(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 16m The problem with the "Mad Man Strategy" is that after a while people stop taking you seriously. Everyone knows this is utterly insane and won't happen. So how is it putting pressure on anyone to negotiate.
Unfortunately, his logic fails as Trump clearly is actually mad.
It is possible the combo of Chagos and Voice coach could bring down Starmer
Each on their own, unlikely. But the combination of him being a lying snake and mind blowing hypocrite at the same time as he tries to give away, to hostile foreigners, billions of pounds we don’t have is quite lethal
This is my last meal until dinner so it’s a shame it’s not really been up to scratch. I have an extremely early sitting (5.30-8.30) at Opheem in Birmingham. Anyone been?
It is possible the combo of Chagos and Voice coach could bring down Starmer
Each on their own, unlikely. But the combination of him being a lying snake and mind blowing hypocrite at the same time as he tries to give away, to hostile foreigners, billions of pounds we don’t have is quite lethal
It is possible the combo of Chagos and Voice coach could bring down Starmer
Each on their own, unlikely. But the combination of him being a lying snake and mind blowing hypocrite at the same time as he tries to give away, to hostile foreigners, billions of pounds we don’t have is quite lethal
He looks insane
Brush up on your fried breakfast offer.
I am bewildered why an affluent man of taste - which I take you to be - would be eating in terrible fast food joints like MacD or Leon
Who on earth has put £500 on Andrew Tate on Betfair? Based on erformance so far Darren Jones looks value, though that isn't how it'll be decided. Cooper has bottled her opportunities so far so seems unlikely.
Didn’t Tate say he was starting a British political party? He’s most likely to be in prison in Romania at the next election, but one of his friends putting £500 on him doesn’t sound particularly outrageous.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 16m The problem with the "Mad Man Strategy" is that after a while people stop taking you seriously. Everyone knows this is utterly insane and won't happen. So how is it putting pressure on anyone to negotiate.
Unfortunately, his logic fails as Trump clearly is actually mad.
Which, as I say, was obvious from the campaign and the debates.
But the low information voters of America just wanted the price of eggs to be lower.
The sick humour of it all is eggs have never been more expensive iirc.
I agree with the header. I think Starmer will go in 2028, so the next PM will be Labour.
I think Rayner is value at 19.
There is no way on earth that Rayner could be described as "value"
My logic is that:
1) leaders are rarely replaced by someone like themselves, they are replaced with a person who corrects or over corrects the deficiencies of the outgoing leader.
2) leaders are replaced by senior frontbenchers, or recent front benches, particularly when in government.
3) There will be a desire to have a female leader.
Reeves is out because of 1.
So I am backing Rayner, Cooper and Phillipson as next PM, and of these Rayner or Cooper seems most likely.
You may not like Rayner, but you are not the electorate for this contest, the Labour Party MPs, members and Trade Unions are. As she was previous shop steward the Unions will back Rayner.
If Phillipson is still there in September pile your cash on her, because she must have the political survival skills of Boris Johnson on crack if she survives the next six months.
I utterly despised Geoff Hoon and Alan Millburn in the last iteration of a Labour Government. Far too many of Starmer's Cabinet seem to have been cloned from that pair of clowns. Their cloned offspring are not Prime Ministerial material.
Labour need to tighten up/speed up their comms rebuttal. Whilst not that consequential, this shouldn't have been a story.
It remained a fairly minor story on broadcast media but was turbocharged on here. I can't work out why. It's not like an individual poster spent all afternoon ramping the story.
That said Government communications remain shockingly inept.
It was a fairly minor story but most of these stories are - the Lord Ali donor story started small and was talked about a lot here before it became a mainstream media story.
Chagos has started ramping up - the Today programme got stuck in this morning with the political correspondent saying this has been quiet but will grow when people start hearing the cost.
Apart from the annoying use as usual of “give them back to Mauritius” (they were never Mauritian territory but simply administered from there by the French then the Brits) our Amol was quite cutting about it, didn’t try and gotcha Priti who was on talking about it and effectively said it’s a story that’s going to grow.
So whilst Leon is the most influential person in all the media I think this story might have built without him talking about it here yesterday.
"(they were never Mauritian territory but simply administered from there by the French then the Brits)"
I don't think you can dismiss the claims of Mauritius quite so easily. Here is the summary of the 2019 ICJ advisory opinion on the matter:
having regard to international law, the process of decolonization of Mauritius was not lawfully completed when that country acceded to independence in 1968, following the separation of the Chagos Archipelago.
the United Kingdom is under an obligation to bring to an end its administration of the Chagos Archipelago as rapidly as possible.
all Member States are under an obligation to co-operate with the United Nations in order to complete the decolonization of Mauritius.
The reasons are given in the document.
In which case all the UK has to do is leave. No monetary offer need be offered.
Yeah maybe it's a shit deal, but there is the question of the military base, which we should probably just let the Americans solve but this might antagonise Trump.
Labour need to tighten up/speed up their comms rebuttal. Whilst not that consequential, this shouldn't have been a story.
It remained a fairly minor story on broadcast media but was turbocharged on here. I can't work out why. It's not like an individual poster spent all afternoon ramping the story.
That said Government communications remain shockingly inept.
It was a fairly minor story but most of these stories are - the Lord Ali donor story started small and was talked about a lot here before it became a mainstream media story.
Chagos has started ramping up - the Today programme got stuck in this morning with the political correspondent saying this has been quiet but will grow when people start hearing the cost.
Apart from the annoying use as usual of “give them back to Mauritius” (they were never Mauritian territory but simply administered from there by the French then the Brits) our Amol was quite cutting about it, didn’t try and gotcha Priti who was on talking about it and effectively said it’s a story that’s going to grow.
So whilst Leon is the most influential person in all the media I think this story might have built without him talking about it here yesterday.
That's the reach of politicalbetting.com
I think it’s definitely broken out of the right-wing circles the story was circulating in: The obvious attack from the left & inside government is: “we’re so hard up that benefits are being cut & our departments are being told to find cost savings 'or else' but the FO can’t magic up £18billion from the Treasury with a wave of their wand for this deal that nobody wants”
This 'our party is ungovernable' seems to be spreading from the last government. Is modern politics now about how to implode a party e.g. SNP/Alba
It is possible the combo of Chagos and Voice coach could bring down Starmer
Each on their own, unlikely. But the combination of him being a lying snake and mind blowing hypocrite at the same time as he tries to give away, to hostile foreigners, billions of pounds we don’t have is quite lethal
He looks insane
Brush up on your fried breakfast offer.
I am bewildered why an affluent man of taste - which I take you to be - would be eating in terrible fast food joints like MacD or Leon
I mean, why???
Because I’m at Euston station, not a temple of fine gastronomy. And last night because I love a quick McDonald’s on my way to choir on Tuesdays. It’s a bit of a tradition.
Anyway I’m making up for it with 2 Michelin stars this evening so net net my diet today is posh.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 16m The problem with the "Mad Man Strategy" is that after a while people stop taking you seriously. Everyone knows this is utterly insane and won't happen. So how is it putting pressure on anyone to negotiate.
Unfortunately, his logic fails as Trump clearly is actually mad.
Which, as I say, was obvious from the campaign and the debates.
But the low information voters of America just wanted the price of eggs to be lower.
The sick humour of it all is eggs have never been more expensive iirc.
WRT Gaza, I don't suppose anyone is really surprised that Trump has said something like what he has.
All politics is relative, even this one. So points:
1) Clearly Trump intends to start a new middle east negotiation start point and position, and will have achieved this.
2) Has anyone got a better one?
3) I and most of us (I imagine) have long supported a two state solution. But SFAICS none of the parties do, most supporting a one state solution. So two state stuff isn't happening, not since the October massacre and Gaza'a becoming rubble.
4) What is the best one state solution which can be regarded as possible within the obvious constraints. Is it not most likely to be a radical but reluctantly agreed modification of Trump's appaarently absurd starting point?
On (3), the Palestinian Authority, some Israeli parties in opposition, Arab states, and most UN member states support a 2-state solution.
On (4), if one is to have a 1-state solution, it doesn't have to involve ethnic cleansing. So, no.
Ethnic cleansing is a crime against humanity. It is not the solution to anything. It is not a starting point to anything.
We had ethnic cleansing in Nagorno-Karabakh in 2023.
Labour need to tighten up/speed up their comms rebuttal. Whilst not that consequential, this shouldn't have been a story.
It remained a fairly minor story on broadcast media but was turbocharged on here. I can't work out why. It's not like an individual poster spent all afternoon ramping the story.
That said Government communications remain shockingly inept.
It was a fairly minor story but most of these stories are - the Lord Ali donor story started small and was talked about a lot here before it became a mainstream media story.
Chagos has started ramping up - the Today programme got stuck in this morning with the political correspondent saying this has been quiet but will grow when people start hearing the cost.
Apart from the annoying use as usual of “give them back to Mauritius” (they were never Mauritian territory but simply administered from there by the French then the Brits) our Amol was quite cutting about it, didn’t try and gotcha Priti who was on talking about it and effectively said it’s a story that’s going to grow.
So whilst Leon is the most influential person in all the media I think this story might have built without him talking about it here yesterday.
That's the reach of politicalbetting.com
I think it’s definitely broken out of the right-wing circles the story was circulating in: The obvious attack from the left & inside government is: “we’re so hard up that benefits are being cut & our departments are being told to find cost savings 'or else' but the FO can’t magic up £18billion from the Treasury with a wave of their wand for this deal that nobody wants”
This 'our party is ungovernable' seems to be spreading from the last government. Is modern politics now about how to implode a party e.g. SNP/Alba
If there all as shit at it as ALBA everything is copacetic. They're doing a good job at doing it to themselves mind.
James Kelly @JamesKelly Power-crazed McEleny pushes Alba to the brink of destruction by launching yet another bogus "disciplinary" action - this time against the party's ACTING LEADER:
It is possible the combo of Chagos and Voice coach could bring down Starmer
Each on their own, unlikely. But the combination of him being a lying snake and mind blowing hypocrite at the same time as he tries to give away, to hostile foreigners, billions of pounds we don’t have is quite lethal
He looks insane
Brush up on your fried breakfast offer.
I am bewildered why an affluent man of taste - which I take you to be - would be eating in terrible fast food joints like MacD or Leon
I mean, why???
Because I’m at Euston station, not a temple of fine gastronomy. And last night because I love a quick McDonald’s on my way to choir on Tuesdays. It’s a bit of a tradition.
Anyway I’m making up for it with 2 Michelin stars this evening so net net my diet today is posh.
WRT Gaza, I don't suppose anyone is really surprised that Trump has said something like what he has.
All politics is relative, even this one. So points:
1) Clearly Trump intends to start a new middle east negotiation start point and position, and will have achieved this.
2) Has anyone got a better one?
3) I and most of us (I imagine) have long supported a two state solution. But SFAICS none of the parties do, most supporting a one state solution. So two state stuff isn't happening, not since the October massacre and Gaza'a becoming rubble.
4) What is the best one state solution which can be regarded as possible within the obvious constraints. Is it not most likely to be a radical but reluctantly agreed modification of Trump's appaarently absurd starting point?
On (3), the Palestinian Authority, some Israeli parties in opposition, Arab states, and most UN member states support a 2-state solution.
On (4), if one is to have a 1-state solution, it doesn't have to involve ethnic cleansing. So, no.
Ethnic cleansing is a crime against humanity. It is not the solution to anything. It is not a starting point to anything.
We had ethnic cleansing in Nagorno-Karabakh in 2023.
