Erm...if you read it carefully, that is not backing for the "Rwanda Scheme" as it operates. The poll shows 55% support for asylum seekers being "removed to their home country or to a safe country, such as Rwanda". "Such as Rwanda" is doing a lot of work there
Well, a policy of removal is supported 55 to 22. I think we can assume given that Rwanda is specifically named that those polled are not opposed to the policy by the majority as given. There is a majority in favour of removal. Starmer today has not addressed that. As such, risky for him, but would want to see polling on 'flights versus Starmers plan' to see if it shifts the dial
99% of people won't have the first clue what Starmer's plan is. And it doesn't matter what it is - the average person doesn't follow that sort of detail.
In contrast, if a plane actually takes off to Rwanda on TV that is one of the few things that will cut through with the public.
Now my own view is it's still pretty unlikely a plane will take off to Rwanda pre General Election - because some Court somewhere will stop it or Civil Servants will all refuse to process people or whatever.
But at the same time, this does feel high risk for Starmer. Because if the unlikely event of a plane going were to happen that will cut through with the public. And if Starmer has said he will stop flights that would then be seriously damaging for him.
What are you talking about?
Starmer is going to use MI5 to stop them. *MI5*. And special super anti-terrorist powers.
Sir Harry Pearce KBE will no doubt watch things regularly whilst Tom Quinn mopes about Kent and the Pas de Calais looking intensely purposeful. A few extra Union Jacks will be flown about too for good measure.
It will turn the tide.
Natalie will sort it out 👍
I'm a bit late to the Natalie Elphicke party, having been busy this week, but it does seem to me a definite but not fatal Starmer mistake. The Elphicke phenomenon in every respect represents exactly why a couple of million normally Tory voters have defected to Labour. Starmer should have said 'I am pleased she has left the Tories, but she has a long road to travel before she could be a Labour MP'.'
I'm starting to wonder if Starmer is Labour's Sunak, a bright administrator with a tin ear for politics.
Listening to his 'stop the boats' proposals today most of them are currently being undertaken by the government but he has stated publicly that Rwanda will stop on day one of his Premiership, thereby handing the gangs all they need to gain many more asylum seekers to their disgusting business
Whilst Rwanda is not the best policy, there are some early indications it is having some effect and a wise politician would have said that they will review the scheme once in office, rather than raise the prospect of many more crossings this summer
He can't sensibly say on this one "we'll review it in office" as he'd be slammed by both sides of the debate for that.
His statement today was an absolute gift to the people smugglers who can now actively reassure their asylum seekers they need have no fear of Rwanda as Starmer will be in office within 6 months
I expect record numbers for the rest of the year unless Sunak does get flights away and it is seen as a deterrent
I expect record numbers too, because the Rwanda scheme was always going to have zero effect on asylum seekers, who are already prepared to take far greater risks in crossing the channel.
However, it sounds like you will now be blaming the inevitable failure of Sunak's doomed scheme on Starmer. Have I got that right?
It was unwise to give the people smugglers the confidence that Rwanda will not happen when there are early indications it is having some effect, and of course many think and want Rwanda to fail but the concept is being considered by France, Germany , Italy and the EU itself and a deterrent of some form is badly needed
"Early indications it's having some effect"? Have you seen the recent boat migrant numbers?
Certainly Sky have had several interviews both in the UK and France with clear indications asylum seekers were very worried about Rwanda but of course flights need to take off but today's unequivocal stance by Starmer effectively hands the people smugglers a way out
The same people that said Boris Johnson would be in power for a decade are now saying SKS was wrong to take Natalie Elphicke. Okay.
I think we should be minded to listen to what @CorrectHorseBattery said before he was sadly banned: "SKS is constantly underrated. Play him down at your peril."
I was one half of the duo on here who were most vocal about the possibility that Boris Johnson in 2021 had a good chance of increasing his majority at the next election. And I've also now been one of the few who are willing to say a good word about Starmer's choice to accept the defection of Natalie Elphicke.
Not sure that it makes any difference to underestimating Starmer. All it says is that there's a wide spread of views on here and necessarily most of us will be wrong most of the time.
