Almost all the charges of outrageous behaviour by the Iranian government could equally be laid at the door of Saudi Arabia. Which is even less democratic. Would it be right to bomb them to achieve regime change?
I am not a great fan of the Saudi regime but Iran executed 5 times the number Saudi did in 2023 for instance and Saudi is not actively funding terrorism now against Israel and the West as Iran is
If you have time, buy "World Order" by Henry Kissinger. Chapter 3 describes the ongoing conflict between the Sunni bloc (led by Saudi Arabia) and the Shiite bloc (led by Iran), both wishing to export their brand of Islam. It's ten years old now, and Trump has remade the world, but it's still useful.
I have often, and occasionally been abused for doing so, likened the current situation in the Islamic world to that in the Western Christian one in the 16th Century, when the Catholics and Protestants were knocking lumps out of each other. And it's about as long from the founding of Islam and it was then since the founding of Christianity.
What is it about Abrahamic religions?
I think it's more that in the rich West, we've been living (mostly) in a cocoon, since 1945. We see war as abnormal, and something that happens outside our borders.
Whereas, in much of the rest of the world, warfare, and extremely violent civil conflict, is almost normative.
I met up with my friends: all “centrist dads”, whether in Law, Consulting, Advertising or IT.
They are now all ferociously anti-Israel, if not actively anti-Zionist.
We seem to have been on the same journey
And yet the deliberate planned horror of the brutal rapes of women on October 7 and the female hostages kept thereafter has not led to any journey by you - or apparently @Gardenwalker's friends - reflecting on why male violence against women is wrong and why those groups, states, cultures etc which promote it should be equally viewed with horror and distaste. Which is doubtless why we read you this morning proudly saying that you feel like punching an opportunistic female politician but never an opportunistic male politician, of which there are many.
I'm sorry but I can't be borthered to get involved in your prejudices. The Israelis have killed 83,000 Palestinians and I've not heard a word of condemnation from you. You marched behind a demonstration of Israeli flags in London several months ago and you boasted about the important people who you were standing shoulder to shoulder with. Not a mention of the 280 unarmed journalists killed in Gaza or the 1700 medics or the 28 non combatents killed in a building because one was wanted. Or the rape in prison by five prison guards.......
Three days ago you taliked about the burning of the Hatzola ambulences. An outrage but not a word about the demonstrator who was a Metropolitan police officer who turns out to be a Tommy Robinson follower. The one who told the AlJazeera reporter 'to disappear'. I would have thought that would be right up your street. Corruption in the Met?
I know you try very hard to get as close to Jews as you can. You've claimed in the past that there are Jews in your family-quite unusual and I'd be interested to know how that came about- but that's no good reason to leave your humanity behind and believe that you have to support everything Netanyahu does like he's captain of your football team. Therer are other connected things going on. Incidentally you don't seem to be aware that there is quite a thriving Jewish community in Iran and several functioning synagogues
I met up with my friends: all “centrist dads”, whether in Law, Consulting, Advertising or IT.
They are now all ferociously anti-Israel, if not actively anti-Zionist.
What policies do they want as a result? The removal of Israel? If so, where do its Jewish citizens go? Or do they want them killed? Or some other policy and, if so, what?
I did not ask. I pass on the anecdote just because I think it’s interesting and - to me - new. I would have assumed most would have been unthinkingly pro Israel historically.
The difficulty with precisely what you describe is the failure to say what they would like to see done. I have heard quite a few people say that they wish Israel did not exist. But there is tumbleweed when I ask what they want done with its Jewish citizens. Unless people have an answer to that - something more realistic than kumbaya-let's-all-sing-together - then a country's destruction usually involves at a minimum ethnic cleansing and usually the killing of many of its inhabitants.
Quite a few seem to have no issue with doing that to Jews . It does not matter what description you give it. Such a view is utterly vile.
I would like to see the US pressure Israel (under threat of the withdrawal of political and military support) to give up its expansionist aggression in the West Bank and further afield and engage seriously with the only route to its long term peace and security, the creation of a viable Palestinian state. This should be accompanied by similar pressure on the Palestinians and their allies to accept the existence of the state of Israel and stop the violence against it. It seems a pipedream right now but it needn't always be. It just needs different and better leadership in place for the main players - which shouldn't be too hard when you look at who's there now. The only way is up on that front.
Yes, I agree with that. Israel's behaviour in the West Bank is indefensible. Israel's enemies, on the other hand, are pretty terrible.
WRT this particular war, there has been a state of undeclared war between the USA/Israel and Iran, since 1979, in much the same way as between this country and Libya under Gadaffi. It's not the fact of attacking Iran that bothers me. It's the ineptitude of it.
There is a simple reason why even though the war has been undeclared since 1979 it wasn't acted upon..
Is anyone on Pb still of the view the UK should have joined the war?
We should have sent the RAF to attack Iranian missile sites as Kemi rightly said. If Trump commits ground troops we should join Israel and provide them with support from the air in my view too as that would be the only way to topple the regime.
However as Starmer is in power neither will happen as he is sticking to his line offensive actions in Iran are not authorised under international law
If we'd done that we'd be counting body bags in London, Birmingham, Glasgow, Cardiff, Belfast, Leeds, Liverpool, Newcastle, Edinburgh and any other town or city
Sleepers in our midst revenge lone rangers martyrs
Forget all that. That is not the reason we should not be doing this. If Iran was a genuine threat to us and we needed to change the regime there then attacks in the UK are simply part of that scenario and one we have to deal with.
The real issue here is we should not be attacking Iran or supporting the US and Israel in attacking them. They are not and were not a threat to ourselves, Europe or the US. They did not attack us. They did not attack the US or Israel. They were attacked and we should not be supporting or condoning the aggressors.
Somewhat disingenuous to say "not a threat to ourselves, Europe or the US."
Who is missing from that list - and why?
The country that spends all its time bombing its neighbours.
One country regularly attacked by its neighbours you mean.
Name one neighbour not at war with Israel, which is not a threat to it, which has been attacked by it.
I met up with my friends: all “centrist dads”, whether in Law, Consulting, Advertising or IT.
They are now all ferociously anti-Israel, if not actively anti-Zionist.
We seem to have been on the same journey
And yet the deliberate planned horror of the brutal rapes of women on October 7 and the female hostages kept thereafter has not led to any journey by you - or apparently @Gardenwalker's friends - reflecting on why male violence against women is wrong and why those groups, states, cultures etc which promote it should be equally viewed with horror and distaste. Which is doubtless why we read you this morning proudly saying that you feel like punching an opportunistic female politician but never an opportunistic male politician, of which there are many.
It is not necessary to balance every criticism of Israel with a criticism of Islam, or Hamas or whatever.
You need to include a 500-word disclaimer in tiny font under each post.
..Esmaeil Baqaei, spokesperson for the Iranian foreign ministry, has reaffirmed that Iran has not had any direct negotiations with the US, in comments carried by the Tasnim news agency.
“What has been discussed are messages we received through intermediaries stating that the US wants to negotiate,” he was quoted as having said.
“Iran has been clear about its position from the beginning, and we know very well what the framework is that we are considering. The material conveyed to us has been excessive and unreasonable requests.”..
Almost all the charges of outrageous behaviour by the Iranian government could equally be laid at the door of Saudi Arabia. Which is even less democratic. Would it be right to bomb them to achieve regime change?
I am not a great fan of the Saudi regime but Iran executed 5 times the number Saudi did in 2023 for instance and Saudi is not actively funding terrorism now against Israel and the West as Iran is
If you have time, buy "World Order" by Henry Kissinger. Chapter 3 describes the ongoing conflict between the Sunni bloc (led by Saudi Arabia) and the Shiite bloc (led by Iran), both wishing to export their brand of Islam. It's ten years old now, and Trump has remade the world, but it's still useful.
I have often, and occasionally been abused for doing so, likened the current situation in the Islamic world to that in the Western Christian one in the 16th Century, when the Catholics and Protestants were knocking lumps out of each other. And it's about as long from the founding of Islam and it was then since the founding of Christianity.
What is it about Abrahamic religions?
Having about four billion adherents (including me) gives a lot of scope for diversity, manipulation and bad people to rise to power at the top of things. A few billion critics of war, conflict, violence, autocracy etc belong to Abrahamic religions too. About half the population of the UK claim to belong to an Abrahamic religion. Very few kill each other. Most live quite good lives. Strange that.
Is anyone on Pb still of the view the UK should have joined the war?
We should have sent the RAF to attack Iranian missile sites as Kemi rightly said. If Trump commits ground troops we should join Israel and provide them with support from the air in my view too as that would be the only way to topple the regime.
However as Starmer is in power neither will happen as he is sticking to his line offensive actions in Iran are not authorised under international law
If we'd done that we'd be counting body bags in London, Birmingham, Glasgow, Cardiff, Belfast, Leeds, Liverpool, Newcastle, Edinburgh and any other town or city
Sleepers in our midst revenge lone rangers martyrs
Forget all that. That is not the reason we should not be doing this. If Iran was a genuine threat to us and we needed to change the regime there then attacks in the UK are simply part of that scenario and one we have to deal with.
The real issue here is we should not be attacking Iran or supporting the US and Israel in attacking them. They are not and were not a threat to ourselves, Europe or the US. They did not attack us. They did not attack the US or Israel. They were attacked and we should not be supporting or condoning the aggressors.
I think you can make an argument that they were attacking Israel fairly regularly via their proxies
Well yes, but by the same rote you could say Russia has been attacking us for decades. Nobody has suggested bombing St Petersburg in response.
Russia has been attacking us for decades
And bombing St Pete’s always been on the list of options.
But wiser heads have prevailed to date
Because Russia has nukes.
Iran does not, yet, and its better to have this conflict now than after a mushroom cloud appears above Tel Aviv.
Israel has had nukes for a long while, yet there has been no sign of mushroom clouds over Tehran, or anywhere else.
Israel is not led by deranged, religious nihilists.
As much as people claim they are.
Israel is not my ally. Iran is not my ally. They are both bad and I have little interest in discussing who is badder.
When it comes to setting fire to ambulances in the UK I have no tolerance for any kind of justification. Everyone has a right in this country to live free of fear and intimidation.
Have we identified the ethnicity of the Jewish ambulances arsonists yet?
Two British citizens is all i have seen yet i know the nutter with the vehicle bloke in Derby was a British citizen of Indian Origin
What governs when origin or ethnicity is revealed?
Hopefully they will find the perpetrators and put them behind bars. I am more concerned with the justifications from people who should know better: the ambulances were empty, not as bad as what Israel does to ambulances in Gaza etc. To be clear, this was a despicable act of intimidation as well as criminal damage.
What happens if it was a false flag incident?
No change to my comment. Everyone has a right in this country to live free of fear and intimidation.
Do we have a scintilla of evidence that it was a false flag incident? Seems unlikely.
No evidence at all apart from conspiracy theories on X
In fact exactly the same amount of evidence as that it was an imbedded Iranian undercover cell ie zero
Didnt stop the press running with the latter though.
I hope we find out and the perpetrators are identified and brought to justice
I am betting that they were recruited and paid via the internet by IRGC as a throw aways. See the Russian stuff with SKS property.
Starmer needs to get ahead of this oil crisis. Do some unpopular stuff that people will come to appreciate and will signal this is a big deal.
Cut speed limits, mandate wfh where possible, introduce carpool lanes all over the place...
Tories and Reform will oppose on reflex and it will show he's the serious politician thinking about national interest.
Pure authoritarianism that will do nothing to fix the problems.
Serious politics means fixing what the politicians control.
The Australian Labor Government has had good ideas on this. The price of fuel is mostly tax anyway, and the fuel cost is controlled by HMG. Australia has halved fuel duty, we should do the same, or go one better and suspend it altogether.
If we halve fuel duty then people will use more of it, or at least not change their behaviour.
But if we are really running out then we need them to use less.
We are not really running out though, we are just paying a higher price as it is a global commodity.
Yes you're right. That was a bit alarmist of me. That said - I dont think its the responsibility of govt to mitigate every global shock. We need people to adapt their behavior also. That was one of Liz Truss' many mistakes.
..Esmaeil Baqaei, spokesperson for the Iranian foreign ministry, has reaffirmed that Iran has not had any direct negotiations with the US, in comments carried by the Tasnim news agency.
“What has been discussed are messages we received through intermediaries stating that the US wants to negotiate,” he was quoted as having said.
“Iran has been clear about its position from the beginning, and we know very well what the framework is that we are considering. The material conveyed to us has been excessive and unreasonable requests.”..
Perhaps unsurprising when the U.S. murders those with whom it pretends to “negotiate”.
Guardian. Spain, a Nato member, has closed its airspace to US planes involved in attacks on Iran, the country’s defence minister, Margarita Robles, told reporters in Madrid this morning.
“We don’t authorise either the use of military bases or the use of airspace for actions related to the war in Iran,” she said.
Spanish newspaper El Pais, which first reported the news on Monday, said the closure of the airspace forces military planes to bypass Spain en route to their targets in the Middle East, but it does not include emergency situations, in which case the aircraft will be permitted to transit or land.
“We have denied the United States the use of the Rota and Morón bases for this illegal war. All flight plans involving operations in Iran have been rejected. All of them, including those for refuelling aircraft,” Spanish prime minister Pedro Sánchez, a vocal critic of the US-Israeli war on Iran, was quoted as having said last Wednesday in Congress...
Almost all the charges of outrageous behaviour by the Iranian government could equally be laid at the door of Saudi Arabia. Which is even less democratic. Would it be right to bomb them to achieve regime change?
I am not a great fan of the Saudi regime but Iran executed 5 times the number Saudi did in 2023 for instance and Saudi is not actively funding terrorism now against Israel and the West as Iran is
If you have time, buy "World Order" by Henry Kissinger. Chapter 3 describes the ongoing conflict between the Sunni bloc (led by Saudi Arabia) and the Shiite bloc (led by Iran), both wishing to export their brand of Islam. It's ten years old now, and Trump has remade the world, but it's still useful.
I have often, and occasionally been abused for doing so, likened the current situation in the Islamic world to that in the Western Christian one in the 16th Century, when the Catholics and Protestants were knocking lumps out of each other. And it's about as long from the founding of Islam and it was then since the founding of Christianity.
What is it about Abrahamic religions?
Having about four billion adherents (including me) gives a lot of scope for diversity, manipulation and bad people to rise to power at the top of things. A few billion critics of war, conflict, violence, autocracy etc belong to Abrahamic religions too. About half the population of the UK claim to belong to an Abrahamic religion. Very few kill each other. Most live quite good lives. Strange that.
And was that the case back in the 16th and 17th century?
Trump FT interview: .. “my favourite thing is to take the oil in Iran, but some stupid people back in the US say: ‘why are you doing that?’” He also said: “Maybe we take Kharg Island, maybe we don’t. We have a lot of options.”..
Almost all the charges of outrageous behaviour by the Iranian government could equally be laid at the door of Saudi Arabia. Which is even less democratic. Would it be right to bomb them to achieve regime change?
I am not a great fan of the Saudi regime but Iran executed 5 times the number Saudi did in 2023 for instance and Saudi is not actively funding terrorism now against Israel and the West as Iran is
If you have time, buy "World Order" by Henry Kissinger. Chapter 3 describes the ongoing conflict between the Sunni bloc (led by Saudi Arabia) and the Shiite bloc (led by Iran), both wishing to export their brand of Islam. It's ten years old now, and Trump has remade the world, but it's still useful.
I have often, and occasionally been abused for doing so, likened the current situation in the Islamic world to that in the Western Christian one in the 16th Century, when the Catholics and Protestants were knocking lumps out of each other. And it's about as long from the founding of Islam and it was then since the founding of Christianity.
What is it about Abrahamic religions?
When you claim that you have absolute truth and that you have the only god, you possess the Unique Truth.
If you believe that not following The Truth is an attack on God*/Society, then hijinks ensue.
*I've always found this one a puzzle. The God that created the universe is big enough to take care of himself. And if omnipotent and infinitely powerful, there is no danger of collateral damage from him smiting the unbelievers. Though, I suppose, you could be worried that your nearest and dearest might wander away from The Truth, if they heard that there are other options...
Guardian. Spain, a Nato member, has closed its airspace to US planes involved in attacks on Iran, the country’s defence minister, Margarita Robles, told reporters in Madrid this morning.
“We don’t authorise either the use of military bases or the use of airspace for actions related to the war in Iran,” she said.
Spanish newspaper El Pais, which first reported the news on Monday, said the closure of the airspace forces military planes to bypass Spain en route to their targets in the Middle East, but it does not include emergency situations, in which case the aircraft will be permitted to transit or land.
“We have denied the United States the use of the Rota and Morón bases for this illegal war. All flight plans involving operations in Iran have been rejected. All of them, including those for refuelling aircraft,” Spanish prime minister Pedro Sánchez, a vocal critic of the US-Israeli war on Iran, was quoted as having said last Wednesday in Congress...
That'll be a blow to Trump. I'm assuming Moron base was where this War was planned from.
Guardian. Spain, a Nato member, has closed its airspace to US planes involved in attacks on Iran, the country’s defence minister, Margarita Robles, told reporters in Madrid this morning.
“We don’t authorise either the use of military bases or the use of airspace for actions related to the war in Iran,” she said.
Spanish newspaper El Pais, which first reported the news on Monday, said the closure of the airspace forces military planes to bypass Spain en route to their targets in the Middle East, but it does not include emergency situations, in which case the aircraft will be permitted to transit or land.
“We have denied the United States the use of the Rota and Morón bases for this illegal war. All flight plans involving operations in Iran have been rejected. All of them, including those for refuelling aircraft,” Spanish prime minister Pedro Sánchez, a vocal critic of the US-Israeli war on Iran, was quoted as having said last Wednesday in Congress...
That'll be a blow to Trump. I'm assuming Moron base was where this War was planned from.
I met up with my friends: all “centrist dads”, whether in Law, Consulting, Advertising or IT.
They are now all ferociously anti-Israel, if not actively anti-Zionist.