The world accepted it as it solved the problem.
Is that the most casually crass post in the history of PB?
If Starmer goes before the end of this term (really quite likely) then surely the Labour Party will choose a woman?
That means Cooper or Rayner should be bigger favourites and of the two Cooper is the more likely. As being less off putting to centrists than Rayner (personally I quite like Rayner)
Anyway Farage is not value, Cooper/Rayner are value
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 16m The problem with the "Mad Man Strategy" is that after a while people stop taking you seriously. Everyone knows this is utterly insane and won't happen. So how is it putting pressure on anyone to negotiate.
Unfortunately, his logic fails as Trump clearly is actually mad.
Which, as I say, was obvious from the campaign and the debates.
But the low information voters of America just wanted the price of eggs to be lower.
The sick humour of it all is eggs have never been more expensive iirc.
"‘Oh well, never mind, at least the bananas are all bendy again, aren’t they?’ Like they always fucking were.”
If the UK was about to receive, from some mad self harming foreign power the dosh we are going to give the Mauritians, then the UK would be, per capita, happily expectant of
£1,080,000,000,000
Oh no, not another bloody Chagos thread.
It's one of the most important issues going on in UK politics today. It shouldn't be, but it is. And unlike many of the challenges facing this government, it is pretty much totally under their own control.
The apparently sincere outrage about Chagos is baffling. There are a hundred other things I would get exercised about before that.
It isn't moral outrage. If it was we would close the base down and give the Chagossians their island back. The UK and US have no more moral right to the island than Mauritius, but legally it's theirs, as determined by clear and well established international law. So it's entirely transactional. The British, but in reality the Americans, get their base and the Mauritians get the money from a lease, which seems to be at the going rate for such bases. Everyone is happy, except the Chagossians, but nobody cares about them.
So Jenrick, a shadow bench member and likely next leader of the opposition calls Starmer a Quisling, and looks completely demented.
"So it's entirely transactional."
Good. You pay the billions that Mauritius will receive for no good reason. And if you want taxpayers to pay for it, don't ever, ever, complain about poor services in this country again.
Labour need to tighten up/speed up their comms rebuttal. Whilst not that consequential, this shouldn't have been a story.
It remained a fairly minor story on broadcast media but was turbocharged on here. I can't work out why. It's not like an individual poster spent all afternoon ramping the story.
That said Government communications remain shockingly inept.
It was a fairly minor story but most of these stories are - the Lord Ali donor story started small and was talked about a lot here before it became a mainstream media story.
Chagos has started ramping up - the Today programme got stuck in this morning with the political correspondent saying this has been quiet but will grow when people start hearing the cost.
Apart from the annoying use as usual of “give them back to Mauritius” (they were never Mauritian territory but simply administered from there by the French then the Brits) our Amol was quite cutting about it, didn’t try and gotcha Priti who was on talking about it and effectively said it’s a story that’s going to grow.
So whilst Leon is the most influential person in all the media I think this story might have built without him talking about it here yesterday.
"(they were never Mauritian territory but simply administered from there by the French then the Brits)"
I don't think you can dismiss the claims of Mauritius quite so easily. Here is the summary of the 2019 ICJ advisory opinion on the matter:
having regard to international law, the process of decolonization of Mauritius was not lawfully completed when that country acceded to independence in 1968, following the separation of the Chagos Archipelago.
the United Kingdom is under an obligation to bring to an end its administration of the Chagos Archipelago as rapidly as possible.
all Member States are under an obligation to co-operate with the United Nations in order to complete the decolonization of Mauritius.
The reasons are given in the document.
Mauritius and Chagos had nothing to do with each other. They were simply part of the same BOT administrative area for the Empire's convieniance. If Chagos had been given it's own administrative area (Or at least separate to Mauritius) by the Empire there'd be no legal claim to the islands by Mauritius. It's just a technicality of international law that means they have the claim and one we should have no truck with, certainly not with an advisory opinion. A claim created by the hand of a Whitehall clerk.
It is possible the combo of Chagos and Voice coach could bring down Starmer
Each on their own, unlikely. But the combination of him being a lying snake and mind blowing hypocrite at the same time as he tries to give away, to hostile foreigners, billions of pounds we don’t have is quite lethal
He looks insane
Brush up on your fried breakfast offer.
I am bewildered why an affluent man of taste - which I take you to be - would be eating in terrible fast food joints like MacD or Leon
I mean, why???
Because I’m at Euston station, not a temple of fine gastronomy. And last night because I love a quick McDonald’s on my way to choir on Tuesdays. It’s a bit of a tradition.
Anyway I’m making up for it with 2 Michelin stars this evening so net net my diet today is posh.
Good thinking @TimS ! Throw him the breakfast ball, he'll chase that all day long. Admirable diversionary tactics!
WRT Gaza, I don't suppose anyone is really surprised that Trump has said something like what he has.
All politics is relative, even this one. So points:
1) Clearly Trump intends to start a new middle east negotiation start point and position, and will have achieved this.
2) Has anyone got a better one?
3) I and most of us (I imagine) have long supported a two state solution. But SFAICS none of the parties do, most supporting a one state solution. So two state stuff isn't happening, not since the October massacre and Gaza'a becoming rubble.
4) What is the best one state solution which can be regarded as possible within the obvious constraints. Is it not most likely to be a radical but reluctantly agreed modification of Trump's appaarently absurd starting point?
On (3), the Palestinian Authority, some Israeli parties in opposition, Arab states, and most UN member states support a 2-state solution.
On (4), if one is to have a 1-state solution, it doesn't have to involve ethnic cleansing. So, no.
Ethnic cleansing is a crime against humanity. It is not the solution to anything. It is not a starting point to anything.
We had ethnic cleansing in Nagorno-Karabakh in 2023.
The world accepted it as it solved the problem.
It would be the ultimate irony if a country which only came about due to horrendous ethnic cleansing in Europe is a party to the next stage of ethnic cleansing in Gaza
Labour need to tighten up/speed up their comms rebuttal. Whilst not that consequential, this shouldn't have been a story.
It remained a fairly minor story on broadcast media but was turbocharged on here. I can't work out why. It's not like an individual poster spent all afternoon ramping the story.
That said Government communications remain shockingly inept.
It was a fairly minor story but most of these stories are - the Lord Ali donor story started small and was talked about a lot here before it became a mainstream media story.
Chagos has started ramping up - the Today programme got stuck in this morning with the political correspondent saying this has been quiet but will grow when people start hearing the cost.
Apart from the annoying use as usual of “give them back to Mauritius” (they were never Mauritian territory but simply administered from there by the French then the Brits) our Amol was quite cutting about it, didn’t try and gotcha Priti who was on talking about it and effectively said it’s a story that’s going to grow.
So whilst Leon is the most influential person in all the media I think this story might have built without him talking about it here yesterday.
"(they were never Mauritian territory but simply administered from there by the French then the Brits)"
I don't think you can dismiss the claims of Mauritius quite so easily. Here is the summary of the 2019 ICJ advisory opinion on the matter:
having regard to international law, the process of decolonization of Mauritius was not lawfully completed when that country acceded to independence in 1968, following the separation of the Chagos Archipelago.
the United Kingdom is under an obligation to bring to an end its administration of the Chagos Archipelago as rapidly as possible.
all Member States are under an obligation to co-operate with the United Nations in order to complete the decolonization of Mauritius.
The reasons are given in the document.
In which case all the UK has to do is leave. No monetary offer need be offered.
We could do that. However, we then lose our base on Diego Garcia. Not that we're using the base ourselves, but our ally (for now), the US, would be very upset about losing it (and we'd lose the rent from it). If it wasn't for Diego Garcia's strategic importance, this would all have been sorted ages back.
There are very few counties left which have not asked to delay their local elections. Currently those (from Wiki) still planning to hold them are:
Cambs - NOC Herts - Con Lancs - Con Notts - Con Staffs - Con
Are there any common factors in that set?
I think with Notts, the north of the county's administrators see themselves as very very seperate to the south (And don't want to give up the district councils), and the areas around Nottingham are paranoid they'll be reorganised into the basketcase that is Nottingham City council. Personally I think, at least for North Nottinghamshire a reorganisation into a unitary council makes sense.
WRT Gaza, I don't suppose anyone is really surprised that Trump has said something like what he has.
All politics is relative, even this one. So points:
1) Clearly Trump intends to start a new middle east negotiation start point and position, and will have achieved this.
2) Has anyone got a better one?
3) I and most of us (I imagine) have long supported a two state solution. But SFAICS none of the parties do, most supporting a one state solution. So two state stuff isn't happening, not since the October massacre and Gaza'a becoming rubble.
4) What is the best one state solution which can be regarded as possible within the obvious constraints. Is it not most likely to be a radical but reluctantly agreed modification of Trump's appaarently absurd starting point?
If the UK was about to receive, from some mad self harming foreign power the dosh we are going to give the Mauritians, then the UK would be, per capita, happily expectant of
£1,080,000,000,000
Oh no, not another bloody Chagos thread.
£1,080,000,000,000 "per capita" seems... implausible. I think he might have meant pro rata, but since no one actually knows what the figures are, it might just be the usual hyperbole ?
I think he was taking the per capita figure for Mauritius and multiplying it by uk population
So the intention was clear even if poorly laid out
Labour need to tighten up/speed up their comms rebuttal. Whilst not that consequential, this shouldn't have been a story.
It remained a fairly minor story on broadcast media but was turbocharged on here. I can't work out why. It's not like an individual poster spent all afternoon ramping the story.
That said Government communications remain shockingly inept.
It was a fairly minor story but most of these stories are - the Lord Ali donor story started small and was talked about a lot here before it became a mainstream media story.
Chagos has started ramping up - the Today programme got stuck in this morning with the political correspondent saying this has been quiet but will grow when people start hearing the cost.
Apart from the annoying use as usual of “give them back to Mauritius” (they were never Mauritian territory but simply administered from there by the French then the Brits) our Amol was quite cutting about it, didn’t try and gotcha Priti who was on talking about it and effectively said it’s a story that’s going to grow.
So whilst Leon is the most influential person in all the media I think this story might have built without him talking about it here yesterday.
"(they were never Mauritian territory but simply administered from there by the French then the Brits)"
I don't think you can dismiss the claims of Mauritius quite so easily. Here is the summary of the 2019 ICJ advisory opinion on the matter:
having regard to international law, the process of decolonization of Mauritius was not lawfully completed when that country acceded to independence in 1968, following the separation of the Chagos Archipelago.
the United Kingdom is under an obligation to bring to an end its administration of the Chagos Archipelago as rapidly as possible.
all Member States are under an obligation to co-operate with the United Nations in order to complete the decolonization of Mauritius.
The reasons are given in the document.
In which case all the UK has to do is leave. No monetary offer need be offered.
We could do that. However, we then lose our base on Diego Garcia. Not that we're using the base ourselves, but our ally (for now), the US, would be very upset about losing it (and we'd lose the rent from it). If it wasn't for Diego Garcia's strategic importance, this would all have been sorted ages back.
The US wouldn't lose a thing. They wouldn't move out of "Freedom's Footprint" and nobody could or would kick them out.
It is possible the combo of Chagos and Voice coach could bring down Starmer
Each on their own, unlikely. But the combination of him being a lying snake and mind blowing hypocrite at the same time as he tries to give away, to hostile foreigners, billions of pounds we don’t have is quite lethal
He looks insane
Brush up on your fried breakfast offer.
I am bewildered why an affluent man of taste - which I take you to be - would be eating in terrible fast food joints like MacD or Leon
I mean, why???
Because I’m at Euston station, not a temple of fine gastronomy. And last night because I love a quick McDonald’s on my way to choir on Tuesdays. It’s a bit of a tradition.
Anyway I’m making up for it with 2 Michelin stars this evening so net net my diet today is posh.
I’d skip a meal rather than eat at McD’s or Leon
I’ve already established this week that my liking of McDonald’s is a truly minority position on this site. I seem to be in a minority of 1. But I sincerely enjoy my trips to Maccies.
Think of it as my one contrarian opinion, leavening an otherwise canonical centrist dad mindset. All of us should have one. @Luckyguy1983 has Truss, I have McDonalds.
WRT Gaza, I don't suppose anyone is really surprised that Trump has said something like what he has.
All politics is relative, even this one. So points:
1) Clearly Trump intends to start a new middle east negotiation start point and position, and will have achieved this.
2) Has anyone got a better one?
3) I and most of us (I imagine) have long supported a two state solution. But SFAICS none of the parties do, most supporting a one state solution. So two state stuff isn't happening, not since the October massacre and Gaza'a becoming rubble.
4) What is the best one state solution which can be regarded as possible within the obvious constraints. Is it not most likely to be a radical but reluctantly agreed modification of Trump's appaarently absurd starting point?
Consociationalism is the only way forward
The classic essay question: "Does the success of consociationalism in Northern Ireland provide a template for other conflicts (e.g. Israel-Palestine)?"
WRT Gaza, I don't suppose anyone is really surprised that Trump has said something like what he has.
All politics is relative, even this one. So points:
1) Clearly Trump intends to start a new middle east negotiation start point and position, and will have achieved this.
2) Has anyone got a better one?
3) I and most of us (I imagine) have long supported a two state solution. But SFAICS none of the parties do, most supporting a one state solution. So two state stuff isn't happening, not since the October massacre and Gaza'a becoming rubble.
4) What is the best one state solution which can be regarded as possible within the obvious constraints. Is it not most likely to be a radical but reluctantly agreed modification of Trump's appaarently absurd starting point?
On (3), the Palestinian Authority, some Israeli parties in opposition, Arab states, and most UN member states support a 2-state solution.
On (4), if one is to have a 1-state solution, it doesn't have to involve ethnic cleansing. So, no.
Ethnic cleansing is a crime against humanity. It is not the solution to anything. It is not a starting point to anything.
We had ethnic cleansing in Nagorno-Karabakh in 2023.
The world accepted it as it solved the problem.
Is that the most casually crass post in the history of PB?
No. It expresses a very unpleasant truth.
Ethnic cleansing is a war crime, like the use of starvation against enemy civilians.
But, the world frequently turns a blind eye to both.
If the UK was about to receive, from some mad self harming foreign power the dosh we are going to give the Mauritians, then the UK would be, per capita, happily expectant of
£1,080,000,000,000
Oh no, not another bloody Chagos thread.
£1,080,000,000,000 "per capita" seems... implausible. I think he might have meant pro rata, but since no one actually knows what the figures are, it might just be the usual hyperbole ?
I think he was taking the per capita figure for Mauritius and multiplying it by uk population
So the intention was clear even if poorly laid out
Actually I’m not sure what I was doing. I’d just emerged from a siesta where I “dreamt of a number” then I wrote it down
Mind you that seems to be what’s happened in realty. The Mauritians said “what would be a dream number, for us?”
“Eighteen billion?”
Everyone laughs
Two weeks later
“What, they’re REALLY giving us eighteen billion? To TAKE their property?!”
WRT Gaza, I don't suppose anyone is really surprised that Trump has said something like what he has.
All politics is relative, even this one. So points:
1) Clearly Trump intends to start a new middle east negotiation start point and position, and will have achieved this.
2) Has anyone got a better one?
3) I and most of us (I imagine) have long supported a two state solution. But SFAICS none of the parties do, most supporting a one state solution. So two state stuff isn't happening, not since the October massacre and Gaza'a becoming rubble.
4) What is the best one state solution which can be regarded as possible within the obvious constraints. Is it not most likely to be a radical but reluctantly agreed modification of Trump's appaarently absurd starting point?
On (3), the Palestinian Authority, some Israeli parties in opposition, Arab states, and most UN member states support a 2-state solution.
On (4), if one is to have a 1-state solution, it doesn't have to involve ethnic cleansing. So, no.
Ethnic cleansing is a crime against humanity. It is not the solution to anything. It is not a starting point to anything.
We had ethnic cleansing in Nagorno-Karabakh in 2023.
The world accepted it as it solved the problem.
I don't think the world accepted it as it "solved the problem". The world decided it was impotent to do much about it.
Ethnic cleansing is a crime against humanity. The world has sometimes failed to stop ethnic cleansing, but that doesn't change the horrendous and barbaric nature of the act.
There are very few counties left which have not asked to delay their local elections. Currently those (from Wiki) still planning to hold them are:
Cambs - NOC Herts - Con Lancs - Con Notts - Con Staffs - Con
Are there any common factors in that set?
I think with Notts, the north of the county's administrators see themselves as very very seperate to the south (And don't want to give up the district councils), and the areas around Nottingham are paranoid they'll be reorganised into the basketcase that is Nottingham City council.
What do you think the Tory and Lab view is of their prospects in Notts?
According to my local Ashfield Independent news sheet the Independent Alliance are the Opposition, and are saying they want to take control (but they would).
They have certainly been running a sectarian rhetoric.
For AIs, Zadrozny is due to be in Crown Court in March, which imo *should* lead them to lean the other way.
WRT Gaza, I don't suppose anyone is really surprised that Trump has said something like what he has.
All politics is relative, even this one. So points:
1) Clearly Trump intends to start a new middle east negotiation start point and position, and will have achieved this.
2) Has anyone got a better one?
3) I and most of us (I imagine) have long supported a two state solution. But SFAICS none of the parties do, most supporting a one state solution. So two state stuff isn't happening, not since the October massacre and Gaza'a becoming rubble.
4) What is the best one state solution which can be regarded as possible within the obvious constraints. Is it not most likely to be a radical but reluctantly agreed modification of Trump's appaarently absurd starting point?
On (3), the Palestinian Authority, some Israeli parties in opposition, Arab states, and most UN member states support a 2-state solution.
On (4), if one is to have a 1-state solution, it doesn't have to involve ethnic cleansing. So, no.
Ethnic cleansing is a crime against humanity. It is not the solution to anything. It is not a starting point to anything.
We had ethnic cleansing in Nagorno-Karabakh in 2023.
The world accepted it as it solved the problem.
Is that the most casually crass post in the history of PB?
No. It expresses a very unpleasant truth.
Ethnic cleansing is a war crime, like the use of starvation against enemy civilians.
But, the world frequently turns a blind eye to both.
Armenia accepted the expulsion in the "peace agreement", I think.
Presumably not voluntarily; they got a beasting.
I'm not sure what can be done in those circumstances.
If the UK was about to receive, from some mad self harming foreign power the dosh we are going to give the Mauritians, then the UK would be, per capita, happily expectant of
£1,080,000,000,000
Oh no, not another bloody Chagos thread.
It's one of the most important issues going on in UK politics today. It shouldn't be, but it is. And unlike many of the challenges facing this government, it is pretty much totally under their own control.
The apparently sincere outrage about Chagos is baffling. There are a hundred other things I would get exercised about before that.
It isn't moral outrage. If it was we would close the base down and give the Chagossians their island back. The UK and US have no more moral right to the island than Mauritius, but legally it's theirs, as determined by clear and well established international law. So it's entirely transactional. The British, but in reality the Americans, get their base and the Mauritians get the money from a lease, which seems to be at the going rate for such bases. Everyone is happy, except the Chagossians, but nobody cares about them.
So Jenrick, a shadow bench member and likely next leader of the opposition calls Starmer a Quisling, and looks completely demented.
"So it's entirely transactional."
Good. You pay the billions that Mauritius will receive for no good reason. And if you want taxpayers to pay for it, don't ever, ever, complain about poor services in this country again.
Billions over a hundred years. No-one ever quantifies similar leases in this way. The payment is the difference between legal occupation and illegal occupation of the island like any rent. It isn't completely optional, although I realise the Americans will keep the base regardless. Which is why up until now they have been the ones pushing for this deal.
It seems to be about the going rate for such overseas military bases. Maybe the government could get a better price - I don't know - in general they don't seem particularly good negotiators. But there's a difference between poor negotiator and Quisling.
Labour need to tighten up/speed up their comms rebuttal. Whilst not that consequential, this shouldn't have been a story.
It remained a fairly minor story on broadcast media but was turbocharged on here. I can't work out why. It's not like an individual poster spent all afternoon ramping the story.
That said Government communications remain shockingly inept.
It was a fairly minor story but most of these stories are - the Lord Ali donor story started small and was talked about a lot here before it became a mainstream media story.
Chagos has started ramping up - the Today programme got stuck in this morning with the political correspondent saying this has been quiet but will grow when people start hearing the cost.
Apart from the annoying use as usual of “give them back to Mauritius” (they were never Mauritian territory but simply administered from there by the French then the Brits) our Amol was quite cutting about it, didn’t try and gotcha Priti who was on talking about it and effectively said it’s a story that’s going to grow.
So whilst Leon is the most influential person in all the media I think this story might have built without him talking about it here yesterday.
"(they were never Mauritian territory but simply administered from there by the French then the Brits)"
I don't think you can dismiss the claims of Mauritius quite so easily. Here is the summary of the 2019 ICJ advisory opinion on the matter:
having regard to international law, the process of decolonization of Mauritius was not lawfully completed when that country acceded to independence in 1968, following the separation of the Chagos Archipelago.
the United Kingdom is under an obligation to bring to an end its administration of the Chagos Archipelago as rapidly as possible.
all Member States are under an obligation to co-operate with the United Nations in order to complete the decolonization of Mauritius.
The reasons are given in the document.
In which case all the UK has to do is leave. No monetary offer need be offered.
We could do that. However, we then lose our base on Diego Garcia. Not that we're using the base ourselves, but our ally (for now), the US, would be very upset about losing it (and we'd lose the rent from it). If it wasn't for Diego Garcia's strategic importance, this would all have been sorted ages back.
The US wouldn't lose a thing. They wouldn't move out of "Freedom's Footprint" and nobody could or would kick them out.
The US would face a difficult diplomatic and legal situation. This would have been a problem before Trump. Now, of course, Trump threatens difficult diplomatic and legal situations three times before breakfast.
On a related note, some graphics have been circulating of the USA’s main trade relationships - whom it imports from and exports to.
Here are the exports:
They highlight something the Americans have really understated in recent years, and which largely explains their economic outperformance vs the rest of the West. They have become a petro-state. Largest oil producer in the world. One of the largest gas producers. Forget the Saudis or Russia.
Ukraine blowing up Russian refineries is very much in US national interests. Hopefully that’ll focus Trump and Musk’s minds.
Labour need to tighten up/speed up their comms rebuttal. Whilst not that consequential, this shouldn't have been a story.
It remained a fairly minor story on broadcast media but was turbocharged on here. I can't work out why. It's not like an individual poster spent all afternoon ramping the story.
That said Government communications remain shockingly inept.
It was a fairly minor story but most of these stories are - the Lord Ali donor story started small and was talked about a lot here before it became a mainstream media story.
Chagos has started ramping up - the Today programme got stuck in this morning with the political correspondent saying this has been quiet but will grow when people start hearing the cost.