The same people that said Boris Johnson would be in power for a decade are now saying SKS was wrong to take Natalie Elphicke. Okay.
I think we should be minded to listen to what @CorrectHorseBattery said before he was sadly banned: "SKS is constantly underrated. Play him down at your peril."
I was one half of the duo on here who were most vocal about the possibility that Boris Johnson in 2021 had a good chance of increasing his majority at the next election. And I've also now been one of the few who are willing to say a good word about Starmer's choice to accept the defection of Natalie Elphicke.
Not sure that it makes any difference to underestimating Starmer. All it says is that there's a wide spread of views on here and necessarily most of us will be wrong most of the time.
I’ll help. These are runic inscriptions. Yes RUNES. But who wrote them and why?
If you’re into history it’s a fabulously surprising answer
Here’s another one. There are several. Nullifico googlissimi!
THat's much clearer - I did wonder about runes but thought it's some prat called Hurrell or Hurren.
They'll be Danes or Orcadians en route to the Holy Land, and doing a bit if sightseeing/allying/plundering en route. Wonder if it's the same lot as in the Orkneyinga Saga, which is partly about just such an adventure holiday? It's a long time since I read i t, so no idea if the places match up. But you won't let me google.
Erm...if you read it carefully, that is not backing for the "Rwanda Scheme" as it operates. The poll shows 55% support for asylum seekers being "removed to their home country or to a safe country, such as Rwanda". "Such as Rwanda" is doing a lot of work there
Well, a policy of removal is supported 55 to 22. I think we can assume given that Rwanda is specifically named that those polled are not opposed to the policy by the majority as given. There is a majority in favour of removal. Starmer today has not addressed that. As such, risky for him, but would want to see polling on 'flights versus Starmers plan' to see if it shifts the dial
99% of people won't have the first clue what Starmer's plan is. And it doesn't matter what it is - the average person doesn't follow that sort of detail.
In contrast, if a plane actually takes off to Rwanda on TV that is one of the few things that will cut through with the public.
Now my own view is it's still pretty unlikely a plane will take off to Rwanda pre General Election - because some Court somewhere will stop it or Civil Servants will all refuse to process people or whatever.
But at the same time, this does feel high risk for Starmer. Because if the unlikely event of a plane going were to happen that will cut through with the public. And if Starmer has said he will stop flights that would then be seriously damaging for him.
What are you talking about?
Starmer is going to use MI5 to stop them. *MI5*. And special super anti-terrorist powers.
Sir Harry Pearce KBE will no doubt watch things regularly whilst Tom Quinn mopes about Kent and the Pas de Calais looking intensely purposeful. A few extra Union Jacks will be flown about too for good measure.
It will turn the tide.
Natalie will sort it out 👍
I'm a bit late to the Natalie Elphicke party, having been busy this week, but it does seem to me a definite but not fatal Starmer mistake. The Elphicke phenomenon in every respect represents exactly why a couple of million normally Tory voters have defected to Labour. Starmer should have said 'I am pleased she has left the Tories, but she has a long road to travel before she could be a Labour MP'.'
I'm starting to wonder if Starmer is Labour's Sunak, a bright administrator with a tin ear for politics.
Listening to his 'stop the boats' proposals today most of them are currently being undertaken by the government but he has stated publicly that Rwanda will stop on day one of his Premiership, thereby handing the gangs all they need to gain many more asylum seekers to their disgusting business
Whilst Rwanda is not the best policy, there are some early indications it is having some effect and a wise politician would have said that they will review the scheme once in office, rather than raise the prospect of many more crossings this summer
He can't sensibly say on this one "we'll review it in office" as he'd be slammed by both sides of the debate for that.
His statement today was an absolute gift to the people smugglers who can now actively reassure their asylum seekers they need have no fear of Rwanda as Starmer will be in office within 6 months
I expect record numbers for the rest of the year unless Sunak does get flights away and it is seen as a deterrent
I expect record numbers too, because the Rwanda scheme was always going to have zero effect on asylum seekers, who are already prepared to take far greater risks in crossing the channel.
However, it sounds like you will now be blaming the inevitable failure of Sunak's doomed scheme on Starmer. Have I got that right?
It was unwise to give the people smugglers the confidence that Rwanda will not happen when there are early indications it is having some effect, and of course many think and want Rwanda to fail but the concept is being considered by France, Germany , Italy and the EU itself and a deterrent of some form is badly needed
"Early indications it's having some effect"? Have you seen the recent boat migrant numbers?
It’s tricky because there are a lot of factors behind the numbers. Bad weather in channel and Rwanda is working. Fine gentle channel and Rwanda isn’t working. The stuff out of Ireland may or may not have been politically motivated rubbish but at the moment we don’t know.
We know that the stuff out of Ireland was politically motivated rubbish. What we don't know was whether it is coincidentally true as well.
It doesn't happen often, but sometimes the two things do coincide.
One thing that didn't get mentioned much at the time was that the Northern Irish politicians said that most of the asylum seekers in Northern Ireland had come via Dublin. So clearly we have a multi-faceted heap of politically motivated rubbish.
The same people that said Boris Johnson would be in power for a decade are now saying SKS was wrong to take Natalie Elphicke. Okay.
I think we should be minded to listen to what @CorrectHorseBattery said before he was sadly banned: "SKS is constantly underrated. Play him down at your peril."
I was one half of the duo on here who were most vocal about the possibility that Boris Johnson in 2021 had a good chance of increasing his majority at the next election. And I've also now been one of the few who are willing to say a good word about Starmer's choice to accept the defection of Natalie Elphicke.
Not sure that it makes any difference to underestimating Starmer. All it says is that there's a wide spread of views on here and necessarily most of us will be wrong most of the time.
Not me, I am never wrong.
I start from the position of normally being wrong, and find PB an excellent corrective, on a wide range of topics.
Erm...if you read it carefully, that is not backing for the "Rwanda Scheme" as it operates. The poll shows 55% support for asylum seekers being "removed to their home country or to a safe country, such as Rwanda". "Such as Rwanda" is doing a lot of work there
Well, a policy of removal is supported 55 to 22. I think we can assume given that Rwanda is specifically named that those polled are not opposed to the policy by the majority as given. There is a majority in favour of removal. Starmer today has not addressed that. As such, risky for him, but would want to see polling on 'flights versus Starmers plan' to see if it shifts the dial
99% of people won't have the first clue what Starmer's plan is. And it doesn't matter what it is - the average person doesn't follow that sort of detail.
In contrast, if a plane actually takes off to Rwanda on TV that is one of the few things that will cut through with the public.
Now my own view is it's still pretty unlikely a plane will take off to Rwanda pre General Election - because some Court somewhere will stop it or Civil Servants will all refuse to process people or whatever.
But at the same time, this does feel high risk for Starmer. Because if the unlikely event of a plane going were to happen that will cut through with the public. And if Starmer has said he will stop flights that would then be seriously damaging for him.
What are you talking about?
Starmer is going to use MI5 to stop them. *MI5*. And special super anti-terrorist powers.
Sir Harry Pearce KBE will no doubt watch things regularly whilst Tom Quinn mopes about Kent and the Pas de Calais looking intensely purposeful. A few extra Union Jacks will be flown about too for good measure.
It will turn the tide.
Natalie will sort it out 👍
I'm a bit late to the Natalie Elphicke party, having been busy this week, but it does seem to me a definite but not fatal Starmer mistake. The Elphicke phenomenon in every respect represents exactly why a couple of million normally Tory voters have defected to Labour. Starmer should have said 'I am pleased she has left the Tories, but she has a long road to travel before she could be a Labour MP'.'
I'm starting to wonder if Starmer is Labour's Sunak, a bright administrator with a tin ear for politics.
Listening to his 'stop the boats' proposals today most of them are currently being undertaken by the government but he has stated publicly that Rwanda will stop on day one of his Premiership, thereby handing the gangs all they need to gain many more asylum seekers to their disgusting business
Whilst Rwanda is not the best policy, there are some early indications it is having some effect and a wise politician would have said that they will review the scheme once in office, rather than raise the prospect of many more crossings this summer
He can't sensibly say on this one "we'll review it in office" as he'd be slammed by both sides of the debate for that.
His statement today was an absolute gift to the people smugglers who can now actively reassure their asylum seekers they need have no fear of Rwanda as Starmer will be in office within 6 months
I expect record numbers for the rest of the year unless Sunak does get flights away and it is seen as a deterrent
I expect record numbers too, because the Rwanda scheme was always going to have zero effect on asylum seekers, who are already prepared to take far greater risks in crossing the channel.
However, it sounds like you will now be blaming the inevitable failure of Sunak's doomed scheme on Starmer. Have I got that right?
It was unwise to give the people smugglers the confidence that Rwanda will not happen when there are early indications it is having some effect, and of course many think and want Rwanda to fail but the concept is being considered by France, Germany , Italy and the EU itself and a deterrent of some form is badly needed
"Early indications it's having some effect"? Have you seen the recent boat migrant numbers?
It’s tricky because there are a lot of factors behind the numbers. Bad weather in channel and Rwanda is working. Fine gentle channel and Rwanda isn’t working. The stuff out of Ireland may or may not have been politically motivated rubbish but at the moment we don’t know.
We know that the stuff out of Ireland was politically motivated rubbish. What we don't know was whether it is coincidentally true as well.
It doesn't happen often, but sometimes the two things do coincide.
One thing that didn't get mentioned much at the time was that the Northern Irish politicians said that most of the asylum seekers in Northern Ireland had come via Dublin. So clearly we have a multi-faceted heap of politically motivated rubbish.
https://youtu.be/xG1vmGmuf-c Nuanced but clear video on possible links between COVID-19 and getting cancer later.
When I had my DVT last October it happened after I had stayed in bed with covid for the weekend
I have had extensive tests and various hospital investigations since, including a pacemaker, but my haematologist confirmed last week that it was what they called an 'unprovoked attack' meaning they had no cause and I would be on blood thinners for life
It was suggested there could be a covid link but appears it is not proven
The same people that said Boris Johnson would be in power for a decade are now saying SKS was wrong to take Natalie Elphicke. Okay.
I think we should be minded to listen to what @CorrectHorseBattery said before he was sadly banned: "SKS is constantly underrated. Play him down at your peril."
I was one half of the duo on here who were most vocal about the possibility that Boris Johnson in 2021 had a good chance of increasing his majority at the next election. And I've also now been one of the few who are willing to say a good word about Starmer's choice to accept the defection of Natalie Elphicke.
Not sure that it makes any difference to underestimating Starmer. All it says is that there's a wide spread of views on here and necessarily most of us will be wrong most of the time.
Erm...if you read it carefully, that is not backing for the "Rwanda Scheme" as it operates. The poll shows 55% support for asylum seekers being "removed to their home country or to a safe country, such as Rwanda". "Such as Rwanda" is doing a lot of work there
Well, a policy of removal is supported 55 to 22. I think we can assume given that Rwanda is specifically named that those polled are not opposed to the policy by the majority as given. There is a majority in favour of removal. Starmer today has not addressed that. As such, risky for him, but would want to see polling on 'flights versus Starmers plan' to see if it shifts the dial
99% of people won't have the first clue what Starmer's plan is. And it doesn't matter what it is - the average person doesn't follow that sort of detail.
In contrast, if a plane actually takes off to Rwanda on TV that is one of the few things that will cut through with the public.
Now my own view is it's still pretty unlikely a plane will take off to Rwanda pre General Election - because some Court somewhere will stop it or Civil Servants will all refuse to process people or whatever.
But at the same time, this does feel high risk for Starmer. Because if the unlikely event of a plane going were to happen that will cut through with the public. And if Starmer has said he will stop flights that would then be seriously damaging for him.
What are you talking about?
Starmer is going to use MI5 to stop them. *MI5*. And special super anti-terrorist powers.
Sir Harry Pearce KBE will no doubt watch things regularly whilst Tom Quinn mopes about Kent and the Pas de Calais looking intensely purposeful. A few extra Union Jacks will be flown about too for good measure.