We seem to have been on the same journey
And yet the deliberate planned horror of the brutal rapes of women on October 7 and the female hostages kept thereafter has not led to any journey by you - or apparently @Gardenwalker's friends - reflecting on why male violence against women is wrong and why those groups, states, cultures etc which promote it should be equally viewed with horror and distaste. Which is doubtless why we read you this morning proudly saying that you feel like punching an opportunistic female politician but never an opportunistic male politician, of which there are many.
It is not necessary to balance every criticism of Israel with a criticism of Islam, or Hamas or whatever.
When a man talks about inflicting violence against a woman but then claims to have been on a journey because of his distaste about why Israel has done then it is worth noting how selective his outrage is and how he has never, as far as I can see, condemned male violence against women.
I am not often here anymore but it strikes me that it the preponderance of criticism here has been against Israel rather than Iran or Hamas and there has been very little talk or reflection on or criticism of the those attacking Jews in this country which, unlike the Middle East, is something we can actually do something about.
I believe you care being unusually disingenuous. After October 7th I was in discussion on here with @Richard_Tyndall that Hamas should be punished first not by wiping out the footsoldier holed up in tunnels under Gazan hospitals but take out the Grandees in Doha. It was a long while before Netanyahu took out the Doha contingent.
The criticism certainly from me has been for the Israeli regime and certainly the hardliners, of which I consider Netanyahu to be crucial. Netanyahu like Trump has used conflict as a smokescreen for domestic existential troubles. At no point have I brushed off the wickedness of October 7th. When Hamas were useful idiots to Bibi, he funded their activities covertly.
I would condemn criminals setting fire to ambulances in North London, shooting up synagogues in Manchester with equal measure to criminals setting fire to Holiday Inn Express hotels in Essex. Anyone going about their lawful business unhindered and in safety,whatever their creed or colour. The fact that they can't either as Jews or Muslims, suggests a dereliction of duty by the authorities, and not just Central Government.
Guardian. Spain, a Nato member, has closed its airspace to US planes involved in attacks on Iran, the country’s defence minister, Margarita Robles, told reporters in Madrid this morning.
“We don’t authorise either the use of military bases or the use of airspace for actions related to the war in Iran,” she said.
Spanish newspaper El Pais, which first reported the news on Monday, said the closure of the airspace forces military planes to bypass Spain en route to their targets in the Middle East, but it does not include emergency situations, in which case the aircraft will be permitted to transit or land.
“We have denied the United States the use of the Rota and Morón bases for this illegal war. All flight plans involving operations in Iran have been rejected. All of them, including those for refuelling aircraft,” Spanish prime minister Pedro Sánchez, a vocal critic of the US-Israeli war on Iran, was quoted as having said last Wednesday in Congress...
That'll be a blow to Trump. I'm assuming Moron base was where this War was planned from.
Guardian. Spain, a Nato member, has closed its airspace to US planes involved in attacks on Iran, the country’s defence minister, Margarita Robles, told reporters in Madrid this morning.
“We don’t authorise either the use of military bases or the use of airspace for actions related to the war in Iran,” she said.
Spanish newspaper El Pais, which first reported the news on Monday, said the closure of the airspace forces military planes to bypass Spain en route to their targets in the Middle East, but it does not include emergency situations, in which case the aircraft will be permitted to transit or land.
“We have denied the United States the use of the Rota and Morón bases for this illegal war. All flight plans involving operations in Iran have been rejected. All of them, including those for refuelling aircraft,” Spanish prime minister Pedro Sánchez, a vocal critic of the US-Israeli war on Iran, was quoted as having said last Wednesday in Congress...
That'll be a blow to Trump. I'm assuming Moron base was where this War was planned from.
..Esmaeil Baqaei, spokesperson for the Iranian foreign ministry, has reaffirmed that Iran has not had any direct negotiations with the US, in comments carried by the Tasnim news agency.
“What has been discussed are messages we received through intermediaries stating that the US wants to negotiate,” he was quoted as having said.
“Iran has been clear about its position from the beginning, and we know very well what the framework is that we are considering. The material conveyed to us has been excessive and unreasonable requests.”..
He'll be next to be targeted, having given the game away...
Almost all the charges of outrageous behaviour by the Iranian government could equally be laid at the door of Saudi Arabia. Which is even less democratic. Would it be right to bomb them to achieve regime change?
I am not a great fan of the Saudi regime but Iran executed 5 times the number Saudi did in 2023 for instance and Saudi is not actively funding terrorism now against Israel and the West as Iran is
If you have time, buy "World Order" by Henry Kissinger. Chapter 3 describes the ongoing conflict between the Sunni bloc (led by Saudi Arabia) and the Shiite bloc (led by Iran), both wishing to export their brand of Islam. It's ten years old now, and Trump has remade the world, but it's still useful.
I have often, and occasionally been abused for doing so, likened the current situation in the Islamic world to that in the Western Christian one in the 16th Century, when the Catholics and Protestants were knocking lumps out of each other. And it's about as long from the founding of Islam and it was then since the founding of Christianity.
What is it about Abrahamic religions?
When you claim that you have absolute truth and that you have the only god, you possess the Unique Truth.
If you believe that not following The Truth is an attack on God*/Society, then hijinks ensue.
*I've always found this one a puzzle. The God that created the universe is big enough to take care of himself. And if omnipotent and infinitely powerful, there is no danger of collateral damage from him smiting the unbelievers. Though, I suppose, you could be worried that your nearest and dearest might wander away from The Truth, if they heard that there are other options...
I'd recommend to anybody, Europe Divided, by JH Elliot. It's a fascinating account of how reasons of State, in Sixteenth century Europe, both aligned with, and conflicted with, the religious divide.
The big Catholic powers were France and the Hapsburg monarchies, who were almost always at odds. Both sides aligned with Protestant powers, on occasion, and (in the case of France), the Ottomans. The Ottomans themselves were prepared to align with Christian powers, against their great enemy, Muslim Persia.
I met up with my friends: all “centrist dads”, whether in Law, Consulting, Advertising or IT.
They are now all ferociously anti-Israel, if not actively anti-Zionist.
We seem to have been on the same journey
And yet the deliberate planned horror of the brutal rapes of women on October 7 and the female hostages kept thereafter has not led to any journey by you - or apparently @Gardenwalker's friends - reflecting on why male violence against women is wrong and why those groups, states, cultures etc which promote it should be equally viewed with horror and distaste. Which is doubtless why we read you this morning proudly saying that you feel like punching an opportunistic female politician but never an opportunistic male politician, of which there are many.
It is not necessary to balance every criticism of Israel with a criticism of Islam, or Hamas or whatever.
When a man talks about inflicting violence against a woman but then claims to have been on a journey because of his distaste about why Israel has done then it is worth noting how selective his outrage is and how he has never, as far as I can see, condemned male violence against women.
I am not often here anymore but it strikes me that it the preponderance of criticism here has been against Israel rather than Iran or Hamas and there has been very little talk or reflection on or criticism of the those attacking Jews in this country which, unlike the Middle East, is something we can actually do something about.
I believe you care being unusually disingenuous. After October 7th I was in discussion on here with @Richard_Tyndall that Hamas should be punished first not by wiping out the footsoldier holed up in tunnels under Gazan hospitals but take out the Grandees in Doha. It was a long while before Netanyahu took out the Doha contingent.
The criticism certainly from me has been for the Israeli regime and certainly the hardliners, of which I consider Netanyahu to be crucial. Netanyahu like Trump has used conflict as a smokescreen for domestic existential troubles. At no point have I brushed off the wickedness of October 7th.
I would condemn criminals setting fire to ambulances in North London, shooting up synagogues in Manchester with equal measure to criminals setting fire to Holiday Inn Express hotels in Essex. Anyone going about their lawful business unhindered and in safety,whatever their creed or colour. The fact that they can't either as Jews or Muslims suggests a dereliction of duty by the authorities, and not just Central Government.
"The fact that they can't either as Jews or Muslims suggests a dereliction of duty by the authorities"
hmmm. The problem there is that, even in a total surveillance state*, you can't stop people behaving badly. All you can do is catch people after the act and try and deter the next lot.
*Drug trafficking and various other organised crimes ave flourished in the most totalitarian states the world has produced so far. As did attacks on ethnic groups, even though under the (nominal) protection of the state.
Almost all the charges of outrageous behaviour by the Iranian government could equally be laid at the door of Saudi Arabia. Which is even less democratic. Would it be right to bomb them to achieve regime change?
I am not a great fan of the Saudi regime but Iran executed 5 times the number Saudi did in 2023 for instance and Saudi is not actively funding terrorism now against Israel and the West as Iran is
If you have time, buy "World Order" by Henry Kissinger. Chapter 3 describes the ongoing conflict between the Sunni bloc (led by Saudi Arabia) and the Shiite bloc (led by Iran), both wishing to export their brand of Islam. It's ten years old now, and Trump has remade the world, but it's still useful.
I have often, and occasionally been abused for doing so, likened the current situation in the Islamic world to that in the Western Christian one in the 16th Century, when the Catholics and Protestants were knocking lumps out of each other. And it's about as long from the founding of Islam and it was then since the founding of Christianity.
What is it about Abrahamic religions?
Having about four billion adherents (including me) gives a lot of scope for diversity, manipulation and bad people to rise to power at the top of things. A few billion critics of war, conflict, violence, autocracy etc belong to Abrahamic religions too. About half the population of the UK claim to belong to an Abrahamic religion. Very few kill each other. Most live quite good lives. Strange that.
That's now, and I agree. If, though, you have a look at the history of the 16th Century you'll find a different situation.
. I have heard quite a few people say that they wish Israel did not exist. But there is tumbleweed when I ask what they want done with its Jewish citizens. Unless people have an answer to that - something more realistic than kumbaya-let's-all-sing-together - then a country's destruction usually involves at a minimum ethnic cleansing and usually the killing of many of its inhabitants.
Did you give any of these "quite a few" people a chance to answer your question? Any of them at all? Points that may well have come up would have included
1. what % are citizens of other countries or hold the right to citizenship in other countries (a majority?)
2. questions of ties, e.g. birth in Palestine, recency of immigration, etc.
3. willingness to apply for Palestinian citizenship,
4. proscription of old-regime ethnic supremacist agitation , including in the context of foreign-backed terrorism and stay-behind networks,
5. comparison with French Algeria, the Confederacy, and other regimes that have been caused to cease to exist,
6. the right of return for refugees,
7. the need for humanitarian compassion,
8. truth and reconciliation.
"Tumbleweed" suggests you've never heard any of the above points raised, not even point 1.
I met up with my friends: all “centrist dads”, whether in Law, Consulting, Advertising or IT.
They are now all ferociously anti-Israel, if not actively anti-Zionist.
We seem to have been on the same journey
And yet the deliberate planned horror of the brutal rapes of women on October 7 and the female hostages kept thereafter has not led to any journey by you - or apparently @Gardenwalker's friends - reflecting on why male violence against women is wrong and why those groups, states, cultures etc which promote it should be equally viewed with horror and distaste. Which is doubtless why we read you this morning proudly saying that you feel like punching an opportunistic female politician but never an opportunistic male politician, of which there are many.
It is not necessary to balance every criticism of Israel with a criticism of Islam, or Hamas or whatever.
When a man talks about inflicting violence against a woman but then claims to have been on a journey because of his distaste about why Israel has done then it is worth noting how selective his outrage is and how he has never, as far as I can see, condemned male violence against women.
I am not often here anymore but it strikes me that it the preponderance of criticism here has been against Israel rather than Iran or Hamas and there has been very little talk or reflection on or criticism of the those attacking Jews in this country which, unlike the Middle East, is something we can actually do something about.
I believe you care being unusually disingenuous. After October 7th I was in discussion on here with @Richard_Tyndall that Hamas should be punished first not by wiping out the footsoldier holed up in tunnels under Gazan hospitals but take out the Grandees in Doha. It was a long while before Netanyahu took out the Doha contingent.
The criticism certainly from me has been for the Israeli regime and certainly the hardliners, of which I consider Netanyahu to be crucial. Netanyahu like Trump has used conflict as a smokescreen for domestic existential troubles. At no point have I brushed off the wickedness of October 7th.
I would condemn criminals setting fire to ambulances in North London, shooting up synagogues in Manchester with equal measure to criminals setting fire to Holiday Inn Express hotels in Essex. Anyone going about their lawful business unhindered and in safety,whatever their creed or colour. The fact that they can't either as Jews or Muslims suggests a dereliction of duty by the authorities, and not just Central Government.
"The fact that they can't either as Jews or Muslims suggests a dereliction of duty by the authorities"
hmmm. The problem there is that, even in a total surveillance state*, you can't stop people behaving badly. All you can do is catch people after the act and try and deter the next lot.
*Drug trafficking and various other organised crimes ave flourished in the most totalitarian states the world has produced so far. As did attacks on ethnic groups, even though under the (nominal) protection of the state.
I was thinking more about curtailment of a culture that behind the cloak of free speech allows Anti-Semitic and Islamaphobic narratives. The trouble is the infection is deep inside Fleet Street and the Houses of Parliament.
OfCom stripping GBNews of its licence would be a start from one side of the coin.
Starmer needs to get ahead of this oil crisis. Do some unpopular stuff that people will come to appreciate and will signal this is a big deal.
Cut speed limits, mandate wfh where possible, introduce carpool lanes all over the place...
Tories and Reform will oppose on reflex and it will show he's the serious politician thinking about national interest.
Pure authoritarianism that will do nothing to fix the problems.
Serious politics means fixing what the politicians control.
The Australian Labor Government has had good ideas on this. The price of fuel is mostly tax anyway, and the fuel cost is controlled by HMG. Australia has halved fuel duty, we should do the same, or go one better and suspend it altogether.
Australia has reacted faster as they are (like the Asian counties) affected earlier, as they import a larger percentage of their oil from the Gulf.
Indeed and we don't.
So we are more protected, besides fiscally.
So this can all be solved by slashing or abolishing fuel duty.
And how would you replace the tax revenue?
The state takes billions more from drivers than it spends on roads etc, there is no shortfall there.
Drivers should pay no more for transport than the cost of their transport.
General expenditure should come from general taxation, not drivers.
So specifically which tax would you increase instead?
I would start by merging Income Tax and National Insurance so everyone is paying the same tax rate.
I would also abolish subsidies on rail fares etc.
Drivers or rail passengers should pay their own transport costs, without extra taxes or subsidies.
You are cutting taxes now with a fix that is both electoral suicide and longer term.
So again where do you raise £xbn of taxes from today to subsidies car drivers who drive a lot..
You options are really VAT or National insurance BTW as both those can be changed with about 1 months notice..
I would not subsidise car drivers. I would not excessively tax them, but that is not a subsidy.
Drivers should be paying for their cost of commuting, as should rail commuters and everyone else engaging in transport.
But that should not be filling the coffera of general taxation.
Almost all the charges of outrageous behaviour by the Iranian government could equally be laid at the door of Saudi Arabia. Which is even less democratic. Would it be right to bomb them to achieve regime change?
I am not a great fan of the Saudi regime but Iran executed 5 times the number Saudi did in 2023 for instance and Saudi is not actively funding terrorism now against Israel and the West as Iran is
If you have time, buy "World Order" by Henry Kissinger. Chapter 3 describes the ongoing conflict between the Sunni bloc (led by Saudi Arabia) and the Shiite bloc (led by Iran), both wishing to export their brand of Islam. It's ten years old now, and Trump has remade the world, but it's still useful.
I have often, and occasionally been abused for doing so, likened the current situation in the Islamic world to that in the Western Christian one in the 16th Century, when the Catholics and Protestants were knocking lumps out of each other. And it's about as long from the founding of Islam and it was then since the founding of Christianity.
What is it about Abrahamic religions?
When you claim that you have absolute truth and that you have the only god, you possess the Unique Truth.
If you believe that not following The Truth is an attack on God*/Society, then hijinks ensue.
*I've always found this one a puzzle. The God that created the universe is big enough to take care of himself. And if omnipotent and infinitely powerful, there is no danger of collateral damage from him smiting the unbelievers. Though, I suppose, you could be worried that your nearest and dearest might wander away from The Truth, if they heard that there are other options...
I'd recommend to anybody, Europe Divided, by JH Elliot. It's a fascinating account of how reasons of State, in Sixteenth century Europe, both aligned with, and conflicted with, the religious divide.
The big Catholic powers were France and the Hapsburg monarchies, who were almost always at odds. Both sides aligned with Protestant powers, on occasion, and (in the case of France), the Ottomans. The Ottomans themselves were prepared to align with Christian powers, against their great enemy, Muslim Persia.
Muslim Persia = Iran. Which explains, perhaps, why the Iranians distrust Europeans.
Is anyone on Pb still of the view the UK should have joined the war?
We should have sent the RAF to attack Iranian missile sites as Kemi rightly said. If Trump commits ground troops we should join Israel and provide them with support from the air in my view too as that would be the only way to topple the regime.
However as Starmer is in power neither will happen as he is sticking to his line offensive actions in Iran are not authorised under international law
If we'd done that we'd be counting body bags in London, Birmingham, Glasgow, Cardiff, Belfast, Leeds, Liverpool, Newcastle, Edinburgh and any other town or city
Sleepers in our midst revenge lone rangers martyrs
Forget all that. That is not the reason we should not be doing this. If Iran was a genuine threat to us and we needed to change the regime there then attacks in the UK are simply part of that scenario and one we have to deal with.
The real issue here is we should not be attacking Iran or supporting the US and Israel in attacking them. They are not and were not a threat to ourselves, Europe or the US. They did not attack us. They did not attack the US or Israel. They were attacked and we should not be supporting or condoning the aggressors.
I think you can make an argument that they were attacking Israel fairly regularly via their proxies
Well yes, but by the same rote you could say Russia has been attacking us for decades. Nobody has suggested bombing St Petersburg in response.
Russia has been attacking us for decades
And bombing St Pete’s always been on the list of options.
But wiser heads have prevailed to date
Because Russia has nukes.
Iran does not, yet, and its better to have this conflict now than after a mushroom cloud appears above Tel Aviv.
Israel has had nukes for a long while, yet there has been no sign of mushroom clouds over Tehran, or anywhere else.
Israel is not led by deranged, religious nihilists.
As much as people claim they are.
Israel is not my ally. Iran is not my ally. They are both bad and I have little interest in discussing who is badder.
When it comes to setting fire to ambulances in the UK I have no tolerance for any kind of justification. Everyone has a right in this country to live free of fear and intimidation.
Israel are America's ally, so if it is legitimate for the UK to act against a threat to us (it is), then it is legitimate for Israel to act against a threat to them (it is) and it is legitimate for America to assist their ally (it is).
I don't understand your logic.
The UK might engage or oppose other countries who are not allies in its self interest. Examples of the first are a number of engagements with China. My point is just because Israel has an argument with Iran, we owe that country no favours and are not obliged to intervene on Israel's behalf.
We don't, but America do. And we are America's ally so have every right to act on that basis.
Yet for some reason America and Israel are being criticised on the basis that Iran was no threat to the United Kingdom.
The US is an ally (of sorts, these days) and we do have some conditional obligations towards it. Supporting Israel in destroying Iran isn't one of them.
Its not an obligation, merely the right thing to do.
So Scott Mills has been sacked by the BBC reason given obscure bar his personal behaviour.. Whybsaybthat. Either tell all or say nothing.
And to think that just four years ago Steve Wright was sacrificed to promote Scott Mills to broadcasting legend status. Something he never lived up to. And the upshot? A genuine broadcasting legend died of a broken heart.
Starmer needs to get ahead of this oil crisis. Do some unpopular stuff that people will come to appreciate and will signal this is a big deal.
Cut speed limits, mandate wfh where possible, introduce carpool lanes all over the place...
Tories and Reform will oppose on reflex and it will show he's the serious politician thinking about national interest.
Pure authoritarianism that will do nothing to fix the problems.
Serious politics means fixing what the politicians control.
The Australian Labor Government has had good ideas on this. The price of fuel is mostly tax anyway, and the fuel cost is controlled by HMG. Australia has halved fuel duty, we should do the same, or go one better and suspend it altogether.
Australia has reacted faster as they are (like the Asian counties) affected earlier, as they import a larger percentage of their oil from the Gulf.
Indeed and we don't.
So we are more protected, besides fiscally.
So this can all be solved by slashing or abolishing fuel duty.
And how would you replace the tax revenue?
The state takes billions more from drivers than it spends on roads etc, there is no shortfall there.
Drivers should pay no more for transport than the cost of their transport.
General expenditure should come from general taxation, not drivers.
So specifically which tax would you increase instead?
I would start by merging Income Tax and National Insurance so everyone is paying the same tax rate.
I would also abolish subsidies on rail fares etc.
Drivers or rail passengers should pay their own transport costs, without extra taxes or subsidies.
You are cutting taxes now with a fix that is both electoral suicide and longer term.
So again where do you raise £xbn of taxes from today to subsidies car drivers who drive a lot..
You options are really VAT or National insurance BTW as both those can be changed with about 1 months notice..
I would not subsidise car drivers. I would not excessively tax them, but that is not a subsidy.
Drivers should be paying for their cost of commuting, as should rail commuters and everyone else engaging in transport.
But that should not be filling the coffera of general taxation.
Let's try again - you want to remove tax revenue (by not taxing fuel), where are you going to increase the tax make up the shortfall you've just created?
Is anyone on Pb still of the view the UK should have joined the war?
We should have sent the RAF to attack Iranian missile sites as Kemi rightly said. If Trump commits ground troops we should join Israel and provide them with support from the air in my view too as that would be the only way to topple the regime.
However as Starmer is in power neither will happen as he is sticking to his line offensive actions in Iran are not authorised under international law
If we'd done that we'd be counting body bags in London, Birmingham, Glasgow, Cardiff, Belfast, Leeds, Liverpool, Newcastle, Edinburgh and any other town or city
Sleepers in our midst revenge lone rangers martyrs
Forget all that. That is not the reason we should not be doing this. If Iran was a genuine threat to us and we needed to change the regime there then attacks in the UK are simply part of that scenario and one we have to deal with.
The real issue here is we should not be attacking Iran or supporting the US and Israel in attacking them. They are not and were not a threat to ourselves, Europe or the US. They did not attack us. They did not attack the US or Israel. They were attacked and we should not be supporting or condoning the aggressors.
I think you can make an argument that they were attacking Israel fairly regularly via their proxies
Well yes, but by the same rote you could say Russia has been attacking us for decades. Nobody has suggested bombing St Petersburg in response.
Russia has been attacking us for decades
And bombing St Pete’s always been on the list of options.
But wiser heads have prevailed to date
Because Russia has nukes.
Iran does not, yet, and its better to have this conflict now than after a mushroom cloud appears above Tel Aviv.
Israel has had nukes for a long while, yet there has been no sign of mushroom clouds over Tehran, or anywhere else.
Israel is not led by deranged, religious nihilists.
As much as people claim they are.
Israel is not my ally. Iran is not my ally. They are both bad and I have little interest in discussing who is badder.
When it comes to setting fire to ambulances in the UK I have no tolerance for any kind of justification. Everyone has a right in this country to live free of fear and intimidation.
Israel are America's ally, so if it is legitimate for the UK to act against a threat to us (it is), then it is legitimate for Israel to act against a threat to them (it is) and it is legitimate for America to assist their ally (it is).
I don't understand your logic.
The UK might engage or oppose other countries who are not allies in its self interest. Examples of the first are a number of engagements with China. My point is just because Israel has an argument with Iran, we owe that country no favours and are not obliged to intervene on Israel's behalf.
We don't, but America do. And we are America's ally so have every right to act on that basis.
Yet for some reason America and Israel are being criticised on the basis that Iran was no threat to the United Kingdom.
The US is an ally (of sorts, these days) and we do have some conditional obligations towards it. Supporting Israel in destroying Iran isn't one of them.
Its not an obligation, merely the right thing to do.
What chance the Easter rush provoking UK-wide petrol shortages? I'm thinking about evens...
See my comment from earlier today - we now have rationing at some local petrol stations max £30 purchase.
Now that may just be until a delivery later today / this week but I suspect we will see it again next weekend as well.
I had to get back to Devon from NE Lincs yesterday. Diesel was 166.9 in Tescos in Grimsby - 66 litres meant a £20 saving on the top-end prices I saw. Quite a saving. But not enough to have stopped me going to see my chums. Just have to bite the bullet.
(For those amongst us looking to fill their homes with aged items, I did discover that at Hemswell they have Europe's larget antiques centre, in an old Bomber Command base about 12 miles north of Lincoln. If it is of interest to any here, allow yourself all day. And the next day.
Starmer needs to get ahead of this oil crisis. Do some unpopular stuff that people will come to appreciate and will signal this is a big deal.
Cut speed limits, mandate wfh where possible, introduce carpool lanes all over the place...
Tories and Reform will oppose on reflex and it will show he's the serious politician thinking about national interest.
Pure authoritarianism that will do nothing to fix the problems.
Serious politics means fixing what the politicians control.
The Australian Labor Government has had good ideas on this. The price of fuel is mostly tax anyway, and the fuel cost is controlled by HMG. Australia has halved fuel duty, we should do the same, or go one better and suspend it altogether.
Australia has reacted faster as they are (like the Asian counties) affected earlier, as they import a larger percentage of their oil from the Gulf.
Indeed and we don't.
So we are more protected, besides fiscally.
So this can all be solved by slashing or abolishing fuel duty.
And how would you replace the tax revenue?
The state takes billions more from drivers than it spends on roads etc, there is no shortfall there.
Drivers should pay no more for transport than the cost of their transport.
General expenditure should come from general taxation, not drivers.
So specifically which tax would you increase instead?
I would start by merging Income Tax and National Insurance so everyone is paying the same tax rate.
I would also abolish subsidies on rail fares etc.
Drivers or rail passengers should pay their own transport costs, without extra taxes or subsidies.
You are cutting taxes now with a fix that is both electoral suicide and longer term.
So again where do you raise £xbn of taxes from today to subsidies car drivers who drive a lot..
You options are really VAT or National insurance BTW as both those can be changed with about 1 months notice..
I would not subsidise car drivers. I would not excessively tax them, but that is not a subsidy.
Drivers should be paying for their cost of commuting, as should rail commuters and everyone else engaging in transport.
But that should not be filling the coffera of general taxation.
Let's try again - you want to remove tax revenue (by not taxing fuel), where are you going to increase the tax make up the shortfall you've just created?
I have said, I would rebalance the economy by merging National Insurance and Income Tax. Unearned income taxed at as high a percentage rate as salaried income.
It will also put our finances on a more stable long-term footing as fuel duty is due to be phased out, anyway.
It is also the right thing to do, to tax everyone for general taxation, not merely those driving to work who get double charged while others get off for free.
Almost all the charges of outrageous behaviour by the Iranian government could equally be laid at the door of Saudi Arabia. Which is even less democratic. Would it be right to bomb them to achieve regime change?
I am not a great fan of the Saudi regime but Iran executed 5 times the number Saudi did in 2023 for instance and Saudi is not actively funding terrorism now against Israel and the West as Iran is
If you have time, buy "World Order" by Henry Kissinger. Chapter 3 describes the ongoing conflict between the Sunni bloc (led by Saudi Arabia) and the Shiite bloc (led by Iran), both wishing to export their brand of Islam. It's ten years old now, and Trump has remade the world, but it's still useful.
I have often, and occasionally been abused for doing so, likened the current situation in the Islamic world to that in the Western Christian one in the 16th Century, when the Catholics and Protestants were knocking lumps out of each other. And it's about as long from the founding of Islam and it was then since the founding of Christianity.
What is it about Abrahamic religions?
The only religion some of whose organised adherents slaughtered 10%+ of our species, though, is Tengrism, even while they weren't known for being especially bigoted against other religious groups. So religion may have less to do with it than is often asserted.
Almost all the charges of outrageous behaviour by the Iranian government could equally be laid at the door of Saudi Arabia. Which is even less democratic. Would it be right to bomb them to achieve regime change?
I am not a great fan of the Saudi regime but Iran executed 5 times the number Saudi did in 2023 for instance and Saudi is not actively funding terrorism now against Israel and the West as Iran is
If you have time, buy "World Order" by Henry Kissinger. Chapter 3 describes the ongoing conflict between the Sunni bloc (led by Saudi Arabia) and the Shiite bloc (led by Iran), both wishing to export their brand of Islam. It's ten years old now, and Trump has remade the world, but it's still useful.
I have often, and occasionally been abused for doing so, likened the current situation in the Islamic world to that in the Western Christian one in the 16th Century, when the Catholics and Protestants were knocking lumps out of each other. And it's about as long from the founding of Islam and it was then since the founding of Christianity.
What is it about Abrahamic religions?
When you claim that you have absolute truth and that you have the only god, you possess the Unique Truth.
If you believe that not following The Truth is an attack on God*/Society, then hijinks ensue.
*I've always found this one a puzzle. The God that created the universe is big enough to take care of himself. And if omnipotent and infinitely powerful, there is no danger of collateral damage from him smiting the unbelievers. Though, I suppose, you could be worried that your nearest and dearest might wander away from The Truth, if they heard that there are other options...
I'd recommend to anybody, Europe Divided, by JH Elliot. It's a fascinating account of how reasons of State, in Sixteenth century Europe, both aligned with, and conflicted with, the religious divide.
The big Catholic powers were France and the Hapsburg monarchies, who were almost always at odds. Both sides aligned with Protestant powers, on occasion, and (in the case of France), the Ottomans. The Ottomans themselves were prepared to align with Christian powers, against their great enemy, Muslim Persia.
Muslim Persia = Iran. Which explains, perhaps, why the Iranians distrust Europeans.
Almost all the charges of outrageous behaviour by the Iranian government could equally be laid at the door of Saudi Arabia. Which is even less democratic. Would it be right to bomb them to achieve regime change?
I am not a great fan of the Saudi regime but Iran executed 5 times the number Saudi did in 2023 for instance and Saudi is not actively funding terrorism now against Israel and the West as Iran is
If you have time, buy "World Order" by Henry Kissinger. Chapter 3 describes the ongoing conflict between the Sunni bloc (led by Saudi Arabia) and the Shiite bloc (led by Iran), both wishing to export their brand of Islam. It's ten years old now, and Trump has remade the world, but it's still useful.
I have often, and occasionally been abused for doing so, likened the current situation in the Islamic world to that in the Western Christian one in the 16th Century, when the Catholics and Protestants were knocking lumps out of each other. And it's about as long from the founding of Islam and it was then since the founding of Christianity.
What is it about Abrahamic religions?
The only religion some of whose organised adherents slaughtered 10%+ of our species, though, is Tengrism, even while they weren't known for being especially bigoted against other religious groups. So religion may have less to do with it than is often asserted.
The Mongols generally get a better historical press than they deserve., because of their religious tolerance, and due to the relatively high status of women in their societies.
Without being especially biased against Islam, they came very close to destroying the Islamic world. The degree of massacre across Muslim Central Asia, Iran, and what is now Iraq and Syria, was off the scale.
That was on top of killing, or driving away, two thirds of the population of Northern China, between 1211-41.
I met up with my friends: all “centrist dads”, whether in Law, Consulting, Advertising or IT.
They are now all ferociously anti-Israel, if not actively anti-Zionist.
We seem to have been on the same journey
And yet the deliberate planned horror of the brutal rapes of women on October 7 and the female hostages kept thereafter has not led to any journey by you - or apparently @Gardenwalker's friends - reflecting on why male violence against women is wrong and why those groups, states, cultures etc which promote it should be equally viewed with horror and distaste. Which is doubtless why we read you this morning proudly saying that you feel like punching an opportunistic female politician but never an opportunistic male politician, of which there are many.
It is not necessary to balance every criticism of Israel with a criticism of Islam, or Hamas or whatever.
When a man talks about inflicting violence against a woman but then claims to have been on a journey because of his distaste about why Israel has done then it is worth noting how selective his outrage is and how he has never, as far as I can see, condemned male violence against women.
I am not often here anymore but it strikes me that it the preponderance of criticism here has been against Israel rather than Iran or Hamas and there has been very little talk or reflection on or criticism of the those attacking Jews in this country which, unlike the Middle East, is something we can actually do something about.
I believe you care being unusually disingenuous. After October 7th I was in discussion on here with @Richard_Tyndall that Hamas should be punished first not by wiping out the footsoldier holed up in tunnels under Gazan hospitals but take out the Grandees in Doha. It was a long while before Netanyahu took out the Doha contingent.
The criticism certainly from me has been for the Israeli regime and certainly the hardliners, of which I consider Netanyahu to be crucial. Netanyahu like Trump has used conflict as a smokescreen for domestic existential troubles. At no point have I brushed off the wickedness of October 7th.
I would condemn criminals setting fire to ambulances in North London, shooting up synagogues in Manchester with equal measure to criminals setting fire to Holiday Inn Express hotels in Essex. Anyone going about their lawful business unhindered and in safety,whatever their creed or colour. The fact that they can't either as Jews or Muslims suggests a dereliction of duty by the authorities, and not just Central Government.
"The fact that they can't either as Jews or Muslims suggests a dereliction of duty by the authorities"
hmmm. The problem there is that, even in a total surveillance state*, you can't stop people behaving badly. All you can do is catch people after the act and try and deter the next lot.
*Drug trafficking and various other organised crimes ave flourished in the most totalitarian states the world has produced so far. As did attacks on ethnic groups, even though under the (nominal) protection of the state.
I was thinking more about curtailment of a culture that behind the cloak of free speech allows Anti-Semitic and Islamaphobic narratives. The trouble is the infection is deep inside Fleet Street and the Houses of Parliament.
OfCom stripping GBNews of its licence would be a start from one side of the coin.
If you look at the various police reports and trials, the problem is about 95% self radicalised dipshits and losers, with a smattering of state sponsorship of dipshits and losers.
While we can try and reduce the volume on the media messages that feed this, sadly, hate filled dipshits and losers are a renewable resource.
While it would be nice to eliminate it, I can't see how. We could do lots of performative measures, that would impact the minority communities concerned excessively. And would be somewhere between useless and counterproductive.
Starmer needs to get ahead of this oil crisis. Do some unpopular stuff that people will come to appreciate and will signal this is a big deal.
Cut speed limits, mandate wfh where possible, introduce carpool lanes all over the place...
Tories and Reform will oppose on reflex and it will show he's the serious politician thinking about national interest.
Pure authoritarianism that will do nothing to fix the problems.
Serious politics means fixing what the politicians control.
The Australian Labor Government has had good ideas on this. The price of fuel is mostly tax anyway, and the fuel cost is controlled by HMG. Australia has halved fuel duty, we should do the same, or go one better and suspend it altogether.
Australia has reacted faster as they are (like the Asian counties) affected earlier, as they import a larger percentage of their oil from the Gulf.
Indeed and we don't.
So we are more protected, besides fiscally.
So this can all be solved by slashing or abolishing fuel duty.
And how would you replace the tax revenue?
The state takes billions more from drivers than it spends on roads etc, there is no shortfall there.
Drivers should pay no more for transport than the cost of their transport.
General expenditure should come from general taxation, not drivers.
So specifically which tax would you increase instead?
I would start by merging Income Tax and National Insurance so everyone is paying the same tax rate.
I would also abolish subsidies on rail fares etc.
Drivers or rail passengers should pay their own transport costs, without extra taxes or subsidies.
You are cutting taxes now with a fix that is both electoral suicide and longer term.
So again where do you raise £xbn of taxes from today to subsidies car drivers who drive a lot..
You options are really VAT or National insurance BTW as both those can be changed with about 1 months notice..
I would not subsidise car drivers. I would not excessively tax them, but that is not a subsidy.
Drivers should be paying for their cost of commuting, as should rail commuters and everyone else engaging in transport.
But that should not be filling the coffera of general taxation.
Let's try again - you want to remove tax revenue (by not taxing fuel), where are you going to increase the tax make up the shortfall you've just created?
I have said, I would rebalance the economy by merging National Insurance and Income Tax. Unearned income taxed at as high a percentage rate as salaried income.
It will also put our finances on a more stable long-term footing as fuel duty is due to be phased out, anyway.
It is also the right thing to do, to tax everyone for general taxation, not merely those driving to work who get double charged while others get off for free.
And you’ve just lost the next election by increasing income tax for pensioners by 8%.
Also the introduction of computerization means that things you used to be able to do in hours can now take months - I suspect the changes you want aren’t 2 second fixes (and given how dire most payroll software providers are you need that time to avoid them screwing up)
I met up with my friends: all “centrist dads”, whether in Law, Consulting, Advertising or IT.
They are now all ferociously anti-Israel, if not actively anti-Zionist.
We seem to have been on the same journey
And yet the deliberate planned horror of the brutal rapes of women on October 7 and the female hostages kept thereafter has not led to any journey by you - or apparently @Gardenwalker's friends - reflecting on why male violence against women is wrong and why those groups, states, cultures etc which promote it should be equally viewed with horror and distaste. Which is doubtless why we read you this morning proudly saying that you feel like punching an opportunistic female politician but never an opportunistic male politician, of which there are many.
It is not necessary to balance every criticism of Israel with a criticism of Islam, or Hamas or whatever.
When a man talks about inflicting violence against a woman but then claims to have been on a journey because of his distaste about why Israel has done then it is worth noting how selective his outrage is and how he has never, as far as I can see, condemned male violence against women.
I am not often here anymore but it strikes me that it the preponderance of criticism here has been against Israel rather than Iran or Hamas and there has been very little talk or reflection on or criticism of the those attacking Jews in this country which, unlike the Middle East, is something we can actually do something about.
None of my friends talked about inflicting violence on women. And I’m not sure Roger did, did he?
You are often so keen to ingratiate yourself that you make yourself appear ridiculous. Do you think anyone with half a brain would believe I was going to punch someone or even more to the point announce it if I was?
It was clearly a joke. A figure of speech. I could have said 'Write a stiff letter' but I thought it lacked impact! Though if I'd thought I was being read by such a dullard as yourself I would have been more circumspect,
Almost all the charges of outrageous behaviour by the Iranian government could equally be laid at the door of Saudi Arabia. Which is even less democratic. Would it be right to bomb them to achieve regime change?
I am not a great fan of the Saudi regime but Iran executed 5 times the number Saudi did in 2023 for instance and Saudi is not actively funding terrorism now against Israel and the West as Iran is
If you have time, buy "World Order" by Henry Kissinger. Chapter 3 describes the ongoing conflict between the Sunni bloc (led by Saudi Arabia) and the Shiite bloc (led by Iran), both wishing to export their brand of Islam. It's ten years old now, and Trump has remade the world, but it's still useful.
I have often, and occasionally been abused for doing so, likened the current situation in the Islamic world to that in the Western Christian one in the 16th Century, when the Catholics and Protestants were knocking lumps out of each other. And it's about as long from the founding of Islam and it was then since the founding of Christianity.
What is it about Abrahamic religions?
When you claim that you have absolute truth and that you have the only god, you possess the Unique Truth.
If you believe that not following The Truth is an attack on God*/Society, then hijinks ensue.
*I've always found this one a puzzle. The God that created the universe is big enough to take care of himself. And if omnipotent and infinitely powerful, there is no danger of collateral damage from him smiting the unbelievers. Though, I suppose, you could be worried that your nearest and dearest might wander away from The Truth, if they heard that there are other options...
I'd recommend to anybody, Europe Divided, by JH Elliot. It's a fascinating account of how reasons of State, in Sixteenth century Europe, both aligned with, and conflicted with, the religious divide.
The big Catholic powers were France and the Hapsburg monarchies, who were almost always at odds. Both sides aligned with Protestant powers, on occasion, and (in the case of France), the Ottomans. The Ottomans themselves were prepared to align with Christian powers, against their great enemy, Muslim Persia.
Muslim Persia = Iran. Which explains, perhaps, why the Iranians distrust Europeans.
I'd suggest 150 years of imperial interference by the British Empire (ie us) in Iran is more likely to be the contemporaneous reason.
Starmer needs to get ahead of this oil crisis. Do some unpopular stuff that people will come to appreciate and will signal this is a big deal.
Cut speed limits, mandate wfh where possible, introduce carpool lanes all over the place...
Tories and Reform will oppose on reflex and it will show he's the serious politician thinking about national interest.
Pure authoritarianism that will do nothing to fix the problems.
Serious politics means fixing what the politicians control.
The Australian Labor Government has had good ideas on this. The price of fuel is mostly tax anyway, and the fuel cost is controlled by HMG. Australia has halved fuel duty, we should do the same, or go one better and suspend it altogether.
Australia has reacted faster as they are (like the Asian counties) affected earlier, as they import a larger percentage of their oil from the Gulf.
Indeed and we don't.
So we are more protected, besides fiscally.
So this can all be solved by slashing or abolishing fuel duty.
And how would you replace the tax revenue?
The state takes billions more from drivers than it spends on roads etc, there is no shortfall there.
Drivers should pay no more for transport than the cost of their transport.
General expenditure should come from general taxation, not drivers.
So specifically which tax would you increase instead?
I would start by merging Income Tax and National Insurance so everyone is paying the same tax rate.
I would also abolish subsidies on rail fares etc.
Drivers or rail passengers should pay their own transport costs, without extra taxes or subsidies.
You are cutting taxes now with a fix that is both electoral suicide and longer term.
So again where do you raise £xbn of taxes from today to subsidies car drivers who drive a lot..
You options are really VAT or National insurance BTW as both those can be changed with about 1 months notice..
I would not subsidise car drivers. I would not excessively tax them, but that is not a subsidy.
Drivers should be paying for their cost of commuting, as should rail commuters and everyone else engaging in transport.
But that should not be filling the coffera of general taxation.
Let's try again - you want to remove tax revenue (by not taxing fuel), where are you going to increase the tax make up the shortfall you've just created?
I have said, I would rebalance the economy by merging National Insurance and Income Tax. Unearned income taxed at as high a percentage rate as salaried income.
It will also put our finances on a more stable long-term footing as fuel duty is due to be phased out, anyway.
It is also the right thing to do, to tax everyone for general taxation, not merely those driving to work who get double charged while others get off for free.
And you’ve just lost the next election by increasing income tax for pensioners by 8%.
So be it. It is the right thing to do.
It would also put our finances on a far more stable footing, and in extremis it could be implemented next Monday.
Starmer needs to get ahead of this oil crisis. Do some unpopular stuff that people will come to appreciate and will signal this is a big deal.
Cut speed limits, mandate wfh where possible, introduce carpool lanes all over the place...
Tories and Reform will oppose on reflex and it will show he's the serious politician thinking about national interest.
Pure authoritarianism that will do nothing to fix the problems.
Serious politics means fixing what the politicians control.
The Australian Labor Government has had good ideas on this. The price of fuel is mostly tax anyway, and the fuel cost is controlled by HMG. Australia has halved fuel duty, we should do the same, or go one better and suspend it altogether.
Australia has reacted faster as they are (like the Asian counties) affected earlier, as they import a larger percentage of their oil from the Gulf.
Indeed and we don't.
So we are more protected, besides fiscally.
So this can all be solved by slashing or abolishing fuel duty.
And how would you replace the tax revenue?
The state takes billions more from drivers than it spends on roads etc, there is no shortfall there.
Drivers should pay no more for transport than the cost of their transport.
General expenditure should come from general taxation, not drivers.
So specifically which tax would you increase instead?
I would start by merging Income Tax and National Insurance so everyone is paying the same tax rate.
I would also abolish subsidies on rail fares etc.
Drivers or rail passengers should pay their own transport costs, without extra taxes or subsidies.
You are cutting taxes now with a fix that is both electoral suicide and longer term.
So again where do you raise £xbn of taxes from today to subsidies car drivers who drive a lot..
You options are really VAT or National insurance BTW as both those can be changed with about 1 months notice..
I would not subsidise car drivers. I would not excessively tax them, but that is not a subsidy.
Drivers should be paying for their cost of commuting, as should rail commuters and everyone else engaging in transport.
But that should not be filling the coffera of general taxation.
Let's try again - you want to remove tax revenue (by not taxing fuel), where are you going to increase the tax make up the shortfall you've just created?
I have said, I would rebalance the economy by merging National Insurance and Income Tax. Unearned income taxed at as high a percentage rate as salaried income.
It will also put our finances on a more stable long-term footing as fuel duty is due to be phased out, anyway.
It is also the right thing to do, to tax everyone for general taxation, not merely those driving to work who get double charged while others get off for free.
And you’ve just lost the next election by increasing income tax for pensioners by 8%.
So be it. It is the right thing to do.
It would also put our finances on a far more stable footing, and in extremis it could be implemented next Monday.
For you it’s the right thing to do / for your average pensioner that isn’t the case
Is possible to talk reasonably about Israel and Palestine?
Only if people stop insisting on one spotless victim and one pure villain.
That seems to be where half these rows go wrong. Israelis have suffered real horrors. Palestinians have suffered real horrors. Hamas are butchers. Large parts of the Israeli state response have been brutal, reckless and, in places, morally indefensible. None of that should be difficult to say, but people keep acting as though admitting one part somehow cancels the other.
The other problem is that people collapse four different arguments into one: who has suffered more, who is morally worse, who has the better historical claim, and what should actually happen now. Those are not the same question. In fact, the only one that really matters politically is the last one.
On the “right to the land” stuff, both sides have narratives that feel complete and righteous from the inside. Fine. But history does not provide a neat answer that makes millions of actual human beings disappear tidily, however tempting that may be to armchair zealots.
The slant I do think is real is that this conflict does seem to inflame and legitimise antisemitism far beyond Israel itself. Criticism of the Israeli government is plainly not the same thing as antisemitism. But it is also obvious that plenty of anti-Israel rhetoric slides very quickly into treating Jews everywhere as collectively guilty, which is just old poison in fresh packaging.
Same rule the other way round too: a synagogue in Manchester is not the IDF, and a mosque in Birmingham is not Hamas.
If people cannot keep that distinction clear, then they are not really talking about peace, justice or even politics. They are just picking a tribe and licensing hatred.
I met up with my friends: all “centrist dads”, whether in Law, Consulting, Advertising or IT.
They are now all ferociously anti-Israel, if not actively anti-Zionist.
We seem to have been on the same journey
And yet the deliberate planned horror of the brutal rapes of women on October 7 and the female hostages kept thereafter has not led to any journey by you - or apparently @Gardenwalker's friends - reflecting on why male violence against women is wrong and why those groups, states, cultures etc which promote it should be equally viewed with horror and distaste. Which is doubtless why we read you this morning proudly saying that you feel like punching an opportunistic female politician but never an opportunistic male politician, of which there are many.
It is not necessary to balance every criticism of Israel with a criticism of Islam, or Hamas or whatever.
When a man talks about inflicting violence against a woman but then claims to have been on a journey because of his distaste about why Israel has done then it is worth noting how selective his outrage is and how he has never, as far as I can see, condemned male violence against women.
I am not often here anymore but it strikes me that it the preponderance of criticism here has been against Israel rather than Iran or Hamas and there has been very little talk or reflection on or criticism of the those attacking Jews in this country which, unlike the Middle East, is something we can actually do something about.
None of my friends talked about inflicting violence on women. And I’m not sure Roger did, did he?
You are often so keen to ingratiate yourself that you make yourself appear ridiculous. Do you think anyone with half a brain would believe I was going to punch someone or even more to the point announce it if I was?
It was clearly a joke. A figure of speech. I could have said 'Write a stiff letter' but I thought it lacked impact! Though if I'd thought I was being read by such a dullard as yourself I would have been more circumspect,
The "it was only bantz" last line defence of a bigot.
A tasteless "joke" is enough to get someone cancelled.
Threatening violence against women as a joke is every bit as bad as racist, homophobic or other unacceptables.
I met up with my friends: all “centrist dads”, whether in Law, Consulting, Advertising or IT.
They are now all ferociously anti-Israel, if not actively anti-Zionist.
We seem to have been on the same journey
And yet the deliberate planned horror of the brutal rapes of women on October 7 and the female hostages kept thereafter has not led to any journey by you - or apparently @Gardenwalker's friends - reflecting on why male violence against women is wrong and why those groups, states, cultures etc which promote it should be equally viewed with horror and distaste. Which is doubtless why we read you this morning proudly saying that you feel like punching an opportunistic female politician but never an opportunistic male politician, of which there are many.
It is not necessary to balance every criticism of Israel with a criticism of Islam, or Hamas or whatever.
When a man talks about inflicting violence against a woman but then claims to have been on a journey because of his distaste about why Israel has done then it is worth noting how selective his outrage is and how he has never, as far as I can see, condemned male violence against women.
I am not often here anymore but it strikes me that it the preponderance of criticism here has been against Israel rather than Iran or Hamas and there has been very little talk or reflection on or criticism of the those attacking Jews in this country which, unlike the Middle East, is something we can actually do something about.
None of my friends talked about inflicting violence on women. And I’m not sure Roger did, did he?
You are often so keen to ingratiate yourself that you make yourself appear ridiculous. Do you think anyone with half a brain would believe I was going to punch someone or even more to the point announce it if I was?
It was clearly a joke. A figure of speech. I could have said 'Write a stiff letter' but I thought it lacked impact! Though if I'd thought I was being read by such a dullard as yourself I would have been more circumspect,
It did not read as a joke and punching a woman is not a joking matter anyway
Starmer needs to get ahead of this oil crisis. Do some unpopular stuff that people will come to appreciate and will signal this is a big deal.
Cut speed limits, mandate wfh where possible, introduce carpool lanes all over the place...
Tories and Reform will oppose on reflex and it will show he's the serious politician thinking about national interest.
Pure authoritarianism that will do nothing to fix the problems.
Serious politics means fixing what the politicians control.
The Australian Labor Government has had good ideas on this. The price of fuel is mostly tax anyway, and the fuel cost is controlled by HMG. Australia has halved fuel duty, we should do the same, or go one better and suspend it altogether.
Australia has reacted faster as they are (like the Asian counties) affected earlier, as they import a larger percentage of their oil from the Gulf.
Indeed and we don't.
So we are more protected, besides fiscally.
So this can all be solved by slashing or abolishing fuel duty.
And how would you replace the tax revenue?
The state takes billions more from drivers than it spends on roads etc, there is no shortfall there.
Drivers should pay no more for transport than the cost of their transport.
General expenditure should come from general taxation, not drivers.
So specifically which tax would you increase instead?
I would start by merging Income Tax and National Insurance so everyone is paying the same tax rate.
I would also abolish subsidies on rail fares etc.
Drivers or rail passengers should pay their own transport costs, without extra taxes or subsidies.
You are cutting taxes now with a fix that is both electoral suicide and longer term.
So again where do you raise £xbn of taxes from today to subsidies car drivers who drive a lot..
You options are really VAT or National insurance BTW as both those can be changed with about 1 months notice..
I would not subsidise car drivers. I would not excessively tax them, but that is not a subsidy.
Drivers should be paying for their cost of commuting, as should rail commuters and everyone else engaging in transport.
But that should not be filling the coffera of general taxation.
Let's try again - you want to remove tax revenue (by not taxing fuel), where are you going to increase the tax make up the shortfall you've just created?
I have said, I would rebalance the economy by merging National Insurance and Income Tax. Unearned income taxed at as high a percentage rate as salaried income.
It will also put our finances on a more stable long-term footing as fuel duty is due to be phased out, anyway.
It is also the right thing to do, to tax everyone for general taxation, not merely those driving to work who get double charged while others get off for free.
And you’ve just lost the next election by increasing income tax for pensioners by 8%.
So be it. It is the right thing to do.
It would also put our finances on a far more stable footing, and in extremis it could be implemented next Monday.
For you it’s the right thing to do / for your average pensioner that isn’t the case
Does that average pensioner require public services? Use the NHS?
Either way though, you asked where the money should come from and I have given you an answer. A plausible, viable answer that would improve our public finances not worsen it, without increasing taxes on salaried working people who are taxed enough already.
. I have heard quite a few people say that they wish Israel did not exist. But there is tumbleweed when I ask what they want done with its Jewish citizens. Unless people have an answer to that - something more realistic than kumbaya-let's-all-sing-together - then a country's destruction usually involves at a minimum ethnic cleansing and usually the killing of many of its inhabitants.
Did you give any of these "quite a few" people a chance to answer your question? Any of them at all? Points that may well have come up would have included
1. what % are citizens of other countries or hold the right to citizenship in other countries (a majority?)
2. questions of ties, e.g. birth in Palestine, recency of immigration, etc.
3. willingness to apply for Palestinian citizenship,
4. proscription of old-regime ethnic supremacist agitation , including in the context of foreign-backed terrorism and stay-behind networks,
5. comparison with French Algeria, the Confederacy, and other regimes that have been caused to cease to exist,
6. the right of return for refugees,
7. the need for humanitarian compassion,
8. truth and reconciliation.
"Tumbleweed" suggests you've never heard any of the above points raised, not even point 1.
You might find this quite interesting. It goes some way to answering your questions and is in any event interesting in itself. Have you heard of the Amelek?
Is possible to talk reasonably about Israel and Palestine?
Only if people stop insisting on one spotless victim and one pure villain.
That seems to be where half these rows go wrong. Israelis have suffered real horrors. Palestinians have suffered real horrors. Hamas are butchers. Large parts of the Israeli state response have been brutal, reckless and, in places, morally indefensible. None of that should be difficult to say, but people keep acting as though admitting one part somehow cancels the other.
The other problem is that people collapse four different arguments into one: who has suffered more, who is morally worse, who has the better historical claim, and what should actually happen now. Those are not the same question. In fact, the only one that really matters politically is the last one.
On the “right to the land” stuff, both sides have narratives that feel complete and righteous from the inside. Fine. But history does not provide a neat answer that makes millions of actual human beings disappear tidily, however tempting that may be to armchair zealots.
The slant I do think is real is that this conflict does seem to inflame and legitimise antisemitism far beyond Israel itself. Criticism of the Israeli government is plainly not the same thing as antisemitism. But it is also obvious that plenty of anti-Israel rhetoric slides very quickly into treating Jews everywhere as collectively guilty, which is just old poison in fresh packaging.
Same rule the other way round too: a synagogue in Manchester is not the IDF, and a mosque in Birmingham is not Hamas.
If people cannot keep that distinction clear, then they are not really talking about peace, justice or even politics. They are just picking a tribe and licensing hatred.
I met up with my friends: all “centrist dads”, whether in Law, Consulting, Advertising or IT.
They are now all ferociously anti-Israel, if not actively anti-Zionist.
We seem to have been on the same journey
And yet the deliberate planned horror of the brutal rapes of women on October 7 and the female hostages kept thereafter has not led to any journey by you - or apparently @Gardenwalker's friends - reflecting on why male violence against women is wrong and why those groups, states, cultures etc which promote it should be equally viewed with horror and distaste. Which is doubtless why we read you this morning proudly saying that you feel like punching an opportunistic female politician but never an opportunistic male politician, of which there are many.
It is not necessary to balance every criticism of Israel with a criticism of Islam, or Hamas or whatever.
When a man talks about inflicting violence against a woman but then claims to have been on a journey because of his distaste about why Israel has done then it is worth noting how selective his outrage is and how he has never, as far as I can see, condemned male violence against women.
I am not often here anymore but it strikes me that it the preponderance of criticism here has been against Israel rather than Iran or Hamas and there has been very little talk or reflection on or criticism of the those attacking Jews in this country which, unlike the Middle East, is something we can actually do something about.
I believe you care being unusually disingenuous. After October 7th I was in discussion on here with @Richard_Tyndall that Hamas should be punished first not by wiping out the footsoldier holed up in tunnels under Gazan hospitals but take out the Grandees in Doha. It was a long while before Netanyahu took out the Doha contingent.
The criticism certainly from me has been for the Israeli regime and certainly the hardliners, of which I consider Netanyahu to be crucial. Netanyahu like Trump has used conflict as a smokescreen for domestic existential troubles. At no point have I brushed off the wickedness of October 7th.
I would condemn criminals setting fire to ambulances in North London, shooting up synagogues in Manchester with equal measure to criminals setting fire to Holiday Inn Express hotels in Essex. Anyone going about their lawful business unhindered and in safety,whatever their creed or colour. The fact that they can't either as Jews or Muslims suggests a dereliction of duty by the authorities, and not just Central Government.
"The fact that they can't either as Jews or Muslims suggests a dereliction of duty by the authorities"
hmmm. The problem there is that, even in a total surveillance state*, you can't stop people behaving badly. All you can do is catch people after the act and try and deter the next lot.
*Drug trafficking and various other organised crimes ave flourished in the most totalitarian states the world has produced so far. As did attacks on ethnic groups, even though under the (nominal) protection of the state.
I was thinking more about curtailment of a culture that behind the cloak of free speech allows Anti-Semitic and Islamaphobic narratives. The trouble is the infection is deep inside Fleet Street and the Houses of Parliament.
OfCom stripping GBNews of its licence would be a start from one side of the coin.
If you look at the various police reports and trials, the problem is about 95% self radicalised dipshits and losers, with a smattering of state sponsorship of dipshits and losers.
While we can try and reduce the volume on the media messages that feed this, sadly, hate filled dipshits and losers are a renewable resource.
While it would be nice to eliminate it, I can't see how. We could do lots of performative measures, that would impact the minority communities concerned excessively. And would be somewhere between useless and counterproductive.
But don't you think the sad and uniformed would no be triggered by the lies of GBNews or even hard left X accounts.
I was listening to a woman years ago whose aged father was always angry after learning how hard done by he was from Fox News. She said when he moved in with them her husband disabled Fox so he had to get his 24 hour news from less unreliable sources and he was much happier.
Almost all the charges of outrageous behaviour by the Iranian government could equally be laid at the door of Saudi Arabia. Which is even less democratic. Would it be right to bomb them to achieve regime change?
I am not a great fan of the Saudi regime but Iran executed 5 times the number Saudi did in 2023 for instance and Saudi is not actively funding terrorism now against Israel and the West as Iran is
If you have time, buy "World Order" by Henry Kissinger. Chapter 3 describes the ongoing conflict between the Sunni bloc (led by Saudi Arabia) and the Shiite bloc (led by Iran), both wishing to export their brand of Islam. It's ten years old now, and Trump has remade the world, but it's still useful.
I have often, and occasionally been abused for doing so, likened the current situation in the Islamic world to that in the Western Christian one in the 16th Century, when the Catholics and Protestants were knocking lumps out of each other. And it's about as long from the founding of Islam and it was then since the founding of Christianity.
What is it about Abrahamic religions?
When you claim that you have absolute truth and that you have the only god, you possess the Unique Truth.
If you believe that not following The Truth is an attack on God*/Society, then hijinks ensue.
*I've always found this one a puzzle. The God that created the universe is big enough to take care of himself. And if omnipotent and infinitely powerful, there is no danger of collateral damage from him smiting the unbelievers. Though, I suppose, you could be worried that your nearest and dearest might wander away from The Truth, if they heard that there are other options...
I'd recommend to anybody, Europe Divided, by JH Elliot. It's a fascinating account of how reasons of State, in Sixteenth century Europe, both aligned with, and conflicted with, the religious divide.
The big Catholic powers were France and the Hapsburg monarchies, who were almost always at odds. Both sides aligned with Protestant powers, on occasion, and (in the case of France), the Ottomans. The Ottomans themselves were prepared to align with Christian powers, against their great enemy, Muslim Persia.
Muslim Persia = Iran. Which explains, perhaps, why the Iranians distrust Europeans.
I'd suggest 150 years of imperial interference by the British Empire (ie us) in Iran is more likely to be the contemporaneous reason.
Combined with the resentment that any former imperial power (which Iran was, up till 1800) feels at being denies its rightful place of hegemony.
I met up with my friends: all “centrist dads”, whether in Law, Consulting, Advertising or IT.
They are now all ferociously anti-Israel, if not actively anti-Zionist.
We seem to have been on the same journey
And yet the deliberate planned horror of the brutal rapes of women on October 7 and the female hostages kept thereafter has not led to any journey by you - or apparently @Gardenwalker's friends - reflecting on why male violence against women is wrong and why those groups, states, cultures etc which promote it should be equally viewed with horror and distaste. Which is doubtless why we read you this morning proudly saying that you feel like punching an opportunistic female politician but never an opportunistic male politician, of which there are many.
It is not necessary to balance every criticism of Israel with a criticism of Islam, or Hamas or whatever.
When a man talks about inflicting violence against a woman but then claims to have been on a journey because of his distaste about why Israel has done then it is worth noting how selective his outrage is and how he has never, as far as I can see, condemned male violence against women.
I am not often here anymore but it strikes me that it the preponderance of criticism here has been against Israel rather than Iran or Hamas and there has been very little talk or reflection on or criticism of the those attacking Jews in this country which, unlike the Middle East, is something we can actually do something about.
I believe you care being unusually disingenuous. After October 7th I was in discussion on here with @Richard_Tyndall that Hamas should be punished first not by wiping out the footsoldier holed up in tunnels under Gazan hospitals but take out the Grandees in Doha. It was a long while before Netanyahu took out the Doha contingent.
The criticism certainly from me has been for the Israeli regime and certainly the hardliners, of which I consider Netanyahu to be crucial. Netanyahu like Trump has used conflict as a smokescreen for domestic existential troubles. At no point have I brushed off the wickedness of October 7th.
I would condemn criminals setting fire to ambulances in North London, shooting up synagogues in Manchester with equal measure to criminals setting fire to Holiday Inn Express hotels in Essex. Anyone going about their lawful business unhindered and in safety,whatever their creed or colour. The fact that they can't either as Jews or Muslims suggests a dereliction of duty by the authorities, and not just Central Government.
"The fact that they can't either as Jews or Muslims suggests a dereliction of duty by the authorities"
hmmm. The problem there is that, even in a total surveillance state*, you can't stop people behaving badly. All you can do is catch people after the act and try and deter the next lot.
*Drug trafficking and various other organised crimes ave flourished in the most totalitarian states the world has produced so far. As did attacks on ethnic groups, even though under the (nominal) protection of the state.
I was thinking more about curtailment of a culture that behind the cloak of free speech allows Anti-Semitic and Islamaphobic narratives. The trouble is the infection is deep inside Fleet Street and the Houses of Parliament.
OfCom stripping GBNews of its licence would be a start from one side of the coin.
If you look at the various police reports and trials, the problem is about 95% self radicalised dipshits and losers, with a smattering of state sponsorship of dipshits and losers.
While we can try and reduce the volume on the media messages that feed this, sadly, hate filled dipshits and losers are a renewable resource.
While it would be nice to eliminate it, I can't see how. We could do lots of performative measures, that would impact the minority communities concerned excessively. And would be somewhere between useless and counterproductive.
But don't you think the sad and uniformed would no be triggered by the lies of GBNews or even hard left X accounts.
I was listening to a woman years ago whose aged father was always angry after learning how hard done by he was from Fox News. She said when he moved in with them her husband disabled Fox so he had to get his 24 hour news from less unreliable sources and he was much happier.
I’ve often wondered why anyone would choose to consume news from a place that simply provokes and enrages them.
It’s no way to live a life.
In my view this rules out, for example, the Mail, Telegraph AND the Guardian.
It's an interconnected volatile world, all countries are exposed including the US and China. Countries like the UK that are 1% of that world, can only avoid being weak by long term alliances with reliable partners. Of the top 5 parties in recent polling only Labour and the LDs pass on that criteria, with Badenoch shuffling in and out and seemingly yet to decide.
Starmer needs to get ahead of this oil crisis. Do some unpopular stuff that people will come to appreciate and will signal this is a big deal.
Cut speed limits, mandate wfh where possible, introduce carpool lanes all over the place...
Tories and Reform will oppose on reflex and it will show he's the serious politician thinking about national interest.
Pure authoritarianism that will do nothing to fix the problems.
Serious politics means fixing what the politicians control.
The Australian Labor Government has had good ideas on this. The price of fuel is mostly tax anyway, and the fuel cost is controlled by HMG. Australia has halved fuel duty, we should do the same, or go one better and suspend it altogether.
Australia has reacted faster as they are (like the Asian counties) affected earlier, as they import a larger percentage of their oil from the Gulf.
Indeed and we don't.
So we are more protected, besides fiscally.
So this can all be solved by slashing or abolishing fuel duty.
And how would you replace the tax revenue?
The state takes billions more from drivers than it spends on roads etc, there is no shortfall there.
Drivers should pay no more for transport than the cost of their transport.
General expenditure should come from general taxation, not drivers.
So specifically which tax would you increase instead?
I would start by merging Income Tax and National Insurance so everyone is paying the same tax rate.
I would also abolish subsidies on rail fares etc.
Drivers or rail passengers should pay their own transport costs, without extra taxes or subsidies.
You are cutting taxes now with a fix that is both electoral suicide and longer term.
So again where do you raise £xbn of taxes from today to subsidies car drivers who drive a lot..
You options are really VAT or National insurance BTW as both those can be changed with about 1 months notice..
I would not subsidise car drivers. I would not excessively tax them, but that is not a subsidy.
Drivers should be paying for their cost of commuting, as should rail commuters and everyone else engaging in transport.
But that should not be filling the coffera of general taxation.
Let's try again - you want to remove tax revenue (by not taxing fuel), where are you going to increase the tax make up the shortfall you've just created?
I have said, I would rebalance the economy by merging National Insurance and Income Tax. Unearned income taxed at as high a percentage rate as salaried income.
It will also put our finances on a more stable long-term footing as fuel duty is due to be phased out, anyway.
It is also the right thing to do, to tax everyone for general taxation, not merely those driving to work who get double charged while others get off for free.
And you’ve just lost the next election by increasing income tax for pensioners by 8%.
Also the introduction of computerization means that things you used to be able to do in hours can now take months - I suspect the changes you want aren’t 2 second fixes (and given how dire most payroll software providers are you need that time to avoid them screwing up)
It's hardly like they are in line to win the next election anyway.
If they accepted at this point that they are getting smashed at the next election, and ceased to care about being popular, they could go nuts and actually do all the structural reforms the country needs.
Ironically, this might be strangely popular, as lots of people (I'm one) who have written them off as a combination of fundamentally unserious and only willing to act in the interests of their client voters (public sector employees and "benefits street") might be willing to give them another look.
As always, the problem will be that their backbench idiots won't wear any meaningful reform, as they only got into politics to spend other people's money on their favored groups.
The United States of America is in serious discussions with A NEW, AND MORE REASONABLE, REGIME to end our Military Operations in Iran. Great progress has been made but, if for any reason a deal is not shortly reached, which it probably will be, and if the Hormuz Strait is not immediately "Open for Business," we will conclude our lovely "stay" in Iran by blowing up and completely obliterating all of their Electric Generating Plants, Oil Wells and Kharg Island (and possibly all desalinization plants!), which we have purposefully not yet "touched." This will be in retribution for our many soldiers, and others, that Iran has butchered and killed over the old Regime's 47 year "Reign of Terror." Thank you for your attention to this matter. President DONALD J. TRUMP
What chance the Easter rush provoking UK-wide petrol shortages? I'm thinking about evens...
Our son, his wife and 3 children leave on wednesday in their diesel campervan to do the Scotland 500 !!!!
He intends meeting family in Inverness and Wick on the way
The NC500 in a diesel campervan over Easter, during a fuel wobble, with three children onboard?
That is either a family holiday or a very ambitious resilience exercise.
More seriously, hope they have a great trip and manage it sensibly. The route is stunning, but it’s also notorious now for people treating it like a motoring theme park rather than somewhere people actually live. If they’re meeting family in Inverness and Wick they’re already doing it more like normal human beings than half the convoy.
Main thing is probably to fill up when they can, book properly, use campsites rather than random lay-bys, and remember that single track roads are not a duel.
I met up with my friends: all “centrist dads”, whether in Law, Consulting, Advertising or IT.
They are now all ferociously anti-Israel, if not actively anti-Zionist.
We seem to have been on the same journey
And yet the deliberate planned horror of the brutal rapes of women on October 7 and the female hostages kept thereafter has not led to any journey by you - or apparently @Gardenwalker's friends - reflecting on why male violence against women is wrong and why those groups, states, cultures etc which promote it should be equally viewed with horror and distaste. Which is doubtless why we read you this morning proudly saying that you feel like punching an opportunistic female politician but never an opportunistic male politician, of which there are many.
It is not necessary to balance every criticism of Israel with a criticism of Islam, or Hamas or whatever.
When a man talks about inflicting violence against a woman but then claims to have been on a journey because of his distaste about why Israel has done then it is worth noting how selective his outrage is and how he has never, as far as I can see, condemned male violence against women.
I am not often here anymore but it strikes me that it the preponderance of criticism here has been against Israel rather than Iran or Hamas and there has been very little talk or reflection on or criticism of the those attacking Jews in this country which, unlike the Middle East, is something we can actually do something about.
I believe you care being unusually disingenuous. After October 7th I was in discussion on here with @Richard_Tyndall that Hamas should be punished first not by wiping out the footsoldier holed up in tunnels under Gazan hospitals but take out the Grandees in Doha. It was a long while before Netanyahu took out the Doha contingent.
The criticism certainly from me has been for the Israeli regime and certainly the hardliners, of which I consider Netanyahu to be crucial. Netanyahu like Trump has used conflict as a smokescreen for domestic existential troubles. At no point have I brushed off the wickedness of October 7th.
I would condemn criminals setting fire to ambulances in North London, shooting up synagogues in Manchester with equal measure to criminals setting fire to Holiday Inn Express hotels in Essex. Anyone going about their lawful business unhindered and in safety,whatever their creed or colour. The fact that they can't either as Jews or Muslims suggests a dereliction of duty by the authorities, and not just Central Government.
"The fact that they can't either as Jews or Muslims suggests a dereliction of duty by the authorities"
hmmm. The problem there is that, even in a total surveillance state*, you can't stop people behaving badly. All you can do is catch people after the act and try and deter the next lot.
*Drug trafficking and various other organised crimes ave flourished in the most totalitarian states the world has produced so far. As did attacks on ethnic groups, even though under the (nominal) protection of the state.
I was thinking more about curtailment of a culture that behind the cloak of free speech allows Anti-Semitic and Islamaphobic narratives. The trouble is the infection is deep inside Fleet Street and the Houses of Parliament.
OfCom stripping GBNews of its licence would be a start from one side of the coin.
If you look at the various police reports and trials, the problem is about 95% self radicalised dipshits and losers, with a smattering of state sponsorship of dipshits and losers.
While we can try and reduce the volume on the media messages that feed this, sadly, hate filled dipshits and losers are a renewable resource.
While it would be nice to eliminate it, I can't see how. We could do lots of performative measures, that would impact the minority communities concerned excessively. And would be somewhere between useless and counterproductive.
But don't you think the sad and uniformed would no be triggered by the lies of GBNews or even hard left X accounts.
I was listening to a woman years ago whose aged father was always angry after learning how hard done by he was from Fox News. She said when he moved in with them her husband disabled Fox so he had to get his 24 hour news from less unreliable sources and he was much happier.
I’ve often wondered why anyone would choose to consume news from a place that simply provokes and enrages them.
It’s no way to live a life.
In my view this rules out, for example, the Mail, Telegraph AND the Guardian.
The Mail is excellent for celebrity news and gossip. The Telegraph is still very strong on sport. The Express on the other hand save for daily hatchet jobs on Meghan and Harry doesn't seem to have any positive function. I would avoid any editorials at all costs.
The Guardian is informative in all sorts of disciplines. Liberals tend to be more circumspect than the right. The Guardian are not shy in condemning Starmer's Government.
Starmer needs to get ahead of this oil crisis. Do some unpopular stuff that people will come to appreciate and will signal this is a big deal.
Cut speed limits, mandate wfh where possible, introduce carpool lanes all over the place...
Tories and Reform will oppose on reflex and it will show he's the serious politician thinking about national interest.
Pure authoritarianism that will do nothing to fix the problems.
Serious politics means fixing what the politicians control.
The Australian Labor Government has had good ideas on this. The price of fuel is mostly tax anyway, and the fuel cost is controlled by HMG. Australia has halved fuel duty, we should do the same, or go one better and suspend it altogether.
Australia has reacted faster as they are (like the Asian counties) affected earlier, as they import a larger percentage of their oil from the Gulf.
Indeed and we don't.
So we are more protected, besides fiscally.
So this can all be solved by slashing or abolishing fuel duty.
And how would you replace the tax revenue?
The state takes billions more from drivers than it spends on roads etc, there is no shortfall there.
Drivers should pay no more for transport than the cost of their transport.
General expenditure should come from general taxation, not drivers.
So specifically which tax would you increase instead?
I would start by merging Income Tax and National Insurance so everyone is paying the same tax rate.
I would also abolish subsidies on rail fares etc.
Drivers or rail passengers should pay their own transport costs, without extra taxes or subsidies.
You are cutting taxes now with a fix that is both electoral suicide and longer term.
So again where do you raise £xbn of taxes from today to subsidies car drivers who drive a lot..
You options are really VAT or National insurance BTW as both those can be changed with about 1 months notice..
I would not subsidise car drivers. I would not excessively tax them, but that is not a subsidy.
Drivers should be paying for their cost of commuting, as should rail commuters and everyone else engaging in transport.
But that should not be filling the coffera of general taxation.
Let's try again - you want to remove tax revenue (by not taxing fuel), where are you going to increase the tax make up the shortfall you've just created?
I have said, I would rebalance the economy by merging National Insurance and Income Tax. Unearned income taxed at as high a percentage rate as salaried income.
It will also put our finances on a more stable long-term footing as fuel duty is due to be phased out, anyway.
It is also the right thing to do, to tax everyone for general taxation, not merely those driving to work who get double charged while others get off for free.
And you’ve just lost the next election by increasing income tax for pensioners by 8%.
Also the introduction of computerization means that things you used to be able to do in hours can now take months - I suspect the changes you want aren’t 2 second fixes (and given how dire most payroll software providers are you need that time to avoid them screwing up)
It's hardly like they are in line to win the next election anyway.
If they accepted at this point that they are getting smashed at the next election, and ceased to care about being popular, they could go nuts and actually do all the structural reforms the country needs.
Ironically, this might be strangely popular, as lots of people (I'm one) who have written them off as a combination of fundamentally unserious and only willing to act in the interests of their client voters (public sector employees and "benefits street") might be willing to give them another look.
As always, the problem will be that their backbench idiots won't wear any meaningful reform, as they only got into politics to spend other people's money on their favored groups.
Absolutely agreed. And its not as if pensioners are lining up to vote Labour anyway.
Headline changes to tax rates have been implemented in the computerised era in a matter of days before. A 1 week turnaround would be unprecedentedly rapid, but it is possible, and under Parliamentary Sovereignty any change Parliament passes is the law anyway.
The simplest way to do it is to change the headline rates without affecting anything else. Set a nil rate for NICs (already not only possible but exists in all computer systems) and set the ICT rates to the merged rates.
I met up with my friends: all “centrist dads”, whether in Law, Consulting, Advertising or IT.
They are now all ferociously anti-Israel, if not actively anti-Zionist.
We seem to have been on the same journey
And yet the deliberate planned horror of the brutal rapes of women on October 7 and the female hostages kept thereafter has not led to any journey by you - or apparently @Gardenwalker's friends - reflecting on why male violence against women is wrong and why those groups, states, cultures etc which promote it should be equally viewed with horror and distaste. Which is doubtless why we read you this morning proudly saying that you feel like punching an opportunistic female politician but never an opportunistic male politician, of which there are many.
It is not necessary to balance every criticism of Israel with a criticism of Islam, or Hamas or whatever.
When a man talks about inflicting violence against a woman but then claims to have been on a journey because of his distaste about why Israel has done then it is worth noting how selective his outrage is and how he has never, as far as I can see, condemned male violence against women.
I am not often here anymore but it strikes me that it the preponderance of criticism here has been against Israel rather than Iran or Hamas and there has been very little talk or reflection on or criticism of the those attacking Jews in this country which, unlike the Middle East, is something we can actually do something about.
I believe you care being unusually disingenuous. After October 7th I was in discussion on here with @Richard_Tyndall that Hamas should be punished first not by wiping out the footsoldier holed up in tunnels under Gazan hospitals but take out the Grandees in Doha. It was a long while before Netanyahu took out the Doha contingent.
The criticism certainly from me has been for the Israeli regime and certainly the hardliners, of which I consider Netanyahu to be crucial. Netanyahu like Trump has used conflict as a smokescreen for domestic existential troubles. At no point have I brushed off the wickedness of October 7th.
I would condemn criminals setting fire to ambulances in North London, shooting up synagogues in Manchester with equal measure to criminals setting fire to Holiday Inn Express hotels in Essex. Anyone going about their lawful business unhindered and in safety,whatever their creed or colour. The fact that they can't either as Jews or Muslims suggests a dereliction of duty by the authorities, and not just Central Government.
"The fact that they can't either as Jews or Muslims suggests a dereliction of duty by the authorities"
hmmm. The problem there is that, even in a total surveillance state*, you can't stop people behaving badly. All you can do is catch people after the act and try and deter the next lot.
*Drug trafficking and various other organised crimes ave flourished in the most totalitarian states the world has produced so far. As did attacks on ethnic groups, even though under the (nominal) protection of the state.
I was thinking more about curtailment of a culture that behind the cloak of free speech allows Anti-Semitic and Islamaphobic narratives. The trouble is the infection is deep inside Fleet Street and the Houses of Parliament.
OfCom stripping GBNews of its licence would be a start from one side of the coin.
If you look at the various police reports and trials, the problem is about 95% self radicalised dipshits and losers, with a smattering of state sponsorship of dipshits and losers.
While we can try and reduce the volume on the media messages that feed this, sadly, hate filled dipshits and losers are a renewable resource.
While it would be nice to eliminate it, I can't see how. We could do lots of performative measures, that would impact the minority communities concerned excessively. And would be somewhere between useless and counterproductive.
But don't you think the sad and uniformed would no be triggered by the lies of GBNews or even hard left X accounts.
I was listening to a woman years ago whose aged father was always angry after learning how hard done by he was from Fox News. She said when he moved in with them her husband disabled Fox so he had to get his 24 hour news from less unreliable sources and he was much happier.
I’ve often wondered why anyone would choose to consume news from a place that simply provokes and enrages them.
It’s no way to live a life.
In my view this rules out, for example, the Mail, Telegraph AND the Guardian.
My gym used to have free copies of the Mail and Mail on Sunday. If I had a bit of spare time (or needed something to stuff wet running shoes) I would pick one up, but I soon noticed that reading it made me paranoid
The United States of America is in serious discussions with A NEW, AND MORE REASONABLE, REGIME to end our Military Operations in Iran. Great progress has been made but, if for any reason a deal is not shortly reached, which it probably will be, and if the Hormuz Strait is not immediately "Open for Business," we will conclude our lovely "stay" in Iran by blowing up and completely obliterating all of their Electric Generating Plants, Oil Wells and Kharg Island (and possibly all desalinization plants!), which we have purposefully not yet "touched." This will be in retribution for our many soldiers, and others, that Iran has butchered and killed over the old Regime's 47 year "Reign of Terror." Thank you for your attention to this matter. President DONALD J. TRUMP
And yet still some think that its the normals who have TDS rather than the fans of billionaire autocrats running the show on feelz, fear and division.
The United States of America is in serious discussions with A NEW, AND MORE REASONABLE, REGIME to end our Military Operations in Iran. Great progress has been made but, if for any reason a deal is not shortly reached, which it probably will be, and if the Hormuz Strait is not immediately "Open for Business," we will conclude our lovely "stay" in Iran by blowing up and completely obliterating all of their Electric Generating Plants, Oil Wells and Kharg Island (and possibly all desalinization plants!), which we have purposefully not yet "touched." This will be in retribution for our many soldiers, and others, that Iran has butchered and killed over the old Regime's 47 year "Reign of Terror." Thank you for your attention to this matter. President DONALD J. TRUMP
Do post this rubbish to confirm Trump inconsistency?
Starmer needs to get ahead of this oil crisis. Do some unpopular stuff that people will come to appreciate and will signal this is a big deal.
Cut speed limits, mandate wfh where possible, introduce carpool lanes all over the place...
Tories and Reform will oppose on reflex and it will show he's the serious politician thinking about national interest.
Pure authoritarianism that will do nothing to fix the problems.
Serious politics means fixing what the politicians control.
The Australian Labor Government has had good ideas on this. The price of fuel is mostly tax anyway, and the fuel cost is controlled by HMG. Australia has halved fuel duty, we should do the same, or go one better and suspend it altogether.
Australia has reacted faster as they are (like the Asian counties) affected earlier, as they import a larger percentage of their oil from the Gulf.
Indeed and we don't.
So we are more protected, besides fiscally.
So this can all be solved by slashing or abolishing fuel duty.
And how would you replace the tax revenue?
The state takes billions more from drivers than it spends on roads etc, there is no shortfall there.
Drivers should pay no more for transport than the cost of their transport.
General expenditure should come from general taxation, not drivers.
So specifically which tax would you increase instead?
I would start by merging Income Tax and National Insurance so everyone is paying the same tax rate.
I would also abolish subsidies on rail fares etc.
Drivers or rail passengers should pay their own transport costs, without extra taxes or subsidies.
You are cutting taxes now with a fix that is both electoral suicide and longer term.
So again where do you raise £xbn of taxes from today to subsidies car drivers who drive a lot..
You options are really VAT or National insurance BTW as both those can be changed with about 1 months notice..
I would not subsidise car drivers. I would not excessively tax them, but that is not a subsidy.
Drivers should be paying for their cost of commuting, as should rail commuters and everyone else engaging in transport.
But that should not be filling the coffera of general taxation.
Let's try again - you want to remove tax revenue (by not taxing fuel), where are you going to increase the tax make up the shortfall you've just created?
I have said, I would rebalance the economy by merging National Insurance and Income Tax. Unearned income taxed at as high a percentage rate as salaried income.
It will also put our finances on a more stable long-term footing as fuel duty is due to be phased out, anyway.
It is also the right thing to do, to tax everyone for general taxation, not merely those driving to work who get double charged while others get off for free.
And you’ve just lost the next election by increasing income tax for pensioners by 8%.
So be it. It is the right thing to do.
It would also put our finances on a far more stable footing, and in extremis it could be implemented next Monday.
Is possible to talk reasonably about Israel and Palestine?
Only if people stop insisting on one spotless victim and one pure villain.
That seems to be where half these rows go wrong. Israelis have suffered real horrors. Palestinians have suffered real horrors. Hamas are butchers. Large parts of the Israeli state response have been brutal, reckless and, in places, morally indefensible. None of that should be difficult to say, but people keep acting as though admitting one part somehow cancels the other.
The other problem is that people collapse four different arguments into one: who has suffered more, who is morally worse, who has the better historical claim, and what should actually happen now. Those are not the same question. In fact, the only one that really matters politically is the last one.
On the “right to the land” stuff, both sides have narratives that feel complete and righteous from the inside. Fine. But history does not provide a neat answer that makes millions of actual human beings disappear tidily, however tempting that may be to armchair zealots.
The slant I do think is real is that this conflict does seem to inflame and legitimise antisemitism far beyond Israel itself. Criticism of the Israeli government is plainly not the same thing as antisemitism. But it is also obvious that plenty of anti-Israel rhetoric slides very quickly into treating Jews everywhere as collectively guilty, which is just old poison in fresh packaging.
Same rule the other way round too: a synagogue in Manchester is not the IDF, and a mosque in Birmingham is not Hamas.
If people cannot keep that distinction clear, then they are not really talking about peace, justice or even politics. They are just picking a tribe and licensing hatred.
It's like suffering Villa v Wolves
The Vilers are 100% scum, the Dingles 90% scum
You back the lesser of 2 evils
Bearing in mind the lesser of two evils is still an evil.
I met up with my friends: all “centrist dads”, whether in Law, Consulting, Advertising or IT.
They are now all ferociously anti-Israel, if not actively anti-Zionist.
We seem to have been on the same journey
And yet the deliberate planned horror of the brutal rapes of women on October 7 and the female hostages kept thereafter has not led to any journey by you - or apparently @Gardenwalker's friends - reflecting on why male violence against women is wrong and why those groups, states, cultures etc which promote it should be equally viewed with horror and distaste. Which is doubtless why we read you this morning proudly saying that you feel like punching an opportunistic female politician but never an opportunistic male politician, of which there are many.
It is not necessary to balance every criticism of Israel with a criticism of Islam, or Hamas or whatever.
When a man talks about inflicting violence against a woman but then claims to have been on a journey because of his distaste about why Israel has done then it is worth noting how selective his outrage is and how he has never, as far as I can see, condemned male violence against women.
I am not often here anymore but it strikes me that it the preponderance of criticism here has been against Israel rather than Iran or Hamas and there has been very little talk or reflection on or criticism of the those attacking Jews in this country which, unlike the Middle East, is something we can actually do something about.
I believe you care being unusually disingenuous. After October 7th I was in discussion on here with @Richard_Tyndall that Hamas should be punished first not by wiping out the footsoldier holed up in tunnels under Gazan hospitals but take out the Grandees in Doha. It was a long while before Netanyahu took out the Doha contingent.
The criticism certainly from me has been for the Israeli regime and certainly the hardliners, of which I consider Netanyahu to be crucial. Netanyahu like Trump has used conflict as a smokescreen for domestic existential troubles. At no point have I brushed off the wickedness of October 7th.
I would condemn criminals setting fire to ambulances in North London, shooting up synagogues in Manchester with equal measure to criminals setting fire to Holiday Inn Express hotels in Essex. Anyone going about their lawful business unhindered and in safety,whatever their creed or colour. The fact that they can't either as Jews or Muslims suggests a dereliction of duty by the authorities, and not just Central Government.
"The fact that they can't either as Jews or Muslims suggests a dereliction of duty by the authorities"
hmmm. The problem there is that, even in a total surveillance state*, you can't stop people behaving badly. All you can do is catch people after the act and try and deter the next lot.
*Drug trafficking and various other organised crimes ave flourished in the most totalitarian states the world has produced so far. As did attacks on ethnic groups, even though under the (nominal) protection of the state.
I was thinking more about curtailment of a culture that behind the cloak of free speech allows Anti-Semitic and Islamaphobic narratives. The trouble is the infection is deep inside Fleet Street and the Houses of Parliament.
OfCom stripping GBNews of its licence would be a start from one side of the coin.
If you look at the various police reports and trials, the problem is about 95% self radicalised dipshits and losers, with a smattering of state sponsorship of dipshits and losers.
While we can try and reduce the volume on the media messages that feed this, sadly, hate filled dipshits and losers are a renewable resource.
While it would be nice to eliminate it, I can't see how. We could do lots of performative measures, that would impact the minority communities concerned excessively. And would be somewhere between useless and counterproductive.
But don't you think the sad and uniformed would no be triggered by the lies of GBNews or even hard left X accounts.
I was listening to a woman years ago whose aged father was always angry after learning how hard done by he was from Fox News. She said when he moved in with them her husband disabled Fox so he had to get his 24 hour news from less unreliable sources and he was much happier.
I’ve often wondered why anyone would choose to consume news from a place that simply provokes and enrages them.
It’s no way to live a life.
In my view this rules out, for example, the Mail, Telegraph AND the Guardian.
The Guardian is a decent source of news, and it's readable, as long as you avoid completely its opinion pages. Its editorial bias is pretty obvious, of course.
And news coverage that failed to occasionally provoke or anger would carry its own considerable bias.
Starmer needs to get ahead of this oil crisis. Do some unpopular stuff that people will come to appreciate and will signal this is a big deal.
Cut speed limits, mandate wfh where possible, introduce carpool lanes all over the place...
Tories and Reform will oppose on reflex and it will show he's the serious politician thinking about national interest.
Pure authoritarianism that will do nothing to fix the problems.
Serious politics means fixing what the politicians control.
The Australian Labor Government has had good ideas on this. The price of fuel is mostly tax anyway, and the fuel cost is controlled by HMG. Australia has halved fuel duty, we should do the same, or go one better and suspend it altogether.
Australia has reacted faster as they are (like the Asian counties) affected earlier, as they import a larger percentage of their oil from the Gulf.
Indeed and we don't.
So we are more protected, besides fiscally.
So this can all be solved by slashing or abolishing fuel duty.
And how would you replace the tax revenue?
The state takes billions more from drivers than it spends on roads etc, there is no shortfall there.
Drivers should pay no more for transport than the cost of their transport.
General expenditure should come from general taxation, not drivers.
So specifically which tax would you increase instead?
I would start by merging Income Tax and National Insurance so everyone is paying the same tax rate.
I would also abolish subsidies on rail fares etc.
Drivers or rail passengers should pay their own transport costs, without extra taxes or subsidies.
You are cutting taxes now with a fix that is both electoral suicide and longer term.
So again where do you raise £xbn of taxes from today to subsidies car drivers who drive a lot..
You options are really VAT or National insurance BTW as both those can be changed with about 1 months notice..
I would not subsidise car drivers. I would not excessively tax them, but that is not a subsidy.
Drivers should be paying for their cost of commuting, as should rail commuters and everyone else engaging in transport.
But that should not be filling the coffera of general taxation.
Let's try again - you want to remove tax revenue (by not taxing fuel), where are you going to increase the tax make up the shortfall you've just created?
I have said, I would rebalance the economy by merging National Insurance and Income Tax. Unearned income taxed at as high a percentage rate as salaried income.
It will also put our finances on a more stable long-term footing as fuel duty is due to be phased out, anyway.
It is also the right thing to do, to tax everyone for general taxation, not merely those driving to work who get double charged while others get off for free.
And you’ve just lost the next election by increasing income tax for pensioners by 8%.
Also the introduction of computerization means that things you used to be able to do in hours can now take months - I suspect the changes you want aren’t 2 second fixes (and given how dire most payroll software providers are you need that time to avoid them screwing up)
It's hardly like they are in line to win the next election anyway.
If they accepted at this point that they are getting smashed at the next election, and ceased to care about being popular, they could go nuts and actually do all the structural reforms the country needs.
Ironically, this might be strangely popular, as lots of people (I'm one) who have written them off as a combination of fundamentally unserious and only willing to act in the interests of their client voters (public sector employees and "benefits street") might be willing to give them another look.
As always, the problem will be that their backbench idiots won't wear any meaningful reform, as they only got into politics to spend other people's money on their favored groups.
Absolutely agreed. And its not as if pensioners are lining up to vote Labour anyway.
Headline changes to tax rates have been implemented in the computerised era in a matter of days before. A 1 week turnaround would be unprecedentedly rapid, but it is possible, and under Parliamentary Sovereignty any change Parliament passes is the law anyway.
The simplest way to do it is to change the headline rates without affecting anything else. Set a nil rate for NICs (already not only possible but exists in all computer systems) and set the ICT rates to the merged rates.
And set it from 6/4/2026 (ie next Monday).
Job done.
Hang on do you work with payroll software providers - because sadly that's one of the things I have to do...
Believe me there is no way they could implement that sort of change in 5 days (let alone the 2 it actually is given that this weekend has 2 bank holidays in it).
Now you are 100% correct that they should be able to do it but reality nowadays is very, very different...
I met up with my friends: all “centrist dads”, whether in Law, Consulting, Advertising or IT.
They are now all ferociously anti-Israel, if not actively anti-Zionist.
We seem to have been on the same journey
And yet the deliberate planned horror of the brutal rapes of women on October 7 and the female hostages kept thereafter has not led to any journey by you - or apparently @Gardenwalker's friends - reflecting on why male violence against women is wrong and why those groups, states, cultures etc which promote it should be equally viewed with horror and distaste. Which is doubtless why we read you this morning proudly saying that you feel like punching an opportunistic female politician but never an opportunistic male politician, of which there are many.
It is not necessary to balance every criticism of Israel with a criticism of Islam, or Hamas or whatever.
When a man talks about inflicting violence against a woman but then claims to have been on a journey because of his distaste about why Israel has done then it is worth noting how selective his outrage is and how he has never, as far as I can see, condemned male violence against women.
I am not often here anymore but it strikes me that it the preponderance of criticism here has been against Israel rather than Iran or Hamas and there has been very little talk or reflection on or criticism of the those attacking Jews in this country which, unlike the Middle East, is something we can actually do something about.
I believe you care being unusually disingenuous. After October 7th I was in discussion on here with @Richard_Tyndall that Hamas should be punished first not by wiping out the footsoldier holed up in tunnels under Gazan hospitals but take out the Grandees in Doha. It was a long while before Netanyahu took out the Doha contingent.
The criticism certainly from me has been for the Israeli regime and certainly the hardliners, of which I consider Netanyahu to be crucial. Netanyahu like Trump has used conflict as a smokescreen for domestic existential troubles. At no point have I brushed off the wickedness of October 7th.
I would condemn criminals setting fire to ambulances in North London, shooting up synagogues in Manchester with equal measure to criminals setting fire to Holiday Inn Express hotels in Essex. Anyone going about their lawful business unhindered and in safety,whatever their creed or colour. The fact that they can't either as Jews or Muslims suggests a dereliction of duty by the authorities, and not just Central Government.
"The fact that they can't either as Jews or Muslims suggests a dereliction of duty by the authorities"
hmmm. The problem there is that, even in a total surveillance state*, you can't stop people behaving badly. All you can do is catch people after the act and try and deter the next lot.
*Drug trafficking and various other organised crimes ave flourished in the most totalitarian states the world has produced so far. As did attacks on ethnic groups, even though under the (nominal) protection of the state.
I was thinking more about curtailment of a culture that behind the cloak of free speech allows Anti-Semitic and Islamaphobic narratives. The trouble is the infection is deep inside Fleet Street and the Houses of Parliament.
OfCom stripping GBNews of its licence would be a start from one side of the coin.
If you look at the various police reports and trials, the problem is about 95% self radicalised dipshits and losers, with a smattering of state sponsorship of dipshits and losers.
While we can try and reduce the volume on the media messages that feed this, sadly, hate filled dipshits and losers are a renewable resource.
While it would be nice to eliminate it, I can't see how. We could do lots of performative measures, that would impact the minority communities concerned excessively. And would be somewhere between useless and counterproductive.
But don't you think the sad and uniformed would no be triggered by the lies of GBNews or even hard left X accounts.
I was listening to a woman years ago whose aged father was always angry after learning how hard done by he was from Fox News. She said when he moved in with them her husband disabled Fox so he had to get his 24 hour news from less unreliable sources and he was much happier.
I’ve often wondered why anyone would choose to consume news from a place that simply provokes and enrages them.
It’s no way to live a life.
In my view this rules out, for example, the Mail, Telegraph AND the Guardian.
That's only if you absorb it all at Truth. Rather than - "The Guardian's view on things, the Telegraph's view on things etc"
What chance the Easter rush provoking UK-wide petrol shortages? I'm thinking about evens...
Our son, his wife and 3 children leave on wednesday in their diesel campervan to do the Scotland 500 !!!!
He intends meeting family in Inverness and Wick on the way
The NC500 in a diesel campervan over Easter, during a fuel wobble, with three children onboard?
That is either a family holiday or a very ambitious resilience exercise.
More seriously, hope they have a great trip and manage it sensibly. The route is stunning, but it’s also notorious now for people treating it like a motoring theme park rather than somewhere people actually live. If they’re meeting family in Inverness and Wick they’re already doing it more like normal human beings than half the convoy.
Main thing is probably to fill up when they can, book properly, use campsites rather than random lay-bys, and remember that single track roads are not a duel.
As he is very much into the RNLI as helm and navigator ambitious resilience is very much in his DNA
And of course with his Scots heritage he is retracing part of his Mother's time during the war in Wick
Starmer needs to get ahead of this oil crisis. Do some unpopular stuff that people will come to appreciate and will signal this is a big deal.
Cut speed limits, mandate wfh where possible, introduce carpool lanes all over the place...
Tories and Reform will oppose on reflex and it will show he's the serious politician thinking about national interest.
Pure authoritarianism that will do nothing to fix the problems.
Serious politics means fixing what the politicians control.
The Australian Labor Government has had good ideas on this. The price of fuel is mostly tax anyway, and the fuel cost is controlled by HMG. Australia has halved fuel duty, we should do the same, or go one better and suspend it altogether.
Australia has reacted faster as they are (like the Asian counties) affected earlier, as they import a larger percentage of their oil from the Gulf.
Indeed and we don't.
So we are more protected, besides fiscally.
So this can all be solved by slashing or abolishing fuel duty.
And how would you replace the tax revenue?
The state takes billions more from drivers than it spends on roads etc, there is no shortfall there.
Drivers should pay no more for transport than the cost of their transport.
General expenditure should come from general taxation, not drivers.
So specifically which tax would you increase instead?
I would start by merging Income Tax and National Insurance so everyone is paying the same tax rate.
I would also abolish subsidies on rail fares etc.
Drivers or rail passengers should pay their own transport costs, without extra taxes or subsidies.
You are cutting taxes now with a fix that is both electoral suicide and longer term.
So again where do you raise £xbn of taxes from today to subsidies car drivers who drive a lot..
You options are really VAT or National insurance BTW as both those can be changed with about 1 months notice..
I would not subsidise car drivers. I would not excessively tax them, but that is not a subsidy.
Drivers should be paying for their cost of commuting, as should rail commuters and everyone else engaging in transport.
But that should not be filling the coffera of general taxation.
Let's try again - you want to remove tax revenue (by not taxing fuel), where are you going to increase the tax make up the shortfall you've just created?
I have said, I would rebalance the economy by merging National Insurance and Income Tax. Unearned income taxed at as high a percentage rate as salaried income.
It will also put our finances on a more stable long-term footing as fuel duty is due to be phased out, anyway.
It is also the right thing to do, to tax everyone for general taxation, not merely those driving to work who get double charged while others get off for free.
And you’ve just lost the next election by increasing income tax for pensioners by 8%.
So be it. It is the right thing to do.
It would also put our finances on a far more stable footing, and in extremis it could be implemented next Monday.
For you it’s the right thing to do / for your average pensioner that isn’t the case
I’m actually inclined to agree with Bart on this on the basis he’s swapping one good tax with another good tax - they’re both unavoidable levies on something that is reasonably unelastic.
Fuel duty is highly progressive , given the consumption pattern, so you’d have to be careful about where the tax burden lands. About 65% would need to land on the top two income quintiles for a like-for-like, so adjust your income tax rates and thresholds accordingly. I think the current system would just about do it.
The other difficulty is that fuel duty also acts as a Pigou tax on negative externalities - carbon emissions, noise, energy security. Perhaps balancing it so that petrol always costs 3x per mile than off-peak electricity would work?
Starmer needs to get ahead of this oil crisis. Do some unpopular stuff that people will come to appreciate and will signal this is a big deal.
Cut speed limits, mandate wfh where possible, introduce carpool lanes all over the place...
Tories and Reform will oppose on reflex and it will show he's the serious politician thinking about national interest.
Pure authoritarianism that will do nothing to fix the problems.
Serious politics means fixing what the politicians control.
The Australian Labor Government has had good ideas on this. The price of fuel is mostly tax anyway, and the fuel cost is controlled by HMG. Australia has halved fuel duty, we should do the same, or go one better and suspend it altogether.
Australia has reacted faster as they are (like the Asian counties) affected earlier, as they import a larger percentage of their oil from the Gulf.
Indeed and we don't.
So we are more protected, besides fiscally.
So this can all be solved by slashing or abolishing fuel duty.
And how would you replace the tax revenue?
The state takes billions more from drivers than it spends on roads etc, there is no shortfall there.
Drivers should pay no more for transport than the cost of their transport.
General expenditure should come from general taxation, not drivers.
So specifically which tax would you increase instead?
I would start by merging Income Tax and National Insurance so everyone is paying the same tax rate.
I would also abolish subsidies on rail fares etc.
Drivers or rail passengers should pay their own transport costs, without extra taxes or subsidies.
You are cutting taxes now with a fix that is both electoral suicide and longer term.
So again where do you raise £xbn of taxes from today to subsidies car drivers who drive a lot..
You options are really VAT or National insurance BTW as both those can be changed with about 1 months notice..
I would not subsidise car drivers. I would not excessively tax them, but that is not a subsidy.
Drivers should be paying for their cost of commuting, as should rail commuters and everyone else engaging in transport.
But that should not be filling the coffera of general taxation.
Let's try again - you want to remove tax revenue (by not taxing fuel), where are you going to increase the tax make up the shortfall you've just created?
I have said, I would rebalance the economy by merging National Insurance and Income Tax. Unearned income taxed at as high a percentage rate as salaried income.
It will also put our finances on a more stable long-term footing as fuel duty is due to be phased out, anyway.
It is also the right thing to do, to tax everyone for general taxation, not merely those driving to work who get double charged while others get off for free.
And you’ve just lost the next election by increasing income tax for pensioners by 8%.
So be it. It is the right thing to do.
It would also put our finances on a far more stable footing, and in extremis it could be implemented next Monday.
Would you apply that to benefits recipients ?
It’s income. It’s feared lf tax and NI.
Bart has fixed the problem with his simple solution.
The technicalities that make his simple solution impractical aren't things he cares about - he's got cheaper fuel so can drive more and consume more of the very limited simply...
Starmer needs to get ahead of this oil crisis. Do some unpopular stuff that people will come to appreciate and will signal this is a big deal.
Cut speed limits, mandate wfh where possible, introduce carpool lanes all over the place...
Tories and Reform will oppose on reflex and it will show he's the serious politician thinking about national interest.
Pure authoritarianism that will do nothing to fix the problems.
Serious politics means fixing what the politicians control.
The Australian Labor Government has had good ideas on this. The price of fuel is mostly tax anyway, and the fuel cost is controlled by HMG. Australia has halved fuel duty, we should do the same, or go one better and suspend it altogether.
Australia has reacted faster as they are (like the Asian counties) affected earlier, as they import a larger percentage of their oil from the Gulf.
Indeed and we don't.
So we are more protected, besides fiscally.
So this can all be solved by slashing or abolishing fuel duty.
And how would you replace the tax revenue?
The state takes billions more from drivers than it spends on roads etc, there is no shortfall there.
Drivers should pay no more for transport than the cost of their transport.
General expenditure should come from general taxation, not drivers.
So specifically which tax would you increase instead?
I would start by merging Income Tax and National Insurance so everyone is paying the same tax rate.
I would also abolish subsidies on rail fares etc.
Drivers or rail passengers should pay their own transport costs, without extra taxes or subsidies.
You are cutting taxes now with a fix that is both electoral suicide and longer term.
So again where do you raise £xbn of taxes from today to subsidies car drivers who drive a lot..
You options are really VAT or National insurance BTW as both those can be changed with about 1 months notice..
I would not subsidise car drivers. I would not excessively tax them, but that is not a subsidy.
Drivers should be paying for their cost of commuting, as should rail commuters and everyone else engaging in transport.
But that should not be filling the coffera of general taxation.
Let's try again - you want to remove tax revenue (by not taxing fuel), where are you going to increase the tax make up the shortfall you've just created?
I have said, I would rebalance the economy by merging National Insurance and Income Tax. Unearned income taxed at as high a percentage rate as salaried income.
It will also put our finances on a more stable long-term footing as fuel duty is due to be phased out, anyway.
It is also the right thing to do, to tax everyone for general taxation, not merely those driving to work who get double charged while others get off for free.
And you’ve just lost the next election by increasing income tax for pensioners by 8%.
So be it. It is the right thing to do.
It would also put our finances on a far more stable footing, and in extremis it could be implemented next Monday.
For you it’s the right thing to do / for your average pensioner that isn’t the case
I’m actually inclined to agree with Bart on this on the basis he’s swapping one good tax with another good tax - they’re both unavoidable levies on something that is reasonably unelastic.
Fuel duty is highly progressive , given the consumption pattern, so you’d have to be careful about where the tax burden lands. About 65% would need to land on the top two income quintiles for a like-for-like, so adjust your income tax rates and thresholds accordingly.
The other difficulty is that fuel duty also acts as a Pigou tax on negative externalities - carbon emissions, noise, energy security. Perhaps balancing it so that petrol always costs 3x per mile than off-peak electricity would work?
Being able to charge an EV on a driveway tends towards people with higher incomes.
All the other charging options are vastly more expensive.
Starmer needs to get ahead of this oil crisis. Do some unpopular stuff that people will come to appreciate and will signal this is a big deal.
Cut speed limits, mandate wfh where possible, introduce carpool lanes all over the place...
Tories and Reform will oppose on reflex and it will show he's the serious politician thinking about national interest.
Pure authoritarianism that will do nothing to fix the problems.
Serious politics means fixing what the politicians control.
The Australian Labor Government has had good ideas on this. The price of fuel is mostly tax anyway, and the fuel cost is controlled by HMG. Australia has halved fuel duty, we should do the same, or go one better and suspend it altogether.
Australia has reacted faster as they are (like the Asian counties) affected earlier, as they import a larger percentage of their oil from the Gulf.
Indeed and we don't.
So we are more protected, besides fiscally.
So this can all be solved by slashing or abolishing fuel duty.
And how would you replace the tax revenue?
The state takes billions more from drivers than it spends on roads etc, there is no shortfall there.
Drivers should pay no more for transport than the cost of their transport.
General expenditure should come from general taxation, not drivers.
So specifically which tax would you increase instead?
I would start by merging Income Tax and National Insurance so everyone is paying the same tax rate.
I would also abolish subsidies on rail fares etc.
Drivers or rail passengers should pay their own transport costs, without extra taxes or subsidies.
You are cutting taxes now with a fix that is both electoral suicide and longer term.
So again where do you raise £xbn of taxes from today to subsidies car drivers who drive a lot..
You options are really VAT or National insurance BTW as both those can be changed with about 1 months notice..
I would not subsidise car drivers. I would not excessively tax them, but that is not a subsidy.
Drivers should be paying for their cost of commuting, as should rail commuters and everyone else engaging in transport.
But that should not be filling the coffera of general taxation.
Let's try again - you want to remove tax revenue (by not taxing fuel), where are you going to increase the tax make up the shortfall you've just created?
I have said, I would rebalance the economy by merging National Insurance and Income Tax. Unearned income taxed at as high a percentage rate as salaried income.
It will also put our finances on a more stable long-term footing as fuel duty is due to be phased out, anyway.
It is also the right thing to do, to tax everyone for general taxation, not merely those driving to work who get double charged while others get off for free.
And you’ve just lost the next election by increasing income tax for pensioners by 8%.
So be it. It is the right thing to do.
It would also put our finances on a far more stable footing, and in extremis it could be implemented next Monday.
Would you apply that to benefits recipients ?
It’s income. It’s feared lf tax and NI.
Bart has fixed the problem with his simple solution.
The technicalities that make his simple solution impractical aren't things he cares about - he's got cheaper fuel so can drive more and consume more of the very limited simply...
It would be sensible (politically) to protect basic rate pensioners (under 50k income) by having a separate rate of the combined IT and NI for pensioners. Equal to the old rate.
So, at least initially, basic rate tax paying pensioners would pay no more than they do now.
Starmer needs to get ahead of this oil crisis. Do some unpopular stuff that people will come to appreciate and will signal this is a big deal.
Cut speed limits, mandate wfh where possible, introduce carpool lanes all over the place...
Tories and Reform will oppose on reflex and it will show he's the serious politician thinking about national interest.
Pure authoritarianism that will do nothing to fix the problems.
Serious politics means fixing what the politicians control.
The Australian Labor Government has had good ideas on this. The price of fuel is mostly tax anyway, and the fuel cost is controlled by HMG. Australia has halved fuel duty, we should do the same, or go one better and suspend it altogether.
Australia has reacted faster as they are (like the Asian counties) affected earlier, as they import a larger percentage of their oil from the Gulf.
Indeed and we don't.
So we are more protected, besides fiscally.
So this can all be solved by slashing or abolishing fuel duty.
And how would you replace the tax revenue?
The state takes billions more from drivers than it spends on roads etc, there is no shortfall there.
Drivers should pay no more for transport than the cost of their transport.
General expenditure should come from general taxation, not drivers.
So specifically which tax would you increase instead?
I would start by merging Income Tax and National Insurance so everyone is paying the same tax rate.
I would also abolish subsidies on rail fares etc.
Drivers or rail passengers should pay their own transport costs, without extra taxes or subsidies.
You are cutting taxes now with a fix that is both electoral suicide and longer term.
So again where do you raise £xbn of taxes from today to subsidies car drivers who drive a lot..
You options are really VAT or National insurance BTW as both those can be changed with about 1 months notice..
I would not subsidise car drivers. I would not excessively tax them, but that is not a subsidy.
Drivers should be paying for their cost of commuting, as should rail commuters and everyone else engaging in transport.
But that should not be filling the coffera of general taxation.
Let's try again - you want to remove tax revenue (by not taxing fuel), where are you going to increase the tax make up the shortfall you've just created?
I have said, I would rebalance the economy by merging National Insurance and Income Tax. Unearned income taxed at as high a percentage rate as salaried income.
It will also put our finances on a more stable long-term footing as fuel duty is due to be phased out, anyway.
It is also the right thing to do, to tax everyone for general taxation, not merely those driving to work who get double charged while others get off for free.
And you’ve just lost the next election by increasing income tax for pensioners by 8%.
So be it. It is the right thing to do.
It would also put our finances on a far more stable footing, and in extremis it could be implemented next Monday.
Would you apply that to benefits recipients ?
It’s income. It’s feared lf tax and NI.
Bart has fixed the problem with his simple solution.
The technicalities that make his simple solution impractical aren't things he cares about - he's got cheaper fuel so can drive more and consume more of the very limited simply...
Starmer needs to get ahead of this oil crisis. Do some unpopular stuff that people will come to appreciate and will signal this is a big deal.
Cut speed limits, mandate wfh where possible, introduce carpool lanes all over the place...
Tories and Reform will oppose on reflex and it will show he's the serious politician thinking about national interest.
Pure authoritarianism that will do nothing to fix the problems.
Serious politics means fixing what the politicians control.
The Australian Labor Government has had good ideas on this. The price of fuel is mostly tax anyway, and the fuel cost is controlled by HMG. Australia has halved fuel duty, we should do the same, or go one better and suspend it altogether.
Australia has reacted faster as they are (like the Asian counties) affected earlier, as they import a larger percentage of their oil from the Gulf.
Indeed and we don't.
So we are more protected, besides fiscally.
So this can all be solved by slashing or abolishing fuel duty.
And how would you replace the tax revenue?
The state takes billions more from drivers than it spends on roads etc, there is no shortfall there.
Drivers should pay no more for transport than the cost of their transport.
General expenditure should come from general taxation, not drivers.
So specifically which tax would you increase instead?
I would start by merging Income Tax and National Insurance so everyone is paying the same tax rate.
I would also abolish subsidies on rail fares etc.
Drivers or rail passengers should pay their own transport costs, without extra taxes or subsidies.
You are cutting taxes now with a fix that is both electoral suicide and longer term.
So again where do you raise £xbn of taxes from today to subsidies car drivers who drive a lot..
You options are really VAT or National insurance BTW as both those can be changed with about 1 months notice..
I would not subsidise car drivers. I would not excessively tax them, but that is not a subsidy.
Drivers should be paying for their cost of commuting, as should rail commuters and everyone else engaging in transport.
But that should not be filling the coffera of general taxation.
Let's try again - you want to remove tax revenue (by not taxing fuel), where are you going to increase the tax make up the shortfall you've just created?
I have said, I would rebalance the economy by merging National Insurance and Income Tax. Unearned income taxed at as high a percentage rate as salaried income.
It will also put our finances on a more stable long-term footing as fuel duty is due to be phased out, anyway.
It is also the right thing to do, to tax everyone for general taxation, not merely those driving to work who get double charged while others get off for free.
And you’ve just lost the next election by increasing income tax for pensioners by 8%.
So be it. It is the right thing to do.
It would also put our finances on a far more stable footing, and in extremis it could be implemented next Monday.
Would you apply that to benefits recipients ?
It’s income. It’s feared lf tax and NI.
In the short term, yes, any benefits that face income tax but not NICs would face the combined rate under my proposal.
In the longer term I would merge benefits and tax, but that could not be done in days, unlike changing headline rates.
Comments
Whereas, in much of the rest of the world, warfare, and extremely violent civil conflict, is almost normative.
Perhaps you are
I will msg you when I am returning.
We could meet “half way” in the Surrey DMZ.
Three days ago you taliked about the burning of the Hatzola ambulences. An outrage but not a word about the demonstrator who was a Metropolitan police officer who turns out to be a Tommy Robinson follower. The one who told the AlJazeera reporter 'to disappear'. I would have thought that would be right up your street. Corruption in the Met?
I know you try very hard to get as close to Jews as you can. You've claimed in the past that there are Jews in your family-quite unusual and I'd be interested to know how that came about- but that's no good reason to leave your humanity behind and believe that you have to support everything Netanyahu does like he's captain of your football team. Therer are other connected things going on. Incidentally you don't seem to be aware that there is quite a thriving Jewish community in Iran and several functioning synagogues
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k9fuSOPjSXM
..Esmaeil Baqaei, spokesperson for the Iranian foreign ministry, has reaffirmed that Iran has not had any direct negotiations with the US, in comments carried by the Tasnim news agency.
“What has been discussed are messages we received through intermediaries stating that the US wants to negotiate,” he was quoted as having said.
“Iran has been clear about its position from the beginning, and we know very well what the framework is that we are considering. The material conveyed to us has been excessive and unreasonable requests.”..
God-tier crisps (or perhaps, strictly, potato snacks).
Previously, IRGC tried to recruit criminals to attack an Iranian opposition TV station in London - https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/nov/19/armed-police-guard-iranian-tv-studios-in-london-after-tehran-threats
For months after that, there was high security at the entrance to business park - concrete road blocks and private security checking stuff.
That said - I dont think its the responsibility of govt to mitigate every global shock. We need people to adapt their behavior also. That was one of Liz Truss' many mistakes.
Spain, a Nato member, has closed its airspace to US planes involved in attacks on Iran, the country’s defence minister, Margarita Robles, told reporters in Madrid this morning.
“We don’t authorise either the use of military bases or the use of airspace for actions related to the war in Iran,” she said.
Spanish newspaper El Pais, which first reported the news on Monday, said the closure of the airspace forces military planes to bypass Spain en route to their targets in the Middle East, but it does not include emergency situations, in which case the aircraft will be permitted to transit or land.
“We have denied the United States the use of the Rota and Morón bases for this illegal war. All flight plans involving operations in Iran have been rejected. All of them, including those for refuelling aircraft,” Spanish prime minister Pedro Sánchez, a vocal critic of the US-Israeli war on Iran, was quoted as having said last Wednesday in Congress...
.. “my favourite thing is to take the oil in Iran, but some stupid people back in the US say: ‘why are you doing that?’” He also said: “Maybe we take Kharg Island, maybe we don’t. We have a lot of options.”..
If you believe that not following The Truth is an attack on God*/Society, then hijinks ensue.
*I've always found this one a puzzle. The God that created the universe is big enough to take care of himself. And if omnipotent and infinitely powerful, there is no danger of collateral damage from him smiting the unbelievers. Though, I suppose, you could be worried that your nearest and dearest might wander away from The Truth, if they heard that there are other options...
I'm assuming Moron base was where this War was planned from.
The criticism certainly from me has been for the Israeli regime and certainly the hardliners, of which I consider Netanyahu to be crucial. Netanyahu like Trump has used conflict as a smokescreen for domestic existential troubles. At no point have I brushed off the wickedness of October 7th. When Hamas were useful idiots to Bibi, he funded their activities covertly.
I would condemn criminals setting fire to ambulances in North London, shooting up synagogues in Manchester with equal measure to criminals setting fire to Holiday Inn Express hotels in Essex. Anyone going about their lawful business unhindered and in safety,whatever their creed or colour. The fact that they can't either as Jews or Muslims, suggests a dereliction of duty by the authorities, and not just Central Government.
The big Catholic powers were France and the Hapsburg monarchies, who were almost always at odds. Both sides aligned with Protestant powers, on occasion, and (in the case of France), the Ottomans. The Ottomans themselves were prepared to align with Christian powers, against their great enemy, Muslim Persia.
hmmm. The problem there is that, even in a total surveillance state*, you can't stop people behaving badly. All you can do is catch people after the act and try and deter the next lot.
*Drug trafficking and various other organised crimes ave flourished in the most totalitarian states the world has produced so far. As did attacks on ethnic groups, even though under the (nominal) protection of the state.
1. what % are citizens of other countries or hold the right to citizenship in other countries (a majority?)
2. questions of ties, e.g. birth in Palestine, recency of immigration, etc.
3. willingness to apply for Palestinian citizenship,
4. proscription of old-regime ethnic supremacist agitation , including in the context of foreign-backed terrorism and stay-behind networks,
5. comparison with French Algeria, the Confederacy, and other regimes that have been caused to cease to exist,
6. the right of return for refugees,
7. the need for humanitarian compassion,
8. truth and reconciliation.
"Tumbleweed" suggests you've never heard any of the above points raised, not even point 1.
Whybsaybthat. Either tell all or say nothing.
OfCom stripping GBNews of its licence would be a start from one side of the coin.
Now that may just be until a delivery later today / this week but I suspect we will see it again next weekend as well.
Drivers should be paying for their cost of commuting, as should rail commuters and everyone else engaging in transport.
But that should not be filling the coffera of general taxation.
Let's make Jeremy Vine and Paddy McGuiness next.
Tina Deheney is always excellent when standing in for Vine on R2
(For those amongst us looking to fill their homes with aged items, I did discover that at Hemswell they have Europe's larget antiques centre, in an old Bomber Command base about 12 miles north of Lincoln. If it is of interest to any here, allow yourself all day. And the next day.
https://www.hemswell-antiques.com/ )
It will also put our finances on a more stable long-term footing as fuel duty is due to be phased out, anyway.
It is also the right thing to do, to tax everyone for general taxation, not merely those driving to work who get double charged while others get off for free.
Without being especially biased against Islam, they came very close to destroying the Islamic world. The degree of massacre across Muslim Central Asia, Iran, and what is now Iraq and Syria, was off the scale.
That was on top of killing, or driving away, two thirds of the population of Northern China, between 1211-41.
While we can try and reduce the volume on the media messages that feed this, sadly, hate filled dipshits and losers are a renewable resource.
While it would be nice to eliminate it, I can't see how. We could do lots of performative measures, that would impact the minority communities concerned excessively. And would be somewhere between useless and counterproductive.
"Starmer: Greens would leave Britain weak and exposed"
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2026/03/30/politics-latest-news-keir-starmer-local-election-launch/
If they wanted to, then the Chancellor could come to Parliament today and pass a resolution that:
1. Set NIC tax rates to nil.
2. Set ICT tax rates to the combined rate.
3. Slashed fuel duty.
And this could all be implemented as of the next tax year. Ie Monday of next week.
It would make a number of people unhappy, but it is absolutely possible.
Also the introduction of computerization means that things you used to be able to do in hours can now take months - I suspect the changes you want aren’t 2 second fixes (and given how dire most payroll software providers are you need that time to avoid them screwing up)
It was clearly a joke. A figure of speech. I could have said 'Write a stiff letter' but I thought it lacked impact! Though if I'd thought I was being read by such a dullard as yourself I would have been more circumspect,
It would also put our finances on a far more stable footing, and in extremis it could be implemented next Monday.
Only if people stop insisting on one spotless victim and one pure villain.
That seems to be where half these rows go wrong. Israelis have suffered real horrors. Palestinians have suffered real horrors. Hamas are butchers. Large parts of the Israeli state response have been brutal, reckless and, in places, morally indefensible. None of that should be difficult to say, but people keep acting as though admitting one part somehow cancels the other.
The other problem is that people collapse four different arguments into one: who has suffered more, who is morally worse, who has the better historical claim, and what should actually happen now. Those are not the same question. In fact, the only one that really matters politically is the last one.
On the “right to the land” stuff, both sides have narratives that feel complete and righteous from the inside. Fine. But history does not provide a neat answer that makes millions of actual human beings disappear tidily, however tempting that may be to armchair zealots.
The slant I do think is real is that this conflict does seem to inflame and legitimise antisemitism far beyond Israel itself. Criticism of the Israeli government is plainly not the same thing as antisemitism. But it is also obvious that plenty of anti-Israel rhetoric slides very quickly into treating Jews everywhere as collectively guilty, which is just old poison in fresh packaging.
Same rule the other way round too: a synagogue in Manchester is not the IDF, and a mosque in Birmingham is not Hamas.
If people cannot keep that distinction clear, then they are not really talking about peace, justice or even politics. They are just picking a tribe and licensing hatred.
A tasteless "joke" is enough to get someone cancelled.
Threatening violence against women as a joke is every bit as bad as racist, homophobic or other unacceptables.
(This one is members only)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ijQY8A-N7Vc
Either way though, you asked where the money should come from and I have given you an answer. A plausible, viable answer that would improve our public finances not worsen it, without increasing taxes on salaried working people who are taxed enough already.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=rabbi+talks+about+amelek#fpstate=ive&vld=cid:9579df99,vid:Td23chkYKzM,st:0
The Vilers are 100% scum, the Dingles 90% scum
You back the lesser of 2 evils
*TRUMP SAYS 'GREAT PROGRESS' MADE IN TALKS WITH IRAN
*TRUMP THREATENS IRAN ENERGY SITES IF HORMUZ STAYS CLOSED
From https://x.com/zerohedge/status/2038583746513789418
Which seems to imply that the first line isn't true and Iran's statement that they aren't talking to the USA is probably correct...
I was listening to a woman years ago whose aged father was always angry after learning how hard done by he was from Fox News. She said when he moved in with them her husband disabled Fox so he had to get his 24 hour news from less unreliable sources and he was much happier.
He intends meeting family in Inverness and Wick on the way
It’s no way to live a life.
In my view this rules out, for example, the Mail, Telegraph AND the Guardian.
He's wrong. I am looking forward to the free love and dancing around a pentangle thanking pagan gods for their environmental awareness.
If they accepted at this point that they are getting smashed at the next election, and ceased to care about being popular, they could go nuts and actually do all the structural reforms the country needs.
Ironically, this might be strangely popular, as lots of people (I'm one) who have written them off as a combination of fundamentally unserious and only willing to act in the interests of their client voters (public sector employees and "benefits street") might be willing to give them another look.
As always, the problem will be that their backbench idiots won't wear any meaningful reform, as they only got into politics to spend other people's money on their favored groups.
The United States of America is in serious discussions with A NEW, AND MORE REASONABLE, REGIME to end our Military Operations in Iran. Great progress has been made but, if for any reason a deal is not shortly reached, which it probably will be, and if the Hormuz Strait
is not immediately "Open for Business," we will conclude our lovely "stay" in Iran by blowing up and completely obliterating all of their Electric Generating Plants, Oil Wells and Kharg Island (and possibly all desalinization plants!), which we have purposefully not yet "touched." This will be in retribution for our many soldiers, and others, that Iran has butchered and killed over the old Regime's 47 year "Reign of Terror." Thank you for your attention to this matter. President DONALD J. TRUMP
That is either a family holiday or a very ambitious resilience exercise.
More seriously, hope they have a great trip and manage it sensibly. The route is stunning, but it’s also notorious now for people treating it like a motoring theme park rather than somewhere people actually live. If they’re meeting family in Inverness and Wick they’re already doing it more like normal human beings than half the convoy.
Main thing is probably to fill up when they can, book properly, use campsites rather than random lay-bys, and remember that single track roads are not a duel.
The Guardian is informative in all sorts of disciplines. Liberals tend to be more circumspect than the right. The Guardian are not shy in condemning Starmer's Government.
Headline changes to tax rates have been implemented in the computerised era in a matter of days before. A 1 week turnaround would be unprecedentedly rapid, but it is possible, and under Parliamentary Sovereignty any change Parliament passes is the law anyway.
The simplest way to do it is to change the headline rates without affecting anything else. Set a nil rate for NICs (already not only possible but exists in all computer systems) and set the ICT rates to the merged rates.
And set it from 6/4/2026 (ie next Monday).
Job done.
It’s income. It’s feared lf tax and NI.
Its editorial bias is pretty obvious, of course.
And news coverage that failed to occasionally provoke or anger would carry its own considerable bias.
Interesting the ad meeting that decided that approach.
Believe me there is no way they could implement that sort of change in 5 days (let alone the 2 it actually is given that this weekend has 2 bank holidays in it).
Now you are 100% correct that they should be able to do it but reality nowadays is very, very different...
And of course with his Scots heritage he is retracing part of his Mother's time during the war in Wick
Fuel duty is highly progressive , given the consumption pattern, so you’d have to be careful about where the tax burden lands. About 65% would need to land on the top two income quintiles for a like-for-like, so adjust your income tax rates and thresholds accordingly. I think the current system would just about do it.
The other difficulty is that fuel duty also acts as a Pigou tax on negative externalities - carbon emissions, noise, energy security. Perhaps balancing it so that petrol always costs 3x per mile than off-peak electricity would work?
I was already in love with Project Hail Mary and then a prop from Power of the Daleks turned up.
https://x.com/themindrobber/status/2038556311890096325
The technicalities that make his simple solution impractical aren't things he cares about - he's got cheaper fuel so can drive more and consume more of the very limited simply...
@thelibbojack.bsky.social
Is the world really going to have to suffer WW3 because the USA can’t impeach a president?
All the other charging options are vastly more expensive.
I do follow Gav on Twitter but hadn’t seen this.
If only FiF could find the real episodes
So, at least initially, basic rate tax paying pensioners would pay no more than they do now.
In the longer term I would merge benefits and tax, but that could not be done in days, unlike changing headline rates.