Apart from the annoying use as usual of “give them back to Mauritius” (they were never Mauritian territory but simply administered from there by the French then the Brits) our Amol was quite cutting about it, didn’t try and gotcha Priti who was on talking about it and effectively said it’s a story that’s going to grow.
So whilst Leon is the most influential person in all the media I think this story might have built without him talking about it here yesterday.
"(they were never Mauritian territory but simply administered from there by the French then the Brits)"
I don't think you can dismiss the claims of Mauritius quite so easily. Here is the summary of the 2019 ICJ advisory opinion on the matter:
having regard to international law, the process of decolonization of Mauritius was not lawfully completed when that country acceded to independence in 1968, following the separation of the Chagos Archipelago.
the United Kingdom is under an obligation to bring to an end its administration of the Chagos Archipelago as rapidly as possible.
all Member States are under an obligation to co-operate with the United Nations in order to complete the decolonization of Mauritius.
The reasons are given in the document.
Mauritius and Chagos had nothing to do with each other. They were simply part of the same BOT administrative area for the Empire's convieniance. If Chagos had been given it's own administrative area (Or at least separate to Mauritius) by the Empire there'd be no legal claim to the islands by Mauritius. It's just a technicality of international law that means they have the claim and one we should have no truck with, certainly not with an advisory opinion. A claim created by the hand of a Whitehall clerk.
Of course it's a bit more complicated than that. And the British colony was called 'Mauritius'. The term British Overseas Territory was introduced in 2002 (if that's what you mean by BOT), so not really relevant.
The British Indian Ocean Territory was created from islands that were part of Mauritius and Seychelles at the end of British rule in 1965 explicitly in order to create a military base. The islands from the Seychelles have been 'given back' to the Seychelles. The Chagos Islands had been governed by the British from Mauritius from 1815 to 1965.
The value (as per the header) probably is in a Labour politician but which one? There's no generic 'Labour not SKS' option. The other problem with this market (Next PM) is Labour could win the next election under Starmer in which case settlement lies a long way off. We could be talking the 30s.
WRT Gaza, I don't suppose anyone is really surprised that Trump has said something like what he has.
All politics is relative, even this one. So points:
1) Clearly Trump intends to start a new middle east negotiation start point and position, and will have achieved this.
2) Has anyone got a better one?
3) I and most of us (I imagine) have long supported a two state solution. But SFAICS none of the parties do, most supporting a one state solution. So two state stuff isn't happening, not since the October massacre and Gaza'a becoming rubble.
4) What is the best one state solution which can be regarded as possible within the obvious constraints. Is it not most likely to be a radical but reluctantly agreed modification of Trump's appaarently absurd starting point?
On (3), the Palestinian Authority, some Israeli parties in opposition, Arab states, and most UN member states support a 2-state solution.
On (4), if one is to have a 1-state solution, it doesn't have to involve ethnic cleansing. So, no.
Ethnic cleansing is a crime against humanity. It is not the solution to anything. It is not a starting point to anything.
We had ethnic cleansing in Nagorno-Karabakh in 2023.
The world accepted it as it solved the problem.
I don't think the world accepted it as it "solved the problem". The world decided it was impotent to do much about it.
Ethnic cleansing is a crime against humanity. The world has sometimes failed to stop ethnic cleansing, but that doesn't change the horrendous and barbaric nature of the act.
Have any sanctions being placed on Azerbaijan's leaders ?
Has South Africa taken Azerbaijan to court as it did Israel ?
The response of the world was "unpleasant and unfortunate but at least it ends the problem".
WRT Gaza, I don't suppose anyone is really surprised that Trump has said something like what he has.
All politics is relative, even this one. So points:
1) Clearly Trump intends to start a new middle east negotiation start point and position, and will have achieved this.
2) Has anyone got a better one?
3) I and most of us (I imagine) have long supported a two state solution. But SFAICS none of the parties do, most supporting a one state solution. So two state stuff isn't happening, not since the October massacre and Gaza'a becoming rubble.
4) What is the best one state solution which can be regarded as possible within the obvious constraints. Is it not most likely to be a radical but reluctantly agreed modification of Trump's appaarently absurd starting point?
Consociationalism is the only way forward
The classic essay question: "Does the success of consociationalism in Northern Ireland provide a template for other conflicts (e.g. Israel-Palestine)?"
Presumably more advanced courses set the essay questions: "Does the experience of consociationalism in Lebanon provide a template for other conflicts (e.g. Israel-Palestine)?"
WRT Gaza, I don't suppose anyone is really surprised that Trump has said something like what he has.
All politics is relative, even this one. So points:
1) Clearly Trump intends to start a new middle east negotiation start point and position, and will have achieved this.
2) Has anyone got a better one?
3) I and most of us (I imagine) have long supported a two state solution. But SFAICS none of the parties do, most supporting a one state solution. So two state stuff isn't happening, not since the October massacre and Gaza'a becoming rubble.
4) What is the best one state solution which can be regarded as possible within the obvious constraints. Is it not most likely to be a radical but reluctantly agreed modification of Trump's appaarently absurd starting point?
On (3), the Palestinian Authority, some Israeli parties in opposition, Arab states, and most UN member states support a 2-state solution.
On (4), if one is to have a 1-state solution, it doesn't have to involve ethnic cleansing. So, no.
Ethnic cleansing is a crime against humanity. It is not the solution to anything. It is not a starting point to anything.
We had ethnic cleansing in Nagorno-Karabakh in 2023.
The world accepted it as it solved the problem.
Is that the most casually crass post in the history of PB?
No. It expresses a very unpleasant truth.
Ethnic cleansing is a war crime, like the use of starvation against enemy civilians.
But, the world frequently turns a blind eye to both.
Is the solution to this to encourage more war crimes? No.
WRT Gaza, I don't suppose anyone is really surprised that Trump has said something like what he has.
All politics is relative, even this one. So points:
1) Clearly Trump intends to start a new middle east negotiation start point and position, and will have achieved this.
2) Has anyone got a better one?
3) I and most of us (I imagine) have long supported a two state solution. But SFAICS none of the parties do, most supporting a one state solution. So two state stuff isn't happening, not since the October massacre and Gaza'a becoming rubble.
4) What is the best one state solution which can be regarded as possible within the obvious constraints. Is it not most likely to be a radical but reluctantly agreed modification of Trump's appaarently absurd starting point?
On (3), the Palestinian Authority, some Israeli parties in opposition, Arab states, and most UN member states support a 2-state solution.
On (4), if one is to have a 1-state solution, it doesn't have to involve ethnic cleansing. So, no.
Ethnic cleansing is a crime against humanity. It is not the solution to anything. It is not a starting point to anything.
We had ethnic cleansing in Nagorno-Karabakh in 2023.
The world accepted it as it solved the problem.
Is that the most casually crass post in the history of PB?
No. It expresses a very unpleasant truth.
Ethnic cleansing is a war crime, like the use of starvation against enemy civilians.
But, the world frequently turns a blind eye to both.
Is the solution to this to encourage more war crimes? No.
What if the Gazans depart voluntarily? For a better life elsewhere (not hard)?
Labour need to tighten up/speed up their comms rebuttal. Whilst not that consequential, this shouldn't have been a story.
It remained a fairly minor story on broadcast media but was turbocharged on here. I can't work out why. It's not like an individual poster spent all afternoon ramping the story.
That said Government communications remain shockingly inept.
It was a fairly minor story but most of these stories are - the Lord Ali donor story started small and was talked about a lot here before it became a mainstream media story.
Chagos has started ramping up - the Today programme got stuck in this morning with the political correspondent saying this has been quiet but will grow when people start hearing the cost.
Apart from the annoying use as usual of “give them back to Mauritius” (they were never Mauritian territory but simply administered from there by the French then the Brits) our Amol was quite cutting about it, didn’t try and gotcha Priti who was on talking about it and effectively said it’s a story that’s going to grow.
So whilst Leon is the most influential person in all the media I think this story might have built without him talking about it here yesterday.
"(they were never Mauritian territory but simply administered from there by the French then the Brits)"
I don't think you can dismiss the claims of Mauritius quite so easily. Here is the summary of the 2019 ICJ advisory opinion on the matter:
having regard to international law, the process of decolonization of Mauritius was not lawfully completed when that country acceded to independence in 1968, following the separation of the Chagos Archipelago.
the United Kingdom is under an obligation to bring to an end its administration of the Chagos Archipelago as rapidly as possible.
all Member States are under an obligation to co-operate with the United Nations in order to complete the decolonization of Mauritius.
The reasons are given in the document.
Mauritius and Chagos had nothing to do with each other. They were simply part of the same BOT administrative area for the Empire's convieniance. If Chagos had been given it's own administrative area (Or at least separate to Mauritius) by the Empire there'd be no legal claim to the islands by Mauritius. It's just a technicality of international law that means they have the claim and one we should have no truck with, certainly not with an advisory opinion. A claim created by the hand of a Whitehall clerk.
Of course it's a bit more complicated than that. And the British colony was called 'Mauritius'. The term British Overseas Territory was introduced in 2002 (if that's what you mean by BOT), so not really relevant.
The British Indian Ocean Territory was created from islands that were part of Mauritius and Seychelles at the end of British rule in 1965 explicitly in order to create a military base. The islands from the Seychelles have been 'given back' to the Seychelles. The Chagos Islands had been governed by the British from Mauritius from 1815 to 1965.
Similar to a few other post-colonial handovers, including originally giving PNG to Australia.
Who on earth has put £500 on Andrew Tate on Betfair? Based on erformance so far Darren Jones looks value, though that isn't how it'll be decided. Cooper has bottled her opportunities so far so seems unlikely.
Didn’t Tate say he was starting a British political party? He’s most likely to be in prison in Romania at the next election, but one of his friends putting £500 on him doesn’t sound particularly outrageous.
WRT Gaza, I don't suppose anyone is really surprised that Trump has said something like what he has.
All politics is relative, even this one. So points:
1) Clearly Trump intends to start a new middle east negotiation start point and position, and will have achieved this.
2) Has anyone got a better one?
3) I and most of us (I imagine) have long supported a two state solution. But SFAICS none of the parties do, most supporting a one state solution. So two state stuff isn't happening, not since the October massacre and Gaza'a becoming rubble.
4) What is the best one state solution which can be regarded as possible within the obvious constraints. Is it not most likely to be a radical but reluctantly agreed modification of Trump's appaarently absurd starting point?
On (3), the Palestinian Authority, some Israeli parties in opposition, Arab states, and most UN member states support a 2-state solution.
On (4), if one is to have a 1-state solution, it doesn't have to involve ethnic cleansing. So, no.
Ethnic cleansing is a crime against humanity. It is not the solution to anything. It is not a starting point to anything.
We had ethnic cleansing in Nagorno-Karabakh in 2023.
The world accepted it as it solved the problem.
I don't think the world accepted it as it "solved the problem". The world decided it was impotent to do much about it.
Ethnic cleansing is a crime against humanity. The world has sometimes failed to stop ethnic cleansing, but that doesn't change the horrendous and barbaric nature of the act.
Of course it's barbaric. But let's get real about it. It also sometimes solves long-standing problems. That was why Germans were ethnically cleansed from lands they had lived in for centuries at the end of WW2. It's why the same happened to Greeks and Turks in Greece and Turkey at the end of WW1. What was acceptable and - oh the irony! - diverse in multi-ethnic Empires became a huge issue under nationalism.
I do not advocate it. But let's not pretend that it hasn't been very convenient indeed for Western Europe. And we did not do anything about it not because we couldn't but because we did not want to, indeed encouraged it.
I agree with the header. I think Starmer will go in 2028, so the next PM will be Labour.
I think Rayner is value at 19.
There is no way on earth that Rayner could be described as "value"
My logic is that:
1) leaders are rarely replaced by someone like themselves, they are replaced with a person who corrects or over corrects the deficiencies of the outgoing leader.
2) leaders are replaced by senior frontbenchers, or recent front benches, particularly when in government.
3) There will be a desire to have a female leader.
Reeves is out because of 1.
So I am backing Rayner, Cooper and Phillipson as next PM, and of these Rayner or Cooper seems most likely.
You may not like Rayner, but you are not the electorate for this contest, the Labour Party MPs, members and Trade Unions are. As she was previous shop steward the Unions will back Rayner.
If Phillipson is still there in September pile your cash on her, because she must have the political survival skills of Boris Johnson on crack if she survives the next six months.
I appreciate that you dislike her about the same as I dislike Streeting, but both of us need to remember that we are not the electorate.
Both are contenders for next but one Labour leader. I think that it may well be a bit of a poisoned chalice if Starmer and Labour are still polling like this in 2028, but Rayner is always up for a scrap, and while anathema to Tory snobs could get a fair number of the Lab to Green switchers back, and motivate some of the Corbynite. I think she is a very shrewd politician.
Someone needs to stop Starmer before it’s too late. Now the British government itself is briefing against him
“Now @hzeffman quotes “very senior” government figures saying the Chagos deal is “terrible,” “mad” and “impossible to understand” — via @BlewettSam Playbook
WRT Gaza, I don't suppose anyone is really surprised that Trump has said something like what he has.
All politics is relative, even this one. So points:
1) Clearly Trump intends to start a new middle east negotiation start point and position, and will have achieved this.
2) Has anyone got a better one?
3) I and most of us (I imagine) have long supported a two state solution. But SFAICS none of the parties do, most supporting a one state solution. So two state stuff isn't happening, not since the October massacre and Gaza'a becoming rubble.
4) What is the best one state solution which can be regarded as possible within the obvious constraints. Is it not most likely to be a radical but reluctantly agreed modification of Trump's appaarently absurd starting point?
On (3), the Palestinian Authority, some Israeli parties in opposition, Arab states, and most UN member states support a 2-state solution.
On (4), if one is to have a 1-state solution, it doesn't have to involve ethnic cleansing. So, no.
Ethnic cleansing is a crime against humanity. It is not the solution to anything. It is not a starting point to anything.
Well we have stood idly by while it has been going on in the West Bank so have no moral higher ground on this.
Something needs to be done. Neither parts wants peace with the other. Co-existence is not going to happen.
If this starts a process and a dialogue that ends with a peaceful settlement then good.
The UN can pass whatever resolutions it wants. It is toothless. Israel will, enabled by its allies, do what it wants without any comeback. That is the reality we are working with so we have to adapt to it.
It is possible the combo of Chagos and Voice coach could bring down Starmer
Each on their own, unlikely. But the combination of him being a lying snake and mind blowing hypocrite at the same time as he tries to give away, to hostile foreigners, billions of pounds we don’t have is quite lethal
He looks insane
Brush up on your fried breakfast offer.
I am bewildered why an affluent man of taste - which I take you to be - would be eating in terrible fast food joints like MacD or Leon
I mean, why???
Because I’m at Euston station, not a temple of fine gastronomy. And last night because I love a quick McDonald’s on my way to choir on Tuesdays. It’s a bit of a tradition.
Anyway I’m making up for it with 2 Michelin stars this evening so net net my diet today is posh.
I’d skip a meal rather than eat at McD’s or Leon
I’ve already established this week that my liking of McDonald’s is a truly minority position on this site. I seem to be in a minority of 1. But I sincerely enjoy my trips to Maccies.
Think of it as my one contrarian opinion, leavening an otherwise canonical centrist dad mindset. All of us should have one. @Luckyguy1983 has Truss, I have McDonalds.
My tip for snacking at Euston is the Quaker cafe on the opposite side of Euston Road. They don't do fry-ups but the ambience is a world away.
WRT Gaza, I don't suppose anyone is really surprised that Trump has said something like what he has.
All politics is relative, even this one. So points:
1) Clearly Trump intends to start a new middle east negotiation start point and position, and will have achieved this.
2) Has anyone got a better one?
3) I and most of us (I imagine) have long supported a two state solution. But SFAICS none of the parties do, most supporting a one state solution. So two state stuff isn't happening, not since the October massacre and Gaza'a becoming rubble.
4) What is the best one state solution which can be regarded as possible within the obvious constraints. Is it not most likely to be a radical but reluctantly agreed modification of Trump's appaarently absurd starting point?
On (3), the Palestinian Authority, some Israeli parties in opposition, Arab states, and most UN member states support a 2-state solution.
On (4), if one is to have a 1-state solution, it doesn't have to involve ethnic cleansing. So, no.
Ethnic cleansing is a crime against humanity. It is not the solution to anything. It is not a starting point to anything.
We had ethnic cleansing in Nagorno-Karabakh in 2023.
The world accepted it as it solved the problem.
Is that the most casually crass post in the history of PB?
Only if you think reality is crass.
But interesting that you get more upset about someone saying that the world accepted ethnic cleansing in Nagorno-Karabakh than you are by the ethnic cleansing itself.
WRT Gaza, I don't suppose anyone is really surprised that Trump has said something like what he has.
All politics is relative, even this one. So points:
1) Clearly Trump intends to start a new middle east negotiation start point and position, and will have achieved this.
2) Has anyone got a better one?
3) I and most of us (I imagine) have long supported a two state solution. But SFAICS none of the parties do, most supporting a one state solution. So two state stuff isn't happening, not since the October massacre and Gaza'a becoming rubble.
4) What is the best one state solution which can be regarded as possible within the obvious constraints. Is it not most likely to be a radical but reluctantly agreed modification of Trump's appaarently absurd starting point?
On (3), the Palestinian Authority, some Israeli parties in opposition, Arab states, and most UN member states support a 2-state solution.
On (4), if one is to have a 1-state solution, it doesn't have to involve ethnic cleansing. So, no.
Ethnic cleansing is a crime against humanity. It is not the solution to anything. It is not a starting point to anything.
We had ethnic cleansing in Nagorno-Karabakh in 2023.
The world accepted it as it solved the problem.
I don't think the world accepted it as it "solved the problem". The world decided it was impotent to do much about it.
Ethnic cleansing is a crime against humanity. The world has sometimes failed to stop ethnic cleansing, but that doesn't change the horrendous and barbaric nature of the act.
Have any sanctions being placed on Azerbaijan's leaders ?
Has South Africa taken Azerbaijan to court as it did Israel ?
The response of the world was "unpleasant and unfortunate but at least it ends the problem".
Azerbaijan is another example of the geopolitical blinder that Erdogan and Turkey have been playing in recent years. He’s pulled off a military victory and a humanitarian crime with echoes of 1916 and few people batted an eyelid.
A nasty piece of work, but he has played his international hand brilliantly. Turkey now effectively controls a portion of the Caucasus, repeatedly bests Russia and calls its bluff, most recently of course in Syria, and has spread a new form of Sunni islamist capitalism that is not a million miles from 18th and 19th century European Protestantism.
One of the surprises in my visit to Senegal last December was the number of Turkish funded mosques and schools in the North. You expect to see Chinese investment but the pervasiveness of the Turks is a surprise.
WRT Gaza, I don't suppose anyone is really surprised that Trump has said something like what he has.
All politics is relative, even this one. So points:
1) Clearly Trump intends to start a new middle east negotiation start point and position, and will have achieved this.
2) Has anyone got a better one?
3) I and most of us (I imagine) have long supported a two state solution. But SFAICS none of the parties do, most supporting a one state solution. So two state stuff isn't happening, not since the October massacre and Gaza'a becoming rubble.
4) What is the best one state solution which can be regarded as possible within the obvious constraints. Is it not most likely to be a radical but reluctantly agreed modification of Trump's appaarently absurd starting point?
On (3), the Palestinian Authority, some Israeli parties in opposition, Arab states, and most UN member states support a 2-state solution.
On (4), if one is to have a 1-state solution, it doesn't have to involve ethnic cleansing. So, no.
Ethnic cleansing is a crime against humanity. It is not the solution to anything. It is not a starting point to anything.
We had ethnic cleansing in Nagorno-Karabakh in 2023.
The world accepted it as it solved the problem.
Is that the most casually crass post in the history of PB?
No. It expresses a very unpleasant truth.
Ethnic cleansing is a war crime, like the use of starvation against enemy civilians.
But, the world frequently turns a blind eye to both.
Is the solution to this to encourage more war crimes? No.
Examples of ethnic cleansing that have become accepted (some probably count as genocide) 1) Most of N America 2) Large parts of S America 3) Australia 4) Caribbean
WRT Gaza, I don't suppose anyone is really surprised that Trump has said something like what he has.
All politics is relative, even this one. So points:
1) Clearly Trump intends to start a new middle east negotiation start point and position, and will have achieved this.
2) Has anyone got a better one?
3) I and most of us (I imagine) have long supported a two state solution. But SFAICS none of the parties do, most supporting a one state solution. So two state stuff isn't happening, not since the October massacre and Gaza'a becoming rubble.
4) What is the best one state solution which can be regarded as possible within the obvious constraints. Is it not most likely to be a radical but reluctantly agreed modification of Trump's appaarently absurd starting point?
On (3), the Palestinian Authority, some Israeli parties in opposition, Arab states, and most UN member states support a 2-state solution.
On (4), if one is to have a 1-state solution, it doesn't have to involve ethnic cleansing. So, no.
Ethnic cleansing is a crime against humanity. It is not the solution to anything. It is not a starting point to anything.
We had ethnic cleansing in Nagorno-Karabakh in 2023.
The world accepted it as it solved the problem.
I don't think the world accepted it as it "solved the problem". The world decided it was impotent to do much about it.
Ethnic cleansing is a crime against humanity. The world has sometimes failed to stop ethnic cleansing, but that doesn't change the horrendous and barbaric nature of the act.
Have any sanctions being placed on Azerbaijan's leaders ?
Has South Africa taken Azerbaijan to court as it did Israel ?
The response of the world was "unpleasant and unfortunate but at least it ends the problem".
The response of the world was, sadly, "unpleasant and unfortunate but we're not going to do anything about it". I can't see anyone saying "but at least it ends the problem". The European Parliament called it ethnic cleansing, as did the Cypriot government and the French Senate. The Biden administration criticised Azerbaijan and collected data on events, but stopped short of calling it ethnic cleansing. The UK also ducked the term "ethnic cleansing". The Council of Europe was critical. They and the UN both sent missions to observe the situation. None of them said anything like "but at least it ends the problem".
Someone needs to stop Starmer before it’s too late. Now the British government itself is briefing against him
“Now @hzeffman quotes “very senior” government figures saying the Chagos deal is “terrible,” “mad” and “impossible to understand” — via @BlewettSam Playbook
It is possible the combo of Chagos and Voice coach could bring down Starmer
Each on their own, unlikely. But the combination of him being a lying snake and mind blowing hypocrite at the same time as he tries to give away, to hostile foreigners, billions of pounds we don’t have is quite lethal
He looks insane
Brush up on your fried breakfast offer.
I am bewildered why an affluent man of taste - which I take you to be - would be eating in terrible fast food joints like MacD or Leon
I mean, why???
Because I’m at Euston station, not a temple of fine gastronomy. And last night because I love a quick McDonald’s on my way to choir on Tuesdays. It’s a bit of a tradition.
Anyway I’m making up for it with 2 Michelin stars this evening so net net my diet today is posh.
I’d skip a meal rather than eat at McD’s or Leon
I’ve already established this week that my liking of McDonald’s is a truly minority position on this site. I seem to be in a minority of 1. But I sincerely enjoy my trips to Maccies.
Think of it as my one contrarian opinion, leavening an otherwise canonical centrist dad mindset. All of us should have one. @Luckyguy1983 has Truss, I have McDonalds.
My tip for snacking at Euston is the Quaker cafe on the opposite side of Euston Road. They don't do fry-ups but the ambience is a world away.
Someone needs to stop Starmer before it’s too late. Now the British government itself is briefing against him
“Now @hzeffman quotes “very senior” government figures saying the Chagos deal is “terrible,” “mad” and “impossible to understand” — via @BlewettSam Playbook
WRT Gaza, I don't suppose anyone is really surprised that Trump has said something like what he has.
All politics is relative, even this one. So points:
1) Clearly Trump intends to start a new middle east negotiation start point and position, and will have achieved this.
2) Has anyone got a better one?
3) I and most of us (I imagine) have long supported a two state solution. But SFAICS none of the parties do, most supporting a one state solution. So two state stuff isn't happening, not since the October massacre and Gaza'a becoming rubble.
4) What is the best one state solution which can be regarded as possible within the obvious constraints. Is it not most likely to be a radical but reluctantly agreed modification of Trump's appaarently absurd starting point?
On (3), the Palestinian Authority, some Israeli parties in opposition, Arab states, and most UN member states support a 2-state solution.
On (4), if one is to have a 1-state solution, it doesn't have to involve ethnic cleansing. So, no.
Ethnic cleansing is a crime against humanity. It is not the solution to anything. It is not a starting point to anything.
We had ethnic cleansing in Nagorno-Karabakh in 2023.
The world accepted it as it solved the problem.
I don't think the world accepted it as it "solved the problem". The world decided it was impotent to do much about it.
Ethnic cleansing is a crime against humanity. The world has sometimes failed to stop ethnic cleansing, but that doesn't change the horrendous and barbaric nature of the act.
Of course it's barbaric. But let's get real about it. It also sometimes solves long-standing problems. That was why Germans were ethnically cleansed from lands they had lived in for centuries at the end of WW2. It's why the same happened to Greeks and Turks in Greece and Turkey at the end of WW1. What was acceptable and - oh the irony! - diverse in multi-ethnic Empires became a huge issue under nationalism.
I do not advocate it. But let's not pretend that it hasn't been very convenient indeed for Western Europe. And we did not do anything about it not because we couldn't but because we did not want to, indeed encouraged it.
Empires are not all bad, and the end of empires is not all good.
For a lot of people, an imperial overlord, however exploitative, who has no dog in the fight, other than collecting taxes and raising soldiers, is preferable to finding themselves under the local ethnic or religious majority who hate them.
If the UK was about to receive, from some mad self harming foreign power the dosh we are going to give the Mauritians, then the UK would be, per capita, happily expectant of
£1,080,000,000,000
Oh no, not another bloody Chagos thread.
It's one of the most important issues going on in UK politics today. It shouldn't be, but it is. And unlike many of the challenges facing this government, it is pretty much totally under their own control.
The apparently sincere outrage about Chagos is baffling. There are a hundred other things I would get exercised about before that.
It isn't moral outrage. If it was we would close the base down and give the Chagossians their island back. The UK and US have no more moral right to the island than Mauritius, but legally it's theirs, as determined by clear and well established international law. So it's entirely transactional. The British, but in reality the Americans, get their base and the Mauritians get the money from a lease, which seems to be at the going rate for such bases. Everyone is happy, except the Chagossians, but nobody cares about them.
So Jenrick, a shadow bench member and likely next leader of the opposition calls Starmer a Quisling, and looks completely demented.
"So it's entirely transactional."
Good. You pay the billions that Mauritius will receive for no good reason. And if you want taxpayers to pay for it, don't ever, ever, complain about poor services in this country again.
Billions over a hundred years. No-one ever quantifies similar leases in this way. The payment is the difference between legal occupation and illegal occupation of the island like any rent. It isn't completely optional, although I realise the Americans will keep the base regardless. Which is why up until now they have been the ones pushing for this deal.
It seems to be about the going rate for such overseas military bases. Maybe the government could get a better price - I don't know - in general they don't seem particularly good negotiators. But there's a difference between poor negotiator and Quisling.
" No-one ever quantifies similar leases in this way. "
Perhaps because there isn't really anything 'similar'.
And as I said: if you want to pay for it: go ahead. If you think taxpayers will want to, then you're in for a rude awakening.
WRT Gaza, I don't suppose anyone is really surprised that Trump has said something like what he has.
All politics is relative, even this one. So points:
1) Clearly Trump intends to start a new middle east negotiation start point and position, and will have achieved this.
2) Has anyone got a better one?
3) I and most of us (I imagine) have long supported a two state solution. But SFAICS none of the parties do, most supporting a one state solution. So two state stuff isn't happening, not since the October massacre and Gaza'a becoming rubble.
4) What is the best one state solution which can be regarded as possible within the obvious constraints. Is it not most likely to be a radical but reluctantly agreed modification of Trump's appaarently absurd starting point?
On (3), the Palestinian Authority, some Israeli parties in opposition, Arab states, and most UN member states support a 2-state solution.
On (4), if one is to have a 1-state solution, it doesn't have to involve ethnic cleansing. So, no.
Ethnic cleansing is a crime against humanity. It is not the solution to anything. It is not a starting point to anything.
We had ethnic cleansing in Nagorno-Karabakh in 2023.
The world accepted it as it solved the problem.
I don't think the world accepted it as it "solved the problem". The world decided it was impotent to do much about it.
Ethnic cleansing is a crime against humanity. The world has sometimes failed to stop ethnic cleansing, but that doesn't change the horrendous and barbaric nature of the act.
Have any sanctions being placed on Azerbaijan's leaders ?
Has South Africa taken Azerbaijan to court as it did Israel ?
The response of the world was "unpleasant and unfortunate but at least it ends the problem".
Azerbaijan is another example of the geopolitical blinder that Erdogan and Turkey have been playing in recent years. He’s pulled off a military victory and a humanitarian crime with echoes of 1916 and few people batted an eyelid.
A nasty piece of work, but he has played his international hand brilliantly. Turkey now effectively controls a portion of the Caucasus, repeatedly bests Russia and calls its bluff, most recently of course in Syria, and has spread a new form of Sunni islamist capitalism that is not a million miles from 18th and 19th century European Protestantism.
One of the surprises in my visit to Senegal last December was the number of Turkish funded mosques and schools in the North. You expect to see Chinese investment but the pervasiveness of the Turks is a surprise.
Erdogan has even managed to survive 60% inflation and mishandling a natural disaster.
It is possible the combo of Chagos and Voice coach could bring down Starmer
Each on their own, unlikely. But the combination of him being a lying snake and mind blowing hypocrite at the same time as he tries to give away, to hostile foreigners, billions of pounds we don’t have is quite lethal
He looks insane
Brush up on your fried breakfast offer.
I am bewildered why an affluent man of taste - which I take you to be - would be eating in terrible fast food joints like MacD or Leon
I mean, why???
Because I’m at Euston station, not a temple of fine gastronomy. And last night because I love a quick McDonald’s on my way to choir on Tuesdays. It’s a bit of a tradition.
Anyway I’m making up for it with 2 Michelin stars this evening so net net my diet today is posh.
I’d skip a meal rather than eat at McD’s or Leon
I’ve already established this week that my liking of McDonald’s is a truly minority position on this site. I seem to be in a minority of 1. But I sincerely enjoy my trips to Maccies.
Think of it as my one contrarian opinion, leavening an otherwise canonical centrist dad mindset. All of us should have one. @Luckyguy1983 has Truss, I have McDonalds.
My tip for snacking at Euston is the Quaker cafe on the opposite side of Euston Road. They don't do fry-ups but the ambience is a world away.
My favourite snack at Euston was three or four pints of Summer Lightning in the Doric Arch before catching a train back to Durham.
It is possible the combo of Chagos and Voice coach could bring down Starmer
Each on their own, unlikely. But the combination of him being a lying snake and mind blowing hypocrite at the same time as he tries to give away, to hostile foreigners, billions of pounds we don’t have is quite lethal
He looks insane
The voice coach story is dead in the water. No one cares. No one wants to bang on about the pandemic anymore. You yourself picked up on this when taking about the lack of literature of the Black Death and the Spanish Flu. I am struck by the Hundred years war being punctuated by the extreme horror of the Black Death but with the combatents seemingly carrying on as if nothing had happened. Crecy (1346) so two years before and then Poitiers (1356) six years later, as if nothing had happened.
I know that the downstream events of the Black Death in England took a generation or so to come to a head (Peasants Revolt etc) but you do wonder if people just shrugged and got on with stuff in 1350. A bit like now with Covid.
If Starmer goes before the end of this term (really quite likely) then surely the Labour Party will choose a woman?
That means Cooper or Rayner should be bigger favourites and of the two Cooper is the more likely. As being less off putting to centrists than Rayner (personally I quite like Rayner)
Anyway Farage is not value, Cooper/Rayner are value
I'd consider 8/1 for "Labour woman" if it were quoted.
It is possible the combo of Chagos and Voice coach could bring down Starmer
Each on their own, unlikely. But the combination of him being a lying snake and mind blowing hypocrite at the same time as he tries to give away, to hostile foreigners, billions of pounds we don’t have is quite lethal
He looks insane
Brush up on your fried breakfast offer.
I am bewildered why an affluent man of taste - which I take you to be - would be eating in terrible fast food joints like MacD or Leon
I mean, why???
Because I’m at Euston station, not a temple of fine gastronomy. And last night because I love a quick McDonald’s on my way to choir on Tuesdays. It’s a bit of a tradition.
Anyway I’m making up for it with 2 Michelin stars this evening so net net my diet today is posh.
I’d skip a meal rather than eat at McD’s or Leon
I’ve already established this week that my liking of McDonald’s is a truly minority position on this site. I seem to be in a minority of 1. But I sincerely enjoy my trips to Maccies.
Think of it as my one contrarian opinion, leavening an otherwise canonical centrist dad mindset. All of us should have one. @Luckyguy1983 has Truss, I have McDonalds.
My tip for snacking at Euston is the Quaker cafe on the opposite side of Euston Road. They don't do fry-ups but the ambience is a world away.
They do porridge, presumably? In little sachets that they pop in the microwave?
WRT Gaza, I don't suppose anyone is really surprised that Trump has said something like what he has.
All politics is relative, even this one. So points:
1) Clearly Trump intends to start a new middle east negotiation start point and position, and will have achieved this.
2) Has anyone got a better one?
3) I and most of us (I imagine) have long supported a two state solution. But SFAICS none of the parties do, most supporting a one state solution. So two state stuff isn't happening, not since the October massacre and Gaza'a becoming rubble.
4) What is the best one state solution which can be regarded as possible within the obvious constraints. Is it not most likely to be a radical but reluctantly agreed modification of Trump's appaarently absurd starting point?
On (3), the Palestinian Authority, some Israeli parties in opposition, Arab states, and most UN member states support a 2-state solution.
On (4), if one is to have a 1-state solution, it doesn't have to involve ethnic cleansing. So, no.
Ethnic cleansing is a crime against humanity. It is not the solution to anything. It is not a starting point to anything.
We had ethnic cleansing in Nagorno-Karabakh in 2023.
The world accepted it as it solved the problem.
Is that the most casually crass post in the history of PB?
No. It expresses a very unpleasant truth.
Ethnic cleansing is a war crime, like the use of starvation against enemy civilians.
But, the world frequently turns a blind eye to both.
Is the solution to this to encourage more war crimes? No.
Examples of ethnic cleansing that have become accepted (some probably count as genocide) 1) Most of N America 2) Large parts of S America 3) Australia 4) Caribbean
Those 4 are more gebocidal (deliberately or accidentally) than what’s currently understood by ethnic cleansing.
Ethnic cleansing means communities move in opposite directions to their own “homelands”, leaving 2 or more ethnically or nationally homogeneous communities.
So the examples I’d have in mind are Indian partition, post-Ottoman movements of Turks and Greeks, and conceivably the movement of black South Africans into bantustans and native Americans into reservations, though those were very small scale compared to the other forms of oppression involved at the time.
It is possible the combo of Chagos and Voice coach could bring down Starmer
Each on their own, unlikely. But the combination of him being a lying snake and mind blowing hypocrite at the same time as he tries to give away, to hostile foreigners, billions of pounds we don’t have is quite lethal
He looks insane
Brush up on your fried breakfast offer.
I am bewildered why an affluent man of taste - which I take you to be - would be eating in terrible fast food joints like MacD or Leon
I mean, why???
Because I’m at Euston station, not a temple of fine gastronomy. And last night because I love a quick McDonald’s on my way to choir on Tuesdays. It’s a bit of a tradition.
Anyway I’m making up for it with 2 Michelin stars this evening so net net my diet today is posh.
I’d skip a meal rather than eat at McD’s or Leon
I’ve already established this week that my liking of McDonald’s is a truly minority position on this site. I seem to be in a minority of 1. But I sincerely enjoy my trips to Maccies.
Think of it as my one contrarian opinion, leavening an otherwise canonical centrist dad mindset. All of us should have one. @Luckyguy1983 has Truss, I have McDonalds.
My tip for snacking at Euston is the Quaker cafe on the opposite side of Euston Road. They don't do fry-ups but the ambience is a world away.
You lost me at don't do fry ups.
To be fair, in substantive terms Leon “don’t do fry ups”. They pretend, but fail. Spoons do good ones. Next time I’ll get there a bit earlier and have a spoons full English.
It is possible the combo of Chagos and Voice coach could bring down Starmer
Each on their own, unlikely. But the combination of him being a lying snake and mind blowing hypocrite at the same time as he tries to give away, to hostile foreigners, billions of pounds we don’t have is quite lethal
He looks insane
Brush up on your fried breakfast offer.
I am bewildered why an affluent man of taste - which I take you to be - would be eating in terrible fast food joints like MacD or Leon
I mean, why???
Because I’m at Euston station, not a temple of fine gastronomy. And last night because I love a quick McDonald’s on my way to choir on Tuesdays. It’s a bit of a tradition.
Anyway I’m making up for it with 2 Michelin stars this evening so net net my diet today is posh.
I’d skip a meal rather than eat at McD’s or Leon
I’ve already established this week that my liking of McDonald’s is a truly minority position on this site. I seem to be in a minority of 1. But I sincerely enjoy my trips to Maccies.
Think of it as my one contrarian opinion, leavening an otherwise canonical centrist dad mindset. All of us should have one. @Luckyguy1983 has Truss, I have McDonalds.
You are not alone. I am partial, every now and then. It works on the same principle as Green King IPA. You know what you are going to get every time. Same with the beer - if you see Green King IPA you know what you will get. If you see Old Tom's Cockwombler, you are not quite so sure.*
*In beer I'd prefer the Cockwombler, but for a quick easy bite to eat, McDonalds is fine.
Someone needs to stop Starmer before it’s too late. Now the British government itself is briefing against him
“Now @hzeffman quotes “very senior” government figures saying the Chagos deal is “terrible,” “mad” and “impossible to understand” — via @BlewettSam Playbook
It is possible the combo of Chagos and Voice coach could bring down Starmer
Each on their own, unlikely. But the combination of him being a lying snake and mind blowing hypocrite at the same time as he tries to give away, to hostile foreigners, billions of pounds we don’t have is quite lethal
He looks insane
Brush up on your fried breakfast offer.
I am bewildered why an affluent man of taste - which I take you to be - would be eating in terrible fast food joints like MacD or Leon
I mean, why???
Because I’m at Euston station, not a temple of fine gastronomy. And last night because I love a quick McDonald’s on my way to choir on Tuesdays. It’s a bit of a tradition.
Anyway I’m making up for it with 2 Michelin stars this evening so net net my diet today is posh.
I’d skip a meal rather than eat at McD’s or Leon
I’ve already established this week that my liking of McDonald’s is a truly minority position on this site. I seem to be in a minority of 1. But I sincerely enjoy my trips to Maccies.
Think of it as my one contrarian opinion, leavening an otherwise canonical centrist dad mindset. All of us should have one. @Luckyguy1983 has Truss, I have McDonalds.
My tip for snacking at Euston is the Quaker cafe on the opposite side of Euston Road. They don't do fry-ups but the ambience is a world away.
They do porridge, presumably? In little sachets that they pop in the microwave?
Down one of the sidestreets between King's Cross and Euston there used to be dirty little place called the Victory Cafe. Very cheap breakfast.
WRT Gaza, I don't suppose anyone is really surprised that Trump has said something like what he has.
All politics is relative, even this one. So points:
1) Clearly Trump intends to start a new middle east negotiation start point and position, and will have achieved this.
2) Has anyone got a better one?
3) I and most of us (I imagine) have long supported a two state solution. But SFAICS none of the parties do, most supporting a one state solution. So two state stuff isn't happening, not since the October massacre and Gaza'a becoming rubble.
4) What is the best one state solution which can be regarded as possible within the obvious constraints. Is it not most likely to be a radical but reluctantly agreed modification of Trump's appaarently absurd starting point?
On (3), the Palestinian Authority, some Israeli parties in opposition, Arab states, and most UN member states support a 2-state solution.
On (4), if one is to have a 1-state solution, it doesn't have to involve ethnic cleansing. So, no.
Ethnic cleansing is a crime against humanity. It is not the solution to anything. It is not a starting point to anything.
We had ethnic cleansing in Nagorno-Karabakh in 2023.
The world accepted it as it solved the problem.
Is that the most casually crass post in the history of PB?
No. It expresses a very unpleasant truth.
Ethnic cleansing is a war crime, like the use of starvation against enemy civilians.
But, the world frequently turns a blind eye to both.
Is the solution to this to encourage more war crimes? No.
Examples of ethnic cleansing that have become accepted (some probably count as genocide) 1) Most of N America 2) Large parts of S America 3) Australia 4) Caribbean
Those 4 are more gebocidal (deliberately or accidentally) than what’s currently understood by ethnic cleansing.
Ethnic cleansing means communities move in opposite directions to their own “homelands”, leaving 2 or more ethnically or nationally homogeneous communities.
So the examples I’d have in mind are Indian partition, post-Ottoman movements of Turks and Greeks, and conceivably the movement of black South Africans into bantustans and native Americans into reservations, though those were very small scale compared to the other forms of oppression involved at the time.
WRT Gaza, I don't suppose anyone is really surprised that Trump has said something like what he has.
All politics is relative, even this one. So points:
1) Clearly Trump intends to start a new middle east negotiation start point and position, and will have achieved this.
2) Has anyone got a better one?
3) I and most of us (I imagine) have long supported a two state solution. But SFAICS none of the parties do, most supporting a one state solution. So two state stuff isn't happening, not since the October massacre and Gaza'a becoming rubble.
4) What is the best one state solution which can be regarded as possible within the obvious constraints. Is it not most likely to be a radical but reluctantly agreed modification of Trump's appaarently absurd starting point?
On (3), the Palestinian Authority, some Israeli parties in opposition, Arab states, and most UN member states support a 2-state solution.
On (4), if one is to have a 1-state solution, it doesn't have to involve ethnic cleansing. So, no.
Ethnic cleansing is a crime against humanity. It is not the solution to anything. It is not a starting point to anything.
Well we have stood idly by while it has been going on in the West Bank so have no moral higher ground on this.
Something needs to be done. Neither parts wants peace with the other. Co-existence is not going to happen.
If this starts a process and a dialogue that ends with a peaceful settlement then good.
The UN can pass whatever resolutions it wants. It is toothless. Israel will, enabled by its allies, do what it wants without any comeback. That is the reality we are working with so we have to adapt to it.
Quite frankly the sooner it is sorted the better.
This argument is just the inverse of what some lefty numpties say about Israel. The equivalent would be allowing Iran to evict everyone in Israel back to Europe*. Indeed, "From the river to the sea" was probably a Zionist slogan to begin with.
*I appreciate that a lot of Israelis came from other parts of the Middle East/Africa.
It is possible the combo of Chagos and Voice coach could bring down Starmer
Each on their own, unlikely. But the combination of him being a lying snake and mind blowing hypocrite at the same time as he tries to give away, to hostile foreigners, billions of pounds we don’t have is quite lethal
He looks insane
The voice coach story is dead in the water. No one cares. No one wants to bang on about the pandemic anymore. You yourself picked up on this when taking about the lack of literature of the Black Death and the Spanish Flu. I am struck by the Hundred years war being punctuated by the extreme horror of the Black Death but with the combatents seemingly carrying on as if nothing had happened. Crecy (1346) so two years before and then Poitiers (1356) six years later, as if nothing had happened.
I know that the downstream events of the Black Death in England took a generation or so to come to a head (Peasants Revolt etc) but you do wonder if people just shrugged and got on with stuff in 1350. A bit like now with Covid.
You are a scientist who until recently was adamant it came from the wet market. Now it has been universally accepted it came from the lab, “oh who cares let’s move on no one wants to think about all that”
Lovely PMI report for January. Highlights include:
'incoming new work declined in January' 'pace of job shedding accelerated to its sharpest for four years' 'overall rate of cost inflation was the highest for nine months' 'robust and accelerated rise in average prices charged by service sector firms' '50.8 in January....joint-lowest for 15 months' ' heightened risk aversion among corporate clients as well as delayed investment plans' ' weak consumer confidence and cutbacks to non-essential household spending' 'many firms also linked lower new orders to weaker business confidence in the wake of the Autumn Budget'
I could go on. It's pretty grim. No or little growth, higher inflation, less employment.
It is possible the combo of Chagos and Voice coach could bring down Starmer
Each on their own, unlikely. But the combination of him being a lying snake and mind blowing hypocrite at the same time as he tries to give away, to hostile foreigners, billions of pounds we don’t have is quite lethal
He looks insane
Brush up on your fried breakfast offer.
I am bewildered why an affluent man of taste - which I take you to be - would be eating in terrible fast food joints like MacD or Leon
I mean, why???
Because I’m at Euston station, not a temple of fine gastronomy. And last night because I love a quick McDonald’s on my way to choir on Tuesdays. It’s a bit of a tradition.
Anyway I’m making up for it with 2 Michelin stars this evening so net net my diet today is posh.
I’d skip a meal rather than eat at McD’s or Leon
I’ve already established this week that my liking of McDonald’s is a truly minority position on this site. I seem to be in a minority of 1. But I sincerely enjoy my trips to Maccies.
Think of it as my one contrarian opinion, leavening an otherwise canonical centrist dad mindset. All of us should have one. @Luckyguy1983 has Truss, I have McDonalds.
It's a harmless, if misguided, aberration among your otherwise blameless set of proclivities. I go off-piste on the monarchy (enthusiastically pro).
WRT Gaza, I don't suppose anyone is really surprised that Trump has said something like what he has.
All politics is relative, even this one. So points:
1) Clearly Trump intends to start a new middle east negotiation start point and position, and will have achieved this.
2) Has anyone got a better one?
3) I and most of us (I imagine) have long supported a two state solution. But SFAICS none of the parties do, most supporting a one state solution. So two state stuff isn't happening, not since the October massacre and Gaza'a becoming rubble.
4) What is the best one state solution which can be regarded as possible within the obvious constraints. Is it not most likely to be a radical but reluctantly agreed modification of Trump's appaarently absurd starting point?
On (3), the Palestinian Authority, some Israeli parties in opposition, Arab states, and most UN member states support a 2-state solution.
On (4), if one is to have a 1-state solution, it doesn't have to involve ethnic cleansing. So, no.
Ethnic cleansing is a crime against humanity. It is not the solution to anything. It is not a starting point to anything.
We had ethnic cleansing in Nagorno-Karabakh in 2023.
The world accepted it as it solved the problem.
It would be the ultimate irony if a country which only came about due to horrendous ethnic cleansing in Europe is a party to the next stage of ethnic cleansing in Gaza
WRT Gaza, I don't suppose anyone is really surprised that Trump has said something like what he has.
All politics is relative, even this one. So points:
1) Clearly Trump intends to start a new middle east negotiation start point and position, and will have achieved this.
2) Has anyone got a better one?
3) I and most of us (I imagine) have long supported a two state solution. But SFAICS none of the parties do, most supporting a one state solution. So two state stuff isn't happening, not since the October massacre and Gaza'a becoming rubble.
4) What is the best one state solution which can be regarded as possible within the obvious constraints. Is it not most likely to be a radical but reluctantly agreed modification of Trump's appaarently absurd starting point?
On (3), the Palestinian Authority, some Israeli parties in opposition, Arab states, and most UN member states support a 2-state solution.
On (4), if one is to have a 1-state solution, it doesn't have to involve ethnic cleansing. So, no.
Ethnic cleansing is a crime against humanity. It is not the solution to anything. It is not a starting point to anything.
We had ethnic cleansing in Nagorno-Karabakh in 2023.
The world accepted it as it solved the problem.
I don't think the world accepted it as it "solved the problem". The world decided it was impotent to do much about it.
Ethnic cleansing is a crime against humanity. The world has sometimes failed to stop ethnic cleansing, but that doesn't change the horrendous and barbaric nature of the act.
Of course it's barbaric. But let's get real about it. It also sometimes solves long-standing problems. That was why Germans were ethnically cleansed from lands they had lived in for centuries at the end of WW2. It's why the same happened to Greeks and Turks in Greece and Turkey at the end of WW1. What was acceptable and - oh the irony! - diverse in multi-ethnic Empires became a huge issue under nationalism.
I do not advocate it. But let's not pretend that it hasn't been very convenient indeed for Western Europe. And we did not do anything about it not because we couldn't but because we did not want to, indeed encouraged it.
Empires are not all bad, and the end of empires is not all good.
For a lot of people, an imperial overlord, however exploitative, who has no dog in the fight, other than collecting taxes and raising soldiers, is preferable to finding themselves under the local ethnic or religious majority who hate them.
And how does this sentiment find its practical outlet?
Comments
Each on their own, unlikely. But the combination of him being a lying snake and mind blowing hypocrite at the same time as he tries to give away, to hostile foreigners, billions of pounds we don’t have is quite lethal
He looks insane
I mean, why???
'We're for the bruvs, not the sistahs'
But the low information voters of America just wanted the price of eggs to be lower.
The sick humour of it all is eggs have never been more expensive iirc.
Edit: TimS got there before me...
Anyway I’m making up for it with 2 Michelin stars this evening so net net my diet today is posh.
The chances of him quitting due to a scandal or some major screw-up are being underplayed
Ergo Farage is not value as next prime minister. The value is the Labour politician that will replace him. But who is that?
The world accepted it as it solved the problem.
James Kelly
@JamesKelly
Power-crazed McEleny pushes Alba to the brink of destruction by launching yet another bogus "disciplinary" action - this time against the party's ACTING LEADER:
https://scotgoespop.blogspot.com/2025/02/power-crazed-mceleny-pushes-alba-to.html
https://x.com/JamesKelly/status/1886777897924399346
Phillipson or Rayner?
Cambs - NOC
Herts - Con
Lancs - Con
Notts - Con
Staffs - Con
Are there any common factors in that set?
If Starmer goes before the end of this term (really quite likely) then surely the Labour Party will choose a woman?
That means Cooper or Rayner should be bigger favourites and of the two Cooper is the more likely. As being less off putting to centrists than Rayner (personally I quite like Rayner)
Anyway Farage is not value, Cooper/Rayner are value
Good. You pay the billions that Mauritius will receive for no good reason. And if you want taxpayers to pay for it, don't ever, ever, complain about poor services in this country again.
A claim created by the hand of a Whitehall clerk.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lXP-N_6C5TQ&ab_channel=Kanal13
Personally I think, at least for North Nottinghamshire a reorganisation into a unitary council makes sense.
So the intention was clear even if poorly laid out
Think of it as my one contrarian opinion, leavening an otherwise canonical centrist dad mindset. All of us should have one. @Luckyguy1983 has Truss, I have McDonalds.
Ethnic cleansing is a war crime, like the use of starvation against enemy civilians.
But, the world frequently turns a blind eye to both.
Mind you that seems to be what’s happened in realty. The Mauritians said “what would be a dream number, for us?”
“Eighteen billion?”
Everyone laughs
Two weeks later
“What, they’re REALLY giving us eighteen billion? To TAKE their property?!”
Ethnic cleansing is a crime against humanity. The world has sometimes failed to stop ethnic cleansing, but that doesn't change the horrendous and barbaric nature of the act.
According to my local Ashfield Independent news sheet the Independent Alliance are the Opposition, and are saying they want to take control (but they would).
They have certainly been running a sectarian rhetoric.
For AIs, Zadrozny is due to be in Crown Court in March, which imo *should* lead them to lean the other way.
Presumably not voluntarily; they got a beasting.
I'm not sure what can be done in those circumstances.
It seems to be about the going rate for such overseas military bases. Maybe the government could get a better price - I don't know - in general they don't seem particularly good negotiators. But there's a difference between poor negotiator and Quisling.
Here are the exports:
They highlight something the Americans have really understated in recent years, and which largely explains their economic outperformance vs the rest of the West. They have become a petro-state. Largest oil producer in the world. One of the largest gas producers. Forget the Saudis or Russia.
Ukraine blowing up Russian refineries is very much in US national interests. Hopefully that’ll focus Trump and Musk’s minds.
The British Indian Ocean Territory was created from islands that were part of Mauritius and Seychelles at the end of British rule in 1965 explicitly in order to create a military base. The islands from the Seychelles have been 'given back' to the Seychelles. The Chagos Islands had been governed by the British from Mauritius from 1815 to 1965.
Has South Africa taken Azerbaijan to court as it did Israel ?
The response of the world was "unpleasant and unfortunate but at least it ends the problem".
Presumably that’s ok?
I do not advocate it. But let's not pretend that it hasn't been very convenient indeed for Western Europe. And we did not do anything about it not because we couldn't but because we did not want to, indeed encouraged it.
Both are contenders for next but one Labour leader. I think that it may well be a bit of a poisoned chalice if Starmer and Labour are still polling like this in 2028, but Rayner is always up for a scrap, and while anathema to Tory snobs could get a fair number of the Lab to Green switchers back, and motivate some of the Corbynite. I think she is a very shrewd politician.
“Now @hzeffman quotes “very senior” government figures saying the Chagos deal is “terrible,” “mad” and “impossible to understand” — via @BlewettSam Playbook
https://x.com/alexwickham/status/1887041095571247155?s=46&t=bulOICNH15U6kB0MwE6Lfw
Something needs to be done. Neither parts wants peace with the other. Co-existence is not going to happen.
If this starts a process and a dialogue that ends with a peaceful settlement then good.
The UN can pass whatever resolutions it wants. It is toothless. Israel will, enabled by its allies, do what it wants without any comeback. That is the reality we are working with so we have to adapt to it.
Quite frankly the sooner it is sorted the better.
But interesting that you get more upset about someone saying that the world accepted ethnic cleansing in Nagorno-Karabakh than you are by the ethnic cleansing itself.
We have to contemplate these possibilities because nothing else fits
A nasty piece of work, but he has played his international hand brilliantly. Turkey now effectively controls a portion of the Caucasus, repeatedly bests Russia and calls its bluff, most recently of course in Syria, and has spread a new form of Sunni islamist capitalism that is not a million miles from 18th and 19th century European Protestantism.
One of the surprises in my visit to Senegal last December was the number of Turkish funded mosques and schools in the North. You expect to see Chinese investment but the pervasiveness of the Turks is a surprise.
1) Most of N America
2) Large parts of S America
3) Australia
4) Caribbean
Shakespeare wasn't all wrong
For a lot of people, an imperial overlord, however exploitative, who has no dog in the fight, other than collecting taxes and raising soldiers, is preferable to finding themselves under the local ethnic or religious majority who hate them.
Perhaps because there isn't really anything 'similar'.
And as I said: if you want to pay for it: go ahead. If you think taxpayers will want to, then you're in for a rude awakening.
I can see why Trump admires him.
If there's a reasonable explantation, why can't Starmer just tell us? Bet it's not signed in public.
I am struck by the Hundred years war being punctuated by the extreme horror of the Black Death but with the combatents seemingly carrying on as if nothing had happened. Crecy (1346) so two years before and then Poitiers (1356) six years later, as if nothing had happened.
I know that the downstream events of the Black Death in England took a generation or so to come to a head (Peasants Revolt etc) but you do wonder if people just shrugged and got on with stuff in 1350. A bit like now with Covid.
Ethnic cleansing means communities move in opposite directions to their own “homelands”, leaving 2 or more ethnically or nationally homogeneous communities.
So the examples I’d have in mind are Indian partition, post-Ottoman movements of Turks and Greeks, and conceivably the movement of black South Africans into bantustans and native Americans into reservations, though those were very small scale compared to the other forms of oppression involved at the time.
*In beer I'd prefer the Cockwombler, but for a quick easy bite to eat, McDonalds is fine.
*I appreciate that a lot of Israelis came from other parts of the Middle East/Africa.
'incoming new work declined in January'
'pace of job shedding accelerated to its sharpest for four years'
'overall rate of cost inflation was the highest for nine months'
'robust and accelerated rise in average prices charged by service sector firms'
'50.8 in January....joint-lowest for 15 months'
' heightened risk aversion among corporate clients as well as delayed investment plans'
' weak consumer confidence and cutbacks to non-essential household spending'
'many firms also linked lower new orders to weaker business confidence in the wake of the Autumn Budget'
I could go on. It's pretty grim. No or little growth, higher inflation, less employment.
https://www.pmi.spglobal.com/Public/Home/PressRelease/9b1d7da04ed34801a47d43b37667529b
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byron_Hamburgers
https://the-cosmic-cartoonverse-renaissance.fandom.com/wiki/Eadric_Pappworth
https://www.instagram.com/ladythomestylecuisine/#