It will turn the tide.
Natalie will sort it out 👍
I'm a bit late to the Natalie Elphicke party, having been busy this week, but it does seem to me a definite but not fatal Starmer mistake. The Elphicke phenomenon in every respect represents exactly why a couple of million normally Tory voters have defected to Labour. Starmer should have said 'I am pleased she has left the Tories, but she has a long road to travel before she could be a Labour MP'.'
I'm starting to wonder if Starmer is Labour's Sunak, a bright administrator with a tin ear for politics.
Listening to his 'stop the boats' proposals today most of them are currently being undertaken by the government but he has stated publicly that Rwanda will stop on day one of his Premiership, thereby handing the gangs all they need to gain many more asylum seekers to their disgusting business
Whilst Rwanda is not the best policy, there are some early indications it is having some effect and a wise politician would have said that they will review the scheme once in office, rather than raise the prospect of many more crossings this summer
He can't sensibly say on this one "we'll review it in office" as he'd be slammed by both sides of the debate for that.
His statement today was an absolute gift to the people smugglers who can now actively reassure their asylum seekers they need have no fear of Rwanda as Starmer will be in office within 6 months
I expect record numbers for the rest of the year unless Sunak does get flights away and it is seen as a deterrent
And so PB reverts to its happy place of slagging off Labour. Bit earlier than I expected but this'll be it for the next decade or more.
As a matter of interest do you not see the consequences of his statement today and no political party is going to get a free pass
I see you are preparing your argument that it's all SKS's fault...
The irony is he will be in meetings with other EU countries to agree similar schemes to Rwanda within weeks of taking office
These other schemes are generally about offshore processing of claims and go less far than the UK's scheme whereby even people with valid claims don't get to come to the UK.
The same people that said Boris Johnson would be in power for a decade are now saying SKS was wrong to take Natalie Elphicke. Okay.
I think we should be minded to listen to what @CorrectHorseBattery said before he was sadly banned: "SKS is constantly underrated. Play him down at your peril."
I was one half of the duo on here who were most vocal about the possibility that Boris Johnson in 2021 had a good chance of increasing his majority at the next election. And I've also now been one of the few who are willing to say a good word about Starmer's choice to accept the defection of Natalie Elphicke.
Not sure that it makes any difference to underestimating Starmer. All it says is that there's a wide spread of views on here and necessarily most of us will be wrong most of the time.
The entire immigration issue, rather like those leviathans health and housing, is multi-layered, nuanced and impacts so many other areas of public policy-making yet it's been reduced down to boats and Rwanda which are peripheral in all honesty.
The debate has so many starting points - what about the levels of legal immigration, what about the skills we need to keep growing the economy? At a time when employers in many areas are struggling to fill posts, who do we get to do the jobs no one in Britain will do at rates of pay few in Britain would accept?
Cheap labour, along with cheap raw materials, promotes economic growth - labour can be cheap when it's plentiful in times of high unemployment but if you're getting 5 people apply for 20 jobs you have a different problem.
What of housing, transport, education. pressure on local infrastructure if you bring in large numbers of people who will contribute economically through taxation, productivity and consumption but who will still need those local services?
I don't even know my own position - I see the societal and cultural impacts in my part of London on a daily basis though London has always been a "melting pot" of different cultures but the glue has to now been the capitalist dream of working hard, making money, perhaps sending the money back "home" to help, perhaps putting down roots here if that isn't possible.
One of the arguments for leaving the EU (and a compelling one) was we would decide who could come in - we could have an immigration policy which genuinely worked for the country but the truth is people will always go to the money - they did when leaving the fields for the factories and now they travel thousands of miles across land and seas often at great personal risk because they want a slice of the dream (in many cases though I accept not all).
Erm...if you read it carefully, that is not backing for the "Rwanda Scheme" as it operates. The poll shows 55% support for asylum seekers being "removed to their home country or to a safe country, such as Rwanda". "Such as Rwanda" is doing a lot of work there
Well, a policy of removal is supported 55 to 22. I think we can assume given that Rwanda is specifically named that those polled are not opposed to the policy by the majority as given. There is a majority in favour of removal. Starmer today has not addressed that. As such, risky for him, but would want to see polling on 'flights versus Starmers plan' to see if it shifts the dial
99% of people won't have the first clue what Starmer's plan is. And it doesn't matter what it is - the average person doesn't follow that sort of detail.
In contrast, if a plane actually takes off to Rwanda on TV that is one of the few things that will cut through with the public.
Now my own view is it's still pretty unlikely a plane will take off to Rwanda pre General Election - because some Court somewhere will stop it or Civil Servants will all refuse to process people or whatever.
But at the same time, this does feel high risk for Starmer. Because if the unlikely event of a plane going were to happen that will cut through with the public. And if Starmer has said he will stop flights that would then be seriously damaging for him.
What are you talking about?
Starmer is going to use MI5 to stop them. *MI5*. And special super anti-terrorist powers.
Sir Harry Pearce KBE will no doubt watch things regularly whilst Tom Quinn mopes about Kent and the Pas de Calais looking intensely purposeful. A few extra Union Jacks will be flown about too for good measure.
It will turn the tide.
Natalie will sort it out 👍
I'm a bit late to the Natalie Elphicke party, having been busy this week, but it does seem to me a definite but not fatal Starmer mistake. The Elphicke phenomenon in every respect represents exactly why a couple of million normally Tory voters have defected to Labour. Starmer should have said 'I am pleased she has left the Tories, but she has a long road to travel before she could be a Labour MP'.'
I'm starting to wonder if Starmer is Labour's Sunak, a bright administrator with a tin ear for politics.
Listening to his 'stop the boats' proposals today most of them are currently being undertaken by the government but he has stated publicly that Rwanda will stop on day one of his Premiership, thereby handing the gangs all they need to gain many more asylum seekers to their disgusting business
Whilst Rwanda is not the best policy, there are some early indications it is having some effect and a wise politician would have said that they will review the scheme once in office, rather than raise the prospect of many more crossings this summer
He can't sensibly say on this one "we'll review it in office" as he'd be slammed by both sides of the debate for that.
His statement today was an absolute gift to the people smugglers who can now actively reassure their asylum seekers they need have no fear of Rwanda as Starmer will be in office within 6 months
I expect record numbers for the rest of the year unless Sunak does get flights away and it is seen as a deterrent
And so PB reverts to its happy place of slagging off Labour. Bit earlier than I expected but this'll be it for the next decade or more.
I've always slagged them off. I don't like them. That's something they now have in common with the Tories, Lib Dems and Greens. Which makes my vote next time interesting. Fingers crossed an interesting 'other' stands
Well, yes, I recognise a "plague on all your houses" line when I see it but what would you like?
I keep hearing no one has the answers, what are the answers, does anyone understand the questions?
What kind of country, society and economy do you want?
Scandinavian services funded by other peoples taxes.
Comments
Do you have any clue why Hamas was elected? Clue: take a look at the apartheid wall. And the way you talk about Israel stooping to help "good" Palestinians out of the kindness of their hearts makes me want to vomit.
Jewish forces (I can't call them "Israeli" because Israel hadn't been created yet) poisoned the water in Acre in April 1948, causing a fucking typhoid epidemic. Right now, look at the huge concentrations of terrorised populations building up in southern Gaza, with all supplies having been cut off since Tuesday. The fascists who dare so disgustingly hypocritically to keep referring to genocide that happened in Europe in the early 1940s are making it ever clearer what their plans are - see e.g. the 40000 12-man tents. Today their tanks have taken the main road that divided western and eastern Rafah.
Libya has joined the South African case against Israel for genocide at the ICJ. Colombia joined it before. Ireland was going to join it...but then Varadkar unexpectedly resigned, and since then for some reason they haven't joined it. Most Arab governments don't give a shit about the Palestinians - that's one thing you are right about. Libya now clearly being an honourable exception.
I might also add it was you that jumped to the conclusion they were prostitutes, which they weren't which I think says it all that you interpreted what I said to mean that.
Can I suggest you read some of my past post rather than keeping this nonsense up and you will see how spectacularly wrong you are about me re discrimination.vas will regular boosters on here confirm.
For a long time, it was the role of the Liberals at Westminster. More recently, the various Farage parties have done the same. It's an honourable role, and a valuable one if done well. That's true even if you wouldn't want the oppositionalist in actual power in a million years.
For better or worse, that's the niche that Susan Hall fills, and fills well. That means that she had a relatively high floor, probably higher than a more sensible smooth centrist One Nation Tory would have done. She minimised the leakage to Reform, who were the threat to the Conservatives in outermost London. After all, one of the reasons that the Conservative national polling is so bad is Reform being in the mid teens. But it also limits her ceiling- and in a Mayoral election, second place is first loser. 32.7% is still a blooming awful score.
Plus, have any of the protestors joined Tobe's Free Speech Union? I'm sure that would help
😀😀😀
And while I wasn't making a serious suggestion which I am sure you realised. It does seem to be the people of the book causing most of the worlds problems from evangelical far right christians to extremist jihadi muslims
Please post a picture of yourself and, if you have one, your spouse. Naked. It's just otherwise impossible to assess the ribtiklingosity of your original joke.
Indeed, the only place where the Tories seemed really to outperform seems as much a symptom of their problems rather than a respite from it. Despite winning comfortably in London, Sadiq Khan’s support was below the Labour average and poor compared with some of the polling. This was largely driven by the Tory vote holding up in outer London. This repeated the trend from the Uxbridge by-election, which saw the Tories do poorly compared to previous years, but not badly enough to lose it.
In some ways this makes sense. The denizens of Outer London are, really, the big winners of the Tory Party tenure. These areas are replete with people who were moderate earners but have grown rich off rising property prices. Often older, pro-Brexit, anti-immigration, and car-enthusiasts, they are on the right side of most of the fights the Tories are picking. The problem is that there simply isn’t enough of them nationally to make an electoral difference. The message may resonate in Havering and Harrow, but it isn’t getting much further.
https://www.joxleywrites.jmoxley.co.uk/p/freefall
It's worth remembering that you're not truly in competition with this other shop, because, as I understand it, your shop is a lifestyle choice - you're wealthy enough to support your family without it. Their shop is probably their livelihood. Also, their clientele and product range are probably very different to yours. It doesn't strike me as likely that anyone would ignore your shop because they got all their notepads at the Florists.
Scully would have got closer, maybe even level, he's fairly able, but he's not en vogue with the current top crop. He can be a bit clumsy with verbosity on occasion.
If you were a civilian born in Southern Israel, and who had been bombarded by rockets from Gaza, and then invaded. If you knew people who had been killed, murdered or raped by Hamas. Well, you'd be pretty fucking pissed. And that would be pretty understandable.
And if you were a Palestinian in the West Bank who had been kicked out of their home by Israeli settlers, if you'd been harassed by Israeli soldiers, and if you could no longer travel to the next village because a road (for Israeli settlers) now bisected it. Well, I think you'd have an equally good reason to be pissed.
This is not Liberal Democracies vs Hitler. Nor is it Russia invading Ukraine. It's two groups of people who both have some pretty good reasons to feel wronged, and neither of whom is in any mind for compromise.
He could have make said “to my mind the Rwanda plan looks ridiculous - and inhumane - and expensive. A farce. If by some miracle it works of course we will look at it, but I strongly doubt that. Don’t you?” That’s what 90% of the country thinks and he would have left himself space and the door ajar
Don't know their view on self ID, mind.
Love the passive aggressive post btw, very droll
Israel has reached multiple agreements with their murderous neighbours. The neighbours keep trying to murder them
Moving the fence isn't exactly equivalent
I fully expect we’ll see the right wing papers saying that the asylum seekers have been told of Labours policy and now are flooding because Labour are expected to win the GE .
I expect record numbers for the rest of the year unless Sunak does get flights away and it is seen as a deterrent
The Tories seem to have arsed up Walsall Council, suspending the leader who has now swanned off with his cabinet to form an indy blue group losing them control.
Therefore despite a fairly good showing for Street here, Walsall North going back to Labour looks good value as voters usually arent keen on chaos, even if polls tighten (its ca 15% swing from 2019)
Which makes my vote next time interesting. Fingers crossed an interesting 'other' stands
There are loads better landscapes, but I love the mare and foal in it
I think we should be minded to listen to what @CorrectHorseBattery said before he was sadly banned: "SKS is constantly underrated. Play him down at your peril."
However, it sounds like you will now be blaming the inevitable failure of Sunak's doomed scheme on Starmer. Have I got that right?
The Security Council members have expressed “deep concern” over reports that hundreds of bodies – including women, children and the elderly – were uncovered in mass graves in and around Gaza’s Nasser and al-Shifa Hospitals."
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/liveblog/2024/5/10/israels-war-on-gaza-live-aid-operation-completely-crippled-amid-attacks?update=2892328
Maybe the SDP will grace my city.
If not then my visceral dislike of Clive Lewis will trump all and I'll have to vote for whomever looks best placed to evict him. Probably the Greens, sadly, as I don't want to turn into Swampy.
I keep hearing no one has the answers, what are the answers, does anyone understand the questions?
What kind of country, society and economy do you want?
BBC News - Natalie Elphicke: Labour insists ex-Tory MP is 'good fit' for party
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68982095
So I'm in anarchy/burn it to the ground mode and mood in the hope the flames inspire
Not sure that it makes any difference to underestimating Starmer. All it says is that there's a wide spread of views on here and necessarily most of us will be wrong most of the time.
The stuff out of Ireland may or may not have been politically motivated rubbish but at the moment we don’t know.
(1) Gaza
(2) AI
(3) Trans
Not necessarily in that order.
https://www.bing.com/videos/riverview/relatedvideo?q=life+of+brian+graffiti+scene&&view=riverview&mmscn=mtsc&mid=B1750F14D9C7DDDF61BBB1750F14D9C7DDDF61BB&&aps=31&FORM=VMSOVR
It doesn't happen often, but sometimes the two things do coincide.
One thing that didn't get mentioned much at the time was that the Northern Irish politicians said that most of the asylum seekers in Northern Ireland had come via Dublin. So clearly we have a multi-faceted heap of politically motivated rubbish.
(1) VAT on your children's future school fees.
(2) Income tax rates above £100k.
(3) Vegans
(4) Woke
(5) Ukraine
Not necessarily in that order. Did I miss anything?
Also, where does that leave Eurovision?
I have had extensive tests and various hospital investigations since, including a pacemaker, but my haematologist confirmed last week that it was what they called an 'unprovoked attack' meaning they had no cause and I would be on blood thinners for life
It was suggested there could be a covid link but appears it is not proven
Trying to work out how camp/funny its going to be tomorrow.
Big determinant of whether I watch or not.
The debate has so many starting points - what about the levels of legal immigration, what about the skills we need to keep growing the economy? At a time when employers in many areas are struggling to fill posts, who do we get to do the jobs no one in Britain will do at rates of pay few in Britain would accept?
Cheap labour, along with cheap raw materials, promotes economic growth - labour can be cheap when it's plentiful in times of high unemployment but if you're getting 5 people apply for 20 jobs you have a different problem.
What of housing, transport, education. pressure on local infrastructure if you bring in large numbers of people who will contribute economically through taxation, productivity and consumption but who will still need those local services?
I don't even know my own position - I see the societal and cultural impacts in my part of London on a daily basis though London has always been a "melting pot" of different cultures but the glue has to now been the capitalist dream of working hard, making money, perhaps sending the money back "home" to help, perhaps putting down roots here if that isn't possible.
One of the arguments for leaving the EU (and a compelling one) was we would decide who could come in - we could have an immigration policy which genuinely worked for the country but the truth is people will always go to the money - they did when leaving the fields for the factories and now they travel thousands of miles across land and seas often at great personal risk because they want a slice of the dream (in many cases though I accept not all).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HAOza79e3f0
I might just stick on The Spice Girls instead.