Feck, I hate it when we import so much grief from the rest of the world, whether it is either the Jews or the Palestinians in Gaza, or anyone at all in the Punjab. These are not our problems.
There was a time when we were the world's policeman, when we ruled the waves and saw all of these conflicts through the prism of our interests but that was pre WW2. Right now we want to stay out of these fights. No one really gives a toss what we think and why should they?
We need to get real. We have minimal influence these days. Stay out of it. We have plenty of problems of our own.
There's a difference between accepting that the UK is not a superpower (and has not been for a very long time), and thinking it should not be a significant power at all. We are still a very large country (somewhere around 20th in terms of population) with a sizable economy. We cannot and should not get involved in many situations, we should be very discerning about where and how we do, but we have the capability to make that a choice, if we think it in our interests, and abandoning the ability to have any influence at all in that regard would be a mistake.
If anything I don't think the problem today is that the public think we are more powerful than we are and try to do too much, but that we don't think we can do anything at all.
Politicians, on the other hand, worry that the public will criticise them for being unambitious if they say we cannot do things, and so try to do too much whilst spending like we can do nothing. That disharmony then pisses people off.
I think you are still deluding yourself about our capacity to change things around the world. We simply can't. Our political class look to express their morals and interests but it is demonstrative and frankly irrelevant.
I am appalled by Israeli brutality in Gaza and the West Bank, I loathe the murderous fanaticism of the Iranian regime, I am disgusted by the cruel brutality of Russia in the Ukraine and many, many others. But so what? No one gives a damn what we think, we don't have the power or the moral authority to assert our views and they are irrelevant anyway.
But I really do care when this hatred is let loose on our streets.
... with even Maureen Lipman saying this week she would vote for Kemi...
Dame Maureen has got close relatives in Israel and she's said in the past about how scared she is for them given the constant missile bombardment. Under Badenoch the Conservatives are solidly pro-Israel (I think - somebody correct me if wrong) and Labour under Burnham is lukewarm, so she has a valid reason for the switch.
Indeed, its sad to see the pro Hamas turn many in Labour have taken. Good to see principled lefties like Maureen take a stance.
It's not pro Hamas, it's anti genocidal, racist Israeli government
Barty seems to process scepticism of the Netanyahu Government as a pro Hamas narrative. Maybe Maureen Lipman is similarly minded.
I support the Israeli opposition that wants to see the corrupt Netanyahu be replaced, but be just as hardline at defeating Hamas.
The problem with Netanyahu is that he is (a) corrupt and (b) been too soft on Hamas.
Not that he has been too hard on them.
No, the problem is that Netanyahu's two goals, defeating Hamas and changing the regime in Iran, are and always were utterly unrealistic.
Israel simply cannot wipe out Hamas while the Palestinians' political grievances remain unaddressed. It has had limited military successes, but at the cost of further entrenching political support for Hames in Gaza.
And the war to overthrow the Iranian regime has been a total and utter failure - in fact, completely counter-productive because it has allowed the Iranian regime to clamp down on the opposition at home even more thoroughly.
All Netanyahu's strategy has achieved is to strengthen his enemies politically, ruin Israel's standing abroad and trap it in a never-ending cycle of war and atrocity.
It's the definition of a futile dead end.
From that point of view, at least, Netanyahu and Putin are twins.
That's quite a defeatist and nihilistic attitude.
It is absolutely possible to militarily defeat evil terrorists and fascist regimes like Hamas and Iran. There is plenty of precedence for doing so like defeating the Tamil Tigers and the Nazis and Imperial Japan.
What is needed is Total War until they are defeated and surrender unconditionally.
The problem is that Trump especially has been weak and chickened out, and Netanyahu has also been pulling his punches.
Israel needs to get more aggressive than it is and end the cycle of violence by eliminating the enemies.
Somewhat amazingly I find myself wanting to steer you back to the light comedy of the Laffer curve.
Barty is an absolutist. Even when it comes to killing civilians by the tens of thousands ... so long as it's done by the 'good guys'.
That is a fair comment.
I hold to the standards that what we did in WWII was right and that is the standard that Ukraine and Israel and other 'good guys' should operate to today.
Anything we did to defeat the Nazis was right and proper and legitimate for either Israel or Ukraine to do today.
War is hell and civilians die in it which is why it should be a last resort, but if you are in that last resort then you better bloody win.
Feck, I hate it when we import so much grief from the rest of the world, whether it is either the Jews or the Palestinians in Gaza, or anyone at all in the Punjab. These are not our problems.
There was a time when we were the world's policeman, when we ruled the waves and saw all of these conflicts through the prism of our interests but that was pre WW2. Right now we want to stay out of these fights. No one really gives a toss what we think and why should they?
We need to get real. We have minimal influence these days. Stay out of it. We have plenty of problems of our own.
There's a difference between accepting that the UK is not a superpower (and has not been for a very long time), and thinking it should not be a significant power at all. We are still a very large country (somewhere around 20th in terms of population) with a sizable economy. We cannot and should not get involved in many situations, we should be very discerning about where and how we do, but we have the capability to make that a choice, if we think it in our interests, and abandoning the ability to have any influence at all in that regard would be a mistake.
If anything I don't think the problem today is that the public think we are more powerful than we are and try to do too much, but that we don't think we can do anything at all.
Politicians, on the other hand, worry that the public will criticise them for being unambitious if they say we cannot do things, and so try to do too much whilst spending like we can do nothing. That disharmony then pisses people off.
I think you are still deluding yourself about our capacity to change things around the world. We simply can't. Our political class look to express their morals and interests but it is demonstrative and frankly irrelevant.
I am appalled by Israeli brutality in Gaza and the West Bank, I loathe the murderous fanaticism of the Iranian regime, I am disgusted by the cruel brutality of Russia in the Ukraine and many, many others. But so what? No one gives a damn what we think, we don't have the power or the moral authority to assert our views and they are irrelevant anyway.
But I really do care when this hatred is let loose on our streets.
There is little we can do besides standing behind our allies and supporting them to be victorious.
On topic - I'm expecting an earlier election simply because there is a risk of Reform imploding so holding an election as it implodes rather than after it's gone would be the sensible approach...
So I wouldn't 100% rule out 2027 as the sane choice.
What's striking is that no one is calling for an early election, in complete contrast to the last three or four times that the PM changed mid term.
Lots of reasons of course but the main one is that no one actually wants one right now. Reform would have a year ago but are on the slide. The Tories are basically nowhere. The greens are fading as their leaders balloon has burst on the twin boobs of failing to obey the law and actual scrutiny. The lib dems have made no impression on moving their vote share despite the government travails.
So no one wants an early election.
Shows just how cynical all those who repeatedly called for them in previous times were.
One of the reasons I am told that the Tories aren't keen on fighting a snap election is that they don't have a pot to piss in at the moment and they have to run a full campaign for the Greater Manchester Mayoral campaign which is expensive.
Also candidate selection, the other issue that some people are on the Tory candidate list who are also looking to join Reform....
I bet they regret returning £15m to Frank 'Dianne Abbott should be shot' Hester.
They did return it, didn't they?
Oh.
'Diane Abbott row: Tory minister says they'd take more cash from donor Frank Hester'
So Kemi's claims she has raised millions are about as accurate as her claims when she was in charge of International Trade and signed dozens of deals on worse terms!
I think on this occasion Burnham is wise not to be anything but form on the date.
The Country is sick and tired of the churn and short termism.
If he goes is 229 he can go with a message of stability and a manifesto for 5 -10 years with hopefully a degree of trust.
Farage I doubt will be the threat he still is, Tories will desperately need to wake up and realise the centre round is where they should be and not hard right where they are being taken. If there is an exodus of Tories it is more likely to be to LD's in strategically plausible incumbent hold deats across the South and Home Counties. Tories who are pro EU and pro renewables.
'Tories who are pro EU and pro renewables' have a ready made home in the Lib Dems
@HYUFD who is the best one to listen to on the conservative party, though we have our disagreements, has already made this point not least because the conservative party will not re-join the EU and wants to ameliorate the cost of domestic bills by reducing the climate change levies by £200 pa. Also open up the North Sea which seems to be likely now.
The ECHR is a problem across Europe with individual EU countries seeking to exclude immigration from their remit, and even introduce Rwanda style schemes
You have a 'bee in your bonnet' about Kemi but look at her polling and approval rates and note that she and Andy Burnham are the only leaders with positive ratings
The next 12 months will be the Andy v Kemi show, not least because Kemi is the leader of the opposition, and it promises to be interesting
So are you happy for her to basically deselect or refuse to select Politicians who are in support of net zero or some form of renewable POlicy or are in support of the basic tenets and vast majority of EHCR guidelines.
Are you happy for very good people like Street and Davison walk away?
Kemi is creating a new conservative party and yes, if they do not support her policies why would she allow them to stand ?
Because without a broad centre right coalition including the intelligent and thoughtful One Nation party it is impossible for the Tories to win 325 seats would be a top reason and quite enough for now.
You mean pro EU and net zero then one nation
One Nation will do fine thanks. It is worth noting that Labour, currently the government and likely to still be after the next election, are stuffed full of MPs and members who are pro EU but don't have now, or any plan to have, a policy of rejoining the EU.
As to net zero, most UK politicians don't accept that climate change caused by CO2 is a hoax. SFAICS it isn't even Reform policy as such. I don't think Kemi has said it's all a big lie. The policy of CO2 emissions is all about timing and bilateral movement with other emitters, not about principle.
Badenoch doesn't own the Conservative Party in the way Farage owns Reform. It belongs to the members who share the same principles (private enterprise, national cohesion, personal responsibility, for example). How those principles evolve into policies is the daily grind of big tent party politics and for Badenoch to short-circuit the process by excluding everyone who disagrees with her does not bode well. The Wets are drifting to the Libdems and the Dries are drifting to Reform, leaving behind the unelectable residue of her personal fan club. It's easy to see why the Tories chose her ("We're desperate. Let's try a girl from Lagos. We've never done it before"), less easy to imagine how it will succeed in practice. Her divisive policies are actually an irrelevance because she's never going to be in a position to enact them. She'll end up in the dustbin of history where Liz Truss awaits her, but at least she won't be expected to rock up to the Cenotaph every November.
I fully agree with this, being a 50 years Tory voter (in general elections) but now lost to them. The Tories without a centrist middle class, including a public sector middle class, is a lost cause in the long run.
An indicator worth keeping an eye on is in the sub samples (with the customary warnings of course) of polling, eg YouGov. In their latest polling, in the 'Higher' category (which I suppose is something ljke ABC1) Tory + Reform is only 39%. Tory at 22%. They have lost a lot of their traditional support, tending to be naturally centrist, to elsewhere.
Eh? The Tories are now polling best in the higher category on 22%, to 20% in the Intermediate category and just 19% with Routine groups.
Indeed, the only group where Labour and the Tories are still the top 2 parties is those in the higher social class category, with Labour on 27%, the Tories on 22%, Reform on just 17% and the LDs on 15%.
Whereas Reform lead with Intermediate and Routine groups on 28% and 30% and Labour, the traditional party of the working class is now only third with its former core vote on just 17% and 16% behind even the Tories in those groups on 20% and 19%
This slightly misses the point. The majority of the middle class votes left of centre. 78% of the middle class doesn't vote Tory. This is an existential crisis for the party.
No it doesn't, only 49% of those in the higher class vote Labour or Green and the LDs were in government with the Tories only just over 10 years ago.
The Tories still lead Reform with middle class voters, so while Reform lead Labour with working class voters, the Tories reach middle class voters still Reform can't
I am content with Kemi and the conservative party and the siren voices on here are entitled to their view
However, you do not achieve a plus approval rate with even Maureen Lipman saying this week she would vote for Kemi if you are not cutting through and predicting the demise of the conservative party is either wishful thinking or hope
There is a lot to happen over the next 3 years and predicting the next GE is impossible
Burnham may win but who knows even Kemi may upset all the predictions and become the next PM
I expect it to be one or the other as I do not see Farage as a threat for the next GE
Or rather let Farage concentrate on winning Labour held seats in the Northern redwall and Midlands and Wales and let Kemi concentrate on winning Labour seats in London and the South and a few SNP seats in Scotland.
Reform and the Tories only really need to fight each other in the 124 existing Tory held seats and the handful of seats Reform won from the Tories at the last general election, especially in areas like Kent and Essex and East Anglia, which is less than a quarter of the total number of seats in the Commons
“let Farage concentrate on winning Labour held seats in the Northern redwall and Midlands and Wales and let Kemi concentrate on winning Labour seats in London and the South and a few SNP seats in Scotland.”
I am sure your electoral logic is bankrupt there. Specifically Labour areas will switch to Reform in great quantities at a Parliamentary election.
When Labour had a bad locals that boosted Burnham’s takeover, 4 of their voters went left, to to just 1 right to Reform.
Boris had more appeal over these Labour area’s than Farage. Especially the crucial midlands seats.
The real picture is Conservative and Reform are standing everywhere and cancelling each out, fighting for what is most largely the same voter pool.
Reform still lead Labour 30% to 24% in the Midlands on last week's Yougov and Reform are 6% behind Labour in the North 25% to 31%.
In the South though the Tories lead on 25% to 22% for Reform and 21% for the LDs and just 14% for Labour and in London Reform did best in the outer suburbs like Havering but the Tories beat Reform and Labour in areas like Westminster, Enfield, Kensington and Chelsea and Wandsworth. So it makes sense for them to target different areas
... with even Maureen Lipman saying this week she would vote for Kemi...
Dame Maureen has got close relatives in Israel and she's said in the past about how scared she is for them given the constant missile bombardment. Under Badenoch the Conservatives are solidly pro-Israel (I think - somebody correct me if wrong) and Labour under Burnham is lukewarm, so she has a valid reason for the switch.
Indeed, its sad to see the pro Hamas turn many in Labour have taken. Good to see principled lefties like Maureen take a stance.
It's not pro Hamas, it's anti genocidal, racist Israeli government
Barty seems to process scepticism of the Netanyahu Government as a pro Hamas narrative. Maybe Maureen Lipman is similarly minded.
I support the Israeli opposition that wants to see the corrupt Netanyahu be replaced, but be just as hardline at defeating Hamas.
The problem with Netanyahu is that he is (a) corrupt and (b) been too soft on Hamas.
Not that he has been too hard on them.
No, the problem is that Netanyahu's two goals, defeating Hamas and changing the regime in Iran, are and always were utterly unrealistic.
Israel simply cannot wipe out Hamas while the Palestinians' political grievances remain unaddressed. It has had limited military successes, but at the cost of further entrenching political support for Hames in Gaza.
And the war to overthrow the Iranian regime has been a total and utter failure - in fact, completely counter-productive because it has allowed the Iranian regime to clamp down on the opposition at home even more thoroughly.
All Netanyahu's strategy has achieved is to strengthen his enemies politically, ruin Israel's standing abroad and trap it in a never-ending cycle of war and atrocity.
It's the definition of a futile dead end.
From that point of view, at least, Netanyahu and Putin are twins.
That's quite a defeatist and nihilistic attitude.
It is absolutely possible to militarily defeat evil terrorists and fascist regimes like Hamas and Iran. There is plenty of precedence for doing so like defeating the Tamil Tigers and the Nazis and Imperial Japan.
What is needed is Total War until they are defeated and surrender unconditionally.
The problem is that Trump especially has been weak and chickened out, and Netanyahu has also been pulling his punches.
Israel needs to get more aggressive than it is and end the cycle of violence by eliminating the enemies.
Somewhat amazingly I find myself wanting to steer you back to the light comedy of the Laffer curve.
Barty is an absolutist. Even when it comes to killing civilians by the tens of thousands ... so long as it's done by the 'good guys'.
That is a fair comment.
I hold to the standards that what we did in WWII was right and that is the standard that Ukraine and Israel and other 'good guys' should operate to today.
Anything we did to defeat the Nazis was right and proper and legitimate for either Israel or Ukraine to do today.
War is hell and civilians die in it which is why it should be a last resort, but if you are in that last resort then you better bloody win.
I don't suppose you are a big fan of the Geneva Convention.
... with even Maureen Lipman saying this week she would vote for Kemi...
Dame Maureen has got close relatives in Israel and she's said in the past about how scared she is for them given the constant missile bombardment. Under Badenoch the Conservatives are solidly pro-Israel (I think - somebody correct me if wrong) and Labour under Burnham is lukewarm, so she has a valid reason for the switch.
Indeed, its sad to see the pro Hamas turn many in Labour have taken. Good to see principled lefties like Maureen take a stance.
It's not pro Hamas, it's anti genocidal, racist Israeli government
Barty seems to process scepticism of the Netanyahu Government as a pro Hamas narrative. Maybe Maureen Lipman is similarly minded.
I support the Israeli opposition that wants to see the corrupt Netanyahu be replaced, but be just as hardline at defeating Hamas.
The problem with Netanyahu is that he is (a) corrupt and (b) been too soft on Hamas.
Not that he has been too hard on them.
No, the problem is that Netanyahu's two goals, defeating Hamas and changing the regime in Iran, are and always were utterly unrealistic.
Israel simply cannot wipe out Hamas while the Palestinians' political grievances remain unaddressed. It has had limited military successes, but at the cost of further entrenching political support for Hames in Gaza.
And the war to overthrow the Iranian regime has been a total and utter failure - in fact, completely counter-productive because it has allowed the Iranian regime to clamp down on the opposition at home even more thoroughly.
All Netanyahu's strategy has achieved is to strengthen his enemies politically, ruin Israel's standing abroad and trap it in a never-ending cycle of war and atrocity.
It's the definition of a futile dead end.
From that point of view, at least, Netanyahu and Putin are twins.
That's quite a defeatist and nihilistic attitude.
It is absolutely possible to militarily defeat evil terrorists and fascist regimes like Hamas and Iran. There is plenty of precedence for doing so like defeating the Tamil Tigers and the Nazis and Imperial Japan.
What is needed is Total War until they are defeated and surrender unconditionally.
The problem is that Trump especially has been weak and chickened out, and Netanyahu has also been pulling his punches.
Israel needs to get more aggressive than it is and end the cycle of violence by eliminating the enemies.
Somewhat amazingly I find myself wanting to steer you back to the light comedy of the Laffer curve.
Barty is an absolutist. Even when it comes to killing civilians by the tens of thousands ... so long as it's done by the 'good guys'.
That is a fair comment.
I hold to the standards that what we did in WWII was right and that is the standard that Ukraine and Israel and other 'good guys' should operate to today.
Anything we did to defeat the Nazis was right and proper and legitimate for either Israel or Ukraine to do today.
War is hell and civilians die in it which is why it should be a last resort, but if you are in that last resort then you better bloody win.
I don't suppose you are a big fan of the Geneva Convention.
Geneva Conventions existed in WWII too. I think they should be shown as much respect today as we gave them then.
I am consistently not a fan of attempting to legislate away conflict. It does not work and never has.
Seems with fhe Hundred, some venues get decent numbers others are empty e.g.cardiff was pretty full last night, just turned it on now and its a sea of empty seats.
... with even Maureen Lipman saying this week she would vote for Kemi...
Dame Maureen has got close relatives in Israel and she's said in the past about how scared she is for them given the constant missile bombardment. Under Badenoch the Conservatives are solidly pro-Israel (I think - somebody correct me if wrong) and Labour under Burnham is lukewarm, so she has a valid reason for the switch.
Indeed, its sad to see the pro Hamas turn many in Labour have taken. Good to see principled lefties like Maureen take a stance.
It's not pro Hamas, it's anti genocidal, racist Israeli government
Barty seems to process scepticism of the Netanyahu Government as a pro Hamas narrative. Maybe Maureen Lipman is similarly minded.
I support the Israeli opposition that wants to see the corrupt Netanyahu be replaced, but be just as hardline at defeating Hamas.
The problem with Netanyahu is that he is (a) corrupt and (b) been too soft on Hamas.
Not that he has been too hard on them.
No, the problem is that Netanyahu's two goals, defeating Hamas and changing the regime in Iran, are and always were utterly unrealistic.
Israel simply cannot wipe out Hamas while the Palestinians' political grievances remain unaddressed. It has had limited military successes, but at the cost of further entrenching political support for Hames in Gaza.
And the war to overthrow the Iranian regime has been a total and utter failure - in fact, completely counter-productive because it has allowed the Iranian regime to clamp down on the opposition at home even more thoroughly.
All Netanyahu's strategy has achieved is to strengthen his enemies politically, ruin Israel's standing abroad and trap it in a never-ending cycle of war and atrocity.
It's the definition of a futile dead end.
From that point of view, at least, Netanyahu and Putin are twins.
That's quite a defeatist and nihilistic attitude.
It is absolutely possible to militarily defeat evil terrorists and fascist regimes like Hamas and Iran. There is plenty of precedence for doing so like defeating the Tamil Tigers and the Nazis and Imperial Japan.
What is needed is Total War until they are defeated and surrender unconditionally.
The problem is that Trump especially has been weak and chickened out, and Netanyahu has also been pulling his punches.
Israel needs to get more aggressive than it is and end the cycle of violence by eliminating the enemies.
you still are and forever will be a complete lunatic
Lunacy is repeating the same mistakes and expecting other outcomes. Like having a repeated cycle of ceasefire, hatred, conflict, ceasefire.
Victory can break the cycle of violence. The Nazis are gone, the Tamil Tigers are gone. Imperial Japan reformed to save itself.
Victory works better than stalemate.
I don't really see how in this case total victory really can 'work'. Israel can fully occupy Gaza and the West Bank, and subdue and disarm the Palestinians who live there, but that wouldn't be enough. They would want to cleanse those areas of Palestinians to secure themselves permanently and make room for more Israelis to live there. Even if they didn't want to do this, they would still be stuck there. In West Germany, you could get rid of the Nazis, occupy the country for a while, and then leave and let the Germans get on with it. You can't do that in Gaza and the West Bank. The minute Israel leaves, anti-Israel forces would take hold, with some justification.
The only viable solution to me is, as I have said before, to empy Gaza of Palestinians and have them all move to the West Bank. And empty the West Bank of settlers and make them all move back to Israel and Gaza. Then you get a stable and secure Israel, and a viable Palestinian state.
... with even Maureen Lipman saying this week she would vote for Kemi...
Dame Maureen has got close relatives in Israel and she's said in the past about how scared she is for them given the constant missile bombardment. Under Badenoch the Conservatives are solidly pro-Israel (I think - somebody correct me if wrong) and Labour under Burnham is lukewarm, so she has a valid reason for the switch.
Indeed, its sad to see the pro Hamas turn many in Labour have taken. Good to see principled lefties like Maureen take a stance.
It's not pro Hamas, it's anti genocidal, racist Israeli government
Barty seems to process scepticism of the Netanyahu Government as a pro Hamas narrative. Maybe Maureen Lipman is similarly minded.
I support the Israeli opposition that wants to see the corrupt Netanyahu be replaced, but be just as hardline at defeating Hamas.
The problem with Netanyahu is that he is (a) corrupt and (b) been too soft on Hamas.
Not that he has been too hard on them.
No, the problem is that Netanyahu's two goals, defeating Hamas and changing the regime in Iran, are and always were utterly unrealistic.
Israel simply cannot wipe out Hamas while the Palestinians' political grievances remain unaddressed. It has had limited military successes, but at the cost of further entrenching political support for Hames in Gaza.
And the war to overthrow the Iranian regime has been a total and utter failure - in fact, completely counter-productive because it has allowed the Iranian regime to clamp down on the opposition at home even more thoroughly.
All Netanyahu's strategy has achieved is to strengthen his enemies politically, ruin Israel's standing abroad and trap it in a never-ending cycle of war and atrocity.
It's the definition of a futile dead end.
From that point of view, at least, Netanyahu and Putin are twins.
That's quite a defeatist and nihilistic attitude.
It is absolutely possible to militarily defeat evil terrorists and fascist regimes like Hamas and Iran. There is plenty of precedence for doing so like defeating the Tamil Tigers and the Nazis and Imperial Japan.
What is needed is Total War until they are defeated and surrender unconditionally.
The problem is that Trump especially has been weak and chickened out, and Netanyahu has also been pulling his punches.
Israel needs to get more aggressive than it is and end the cycle of violence by eliminating the enemies.
Somewhat amazingly I find myself wanting to steer you back to the light comedy of the Laffer curve.
Barty is an absolutist. Even when it comes to killing civilians by the tens of thousands ... so long as it's done by the 'good guys'.
That is a fair comment.
I hold to the standards that what we did in WWII was right and that is the standard that Ukraine and Israel and other 'good guys' should operate to today.
Anything we did to defeat the Nazis was right and proper and legitimate for either Israel or Ukraine to do today.
War is hell and civilians die in it which is why it should be a last resort, but if you are in that last resort then you better bloody win.
I don't suppose you are a big fan of the Geneva Convention.
Geneva Conventions existed in WWII too. I think they should be shown as much respect today as we gave them then.
I am consistently not a fan of attempting to legislate away conflict. It does not work and never has.
Who’s “we”? The Western Allies generally showed the Geneva Conventions great respect, if not universally so. Unless the “we” you’re referring to is the Axis, which simultaneously makes sense of both your immediate point and your political standpoints more generally.
... with even Maureen Lipman saying this week she would vote for Kemi...
Dame Maureen has got close relatives in Israel and she's said in the past about how scared she is for them given the constant missile bombardment. Under Badenoch the Conservatives are solidly pro-Israel (I think - somebody correct me if wrong) and Labour under Burnham is lukewarm, so she has a valid reason for the switch.
Indeed, its sad to see the pro Hamas turn many in Labour have taken. Good to see principled lefties like Maureen take a stance.
It's not pro Hamas, it's anti genocidal, racist Israeli government
Barty seems to process scepticism of the Netanyahu Government as a pro Hamas narrative. Maybe Maureen Lipman is similarly minded.
I support the Israeli opposition that wants to see the corrupt Netanyahu be replaced, but be just as hardline at defeating Hamas.
The problem with Netanyahu is that he is (a) corrupt and (b) been too soft on Hamas.
Not that he has been too hard on them.
No, the problem is that Netanyahu's two goals, defeating Hamas and changing the regime in Iran, are and always were utterly unrealistic.
Israel simply cannot wipe out Hamas while the Palestinians' political grievances remain unaddressed. It has had limited military successes, but at the cost of further entrenching political support for Hames in Gaza.
And the war to overthrow the Iranian regime has been a total and utter failure - in fact, completely counter-productive because it has allowed the Iranian regime to clamp down on the opposition at home even more thoroughly.
All Netanyahu's strategy has achieved is to strengthen his enemies politically, ruin Israel's standing abroad and trap it in a never-ending cycle of war and atrocity.
It's the definition of a futile dead end.
From that point of view, at least, Netanyahu and Putin are twins.
That's quite a defeatist and nihilistic attitude.
It is absolutely possible to militarily defeat evil terrorists and fascist regimes like Hamas and Iran. There is plenty of precedence for doing so like defeating the Tamil Tigers and the Nazis and Imperial Japan.
What is needed is Total War until they are defeated and surrender unconditionally.
The problem is that Trump especially has been weak and chickened out, and Netanyahu has also been pulling his punches.
Israel needs to get more aggressive than it is and end the cycle of violence by eliminating the enemies.
you still are and forever will be a complete lunatic
Lunacy is repeating the same mistakes and expecting other outcomes. Like having a repeated cycle of ceasefire, hatred, conflict, ceasefire.
Victory can break the cycle of violence. The Nazis are gone, the Tamil Tigers are gone. Imperial Japan reformed to save itself.
Victory works better than stalemate.
I don't really see how in this case total victory really can 'work'. Israel can fully occupy Gaza and the West Bank, and subdue and disarm the Palestinians who live there, but that wouldn't be enough. They would want to cleanse those areas of Palestinians to secure themselves permanently and make room for more Israelis to live there. Even if they didn't want to do this, they would still be stuck there. In West Germany, you could get rid of the Nazis, occupy the country for a while, and then leave and let the Germans get on with it. You can't do that in Gaza and the West Bank. The minute Israel leaves, anti-Israel forces would take hold, with some justification.
The only viable solution to me is, as I have said before, to empy Gaza of Palestinians and have them all move to the West Bank. And empty the West Bank of settlers and make them all move back to Israel and Gaza. Then you get a stable and secure Israel, and a viable Palestinian state.
Well there's a few options.
It is worth remembering that Israel was out of Gaza, with all settlers removed, prior to the Hamas atrocity. The idea of 'settlers' may be an issue in the West Bank but it was not one in Gaza and yet Hamas still did its evil anyway.
Israel is willing to vote for peace with the Palestinians and has tried to time again. They have signed accords, even under Netanyahu, with many of their former enemies in the region too. The problem is the Palestinian leadership which has time and again rejected peace. Both completely under Hamas, and the PLO under Arafat in 2000 etc
I don't believe Gaza needs to be emptied of Palestinians. My preferred option would be to see Hamas surrender unconditionally, a new agreement reached between Israel and Palestinian leadership similar to that which Arafat rejected, and then a viable two state solution.
If that's not viable, then moving the Palestinians eg Jordan or anywhere else may become the only viable solution, but that would be again a very last resort. Even a further last resort than going to war.
... with even Maureen Lipman saying this week she would vote for Kemi...
Dame Maureen has got close relatives in Israel and she's said in the past about how scared she is for them given the constant missile bombardment. Under Badenoch the Conservatives are solidly pro-Israel (I think - somebody correct me if wrong) and Labour under Burnham is lukewarm, so she has a valid reason for the switch.
Indeed, its sad to see the pro Hamas turn many in Labour have taken. Good to see principled lefties like Maureen take a stance.
It's not pro Hamas, it's anti genocidal, racist Israeli government
Barty seems to process scepticism of the Netanyahu Government as a pro Hamas narrative. Maybe Maureen Lipman is similarly minded.
I support the Israeli opposition that wants to see the corrupt Netanyahu be replaced, but be just as hardline at defeating Hamas.
The problem with Netanyahu is that he is (a) corrupt and (b) been too soft on Hamas.
Not that he has been too hard on them.
No, the problem is that Netanyahu's two goals, defeating Hamas and changing the regime in Iran, are and always were utterly unrealistic.
Israel simply cannot wipe out Hamas while the Palestinians' political grievances remain unaddressed. It has had limited military successes, but at the cost of further entrenching political support for Hames in Gaza.
And the war to overthrow the Iranian regime has been a total and utter failure - in fact, completely counter-productive because it has allowed the Iranian regime to clamp down on the opposition at home even more thoroughly.
All Netanyahu's strategy has achieved is to strengthen his enemies politically, ruin Israel's standing abroad and trap it in a never-ending cycle of war and atrocity.
It's the definition of a futile dead end.
From that point of view, at least, Netanyahu and Putin are twins.
That's quite a defeatist and nihilistic attitude.
It is absolutely possible to militarily defeat evil terrorists and fascist regimes like Hamas and Iran. There is plenty of precedence for doing so like defeating the Tamil Tigers and the Nazis and Imperial Japan.
What is needed is Total War until they are defeated and surrender unconditionally.
The problem is that Trump especially has been weak and chickened out, and Netanyahu has also been pulling his punches.
Israel needs to get more aggressive than it is and end the cycle of violence by eliminating the enemies.
Somewhat amazingly I find myself wanting to steer you back to the light comedy of the Laffer curve.
Barty is an absolutist. Even when it comes to killing civilians by the tens of thousands ... so long as it's done by the 'good guys'.
That is a fair comment.
I hold to the standards that what we did in WWII was right and that is the standard that Ukraine and Israel and other 'good guys' should operate to today.
Anything we did to defeat the Nazis was right and proper and legitimate for either Israel or Ukraine to do today.
War is hell and civilians die in it which is why it should be a last resort, but if you are in that last resort then you better bloody win.
I don't suppose you are a big fan of the Geneva Convention.
Geneva Conventions existed in WWII too. I think they should be shown as much respect today as we gave them then.
I am consistently not a fan of attempting to legislate away conflict. It does not work and never has.
Who’s “we”? The Western Allies generally showed the Geneva Conventions great respect, if not universally so. Unless the “we” you’re referring to is the Axis, which simultaneously makes sense of both your immediate point and your political standpoints.
Of course I mean the Allies.
I support Israel and Ukraine and other 'good guys' being held to the same standards as the UK was held to during WWII.
... with even Maureen Lipman saying this week she would vote for Kemi...
Dame Maureen has got close relatives in Israel and she's said in the past about how scared she is for them given the constant missile bombardment. Under Badenoch the Conservatives are solidly pro-Israel (I think - somebody correct me if wrong) and Labour under Burnham is lukewarm, so she has a valid reason for the switch.
Indeed, its sad to see the pro Hamas turn many in Labour have taken. Good to see principled lefties like Maureen take a stance.
It's not pro Hamas, it's anti genocidal, racist Israeli government
Barty seems to process scepticism of the Netanyahu Government as a pro Hamas narrative. Maybe Maureen Lipman is similarly minded.
I support the Israeli opposition that wants to see the corrupt Netanyahu be replaced, but be just as hardline at defeating Hamas.
The problem with Netanyahu is that he is (a) corrupt and (b) been too soft on Hamas.
Not that he has been too hard on them.
No, the problem is that Netanyahu's two goals, defeating Hamas and changing the regime in Iran, are and always were utterly unrealistic.
Israel simply cannot wipe out Hamas while the Palestinians' political grievances remain unaddressed. It has had limited military successes, but at the cost of further entrenching political support for Hames in Gaza.
And the war to overthrow the Iranian regime has been a total and utter failure - in fact, completely counter-productive because it has allowed the Iranian regime to clamp down on the opposition at home even more thoroughly.
All Netanyahu's strategy has achieved is to strengthen his enemies politically, ruin Israel's standing abroad and trap it in a never-ending cycle of war and atrocity.
It's the definition of a futile dead end.
From that point of view, at least, Netanyahu and Putin are twins.
That's quite a defeatist and nihilistic attitude.
It is absolutely possible to militarily defeat evil terrorists and fascist regimes like Hamas and Iran. There is plenty of precedence for doing so like defeating the Tamil Tigers and the Nazis and Imperial Japan.
What is needed is Total War until they are defeated and surrender unconditionally.
The problem is that Trump especially has been weak and chickened out, and Netanyahu has also been pulling his punches.
Israel needs to get more aggressive than it is and end the cycle of violence by eliminating the enemies.
Somewhat amazingly I find myself wanting to steer you back to the light comedy of the Laffer curve.
Barty is an absolutist. Even when it comes to killing civilians by the tens of thousands ... so long as it's done by the 'good guys'.
That is a fair comment.
I hold to the standards that what we did in WWII was right and that is the standard that Ukraine and Israel and other 'good guys' should operate to today.
Anything we did to defeat the Nazis was right and proper and legitimate for either Israel or Ukraine to do today.
War is hell and civilians die in it which is why it should be a last resort, but if you are in that last resort then you better bloody win.
I don't suppose you are a big fan of the Geneva Convention.
Geneva Conventions existed in WWII too. I think they should be shown as much respect today as we gave them then.
I am consistently not a fan of attempting to legislate away conflict. It does not work and never has.
WWI saw extensive use of chemical weapons. WWII and since hasn’t (with some exceptions). I think that counts as a victory for a legalistic approach.
Attendances for Hundred 20% down — despite bigger stars and fresh branding
I’m at Headingley on Tuesday for a match.
The corporate hospitality prices are down 40% from last year.
According to my colleague a fortnight ago the prices were 10% higher than last year.
Given that corporate hospitality is where the money is that isn't good....
How long until they apply common sense and make it a t20 competition..
When the current TV deal ends, then they will be switching it to a T20 format.
This from last year.
The Hundred could be changed to a Twenty20 competition as soon as next year. The 100-ball format is enshrined in the England and Wales Cricket Board’s domestic TV contracts with Sky Sports and the BBC until 2028 but the Guardian has learned that both broadcasters are open to switching to T20 next summer if requested by the newly formed Hundred board, which will be dominated by representatives of the eight franchises.
... with even Maureen Lipman saying this week she would vote for Kemi...
Dame Maureen has got close relatives in Israel and she's said in the past about how scared she is for them given the constant missile bombardment. Under Badenoch the Conservatives are solidly pro-Israel (I think - somebody correct me if wrong) and Labour under Burnham is lukewarm, so she has a valid reason for the switch.
Indeed, its sad to see the pro Hamas turn many in Labour have taken. Good to see principled lefties like Maureen take a stance.
It's not pro Hamas, it's anti genocidal, racist Israeli government
Barty seems to process scepticism of the Netanyahu Government as a pro Hamas narrative. Maybe Maureen Lipman is similarly minded.
I support the Israeli opposition that wants to see the corrupt Netanyahu be replaced, but be just as hardline at defeating Hamas.
The problem with Netanyahu is that he is (a) corrupt and (b) been too soft on Hamas.
Not that he has been too hard on them.
No, the problem is that Netanyahu's two goals, defeating Hamas and changing the regime in Iran, are and always were utterly unrealistic.
Israel simply cannot wipe out Hamas while the Palestinians' political grievances remain unaddressed. It has had limited military successes, but at the cost of further entrenching political support for Hames in Gaza.
And the war to overthrow the Iranian regime has been a total and utter failure - in fact, completely counter-productive because it has allowed the Iranian regime to clamp down on the opposition at home even more thoroughly.
All Netanyahu's strategy has achieved is to strengthen his enemies politically, ruin Israel's standing abroad and trap it in a never-ending cycle of war and atrocity.
It's the definition of a futile dead end.
From that point of view, at least, Netanyahu and Putin are twins.
That's quite a defeatist and nihilistic attitude.
It is absolutely possible to militarily defeat evil terrorists and fascist regimes like Hamas and Iran. There is plenty of precedence for doing so like defeating the Tamil Tigers and the Nazis and Imperial Japan.
What is needed is Total War until they are defeated and surrender unconditionally.
The problem is that Trump especially has been weak and chickened out, and Netanyahu has also been pulling his punches.
Israel needs to get more aggressive than it is and end the cycle of violence by eliminating the enemies.
you still are and forever will be a complete lunatic
Lunacy is repeating the same mistakes and expecting other outcomes. Like having a repeated cycle of ceasefire, hatred, conflict, ceasefire.
Victory can break the cycle of violence. The Nazis are gone, the Tamil Tigers are gone. Imperial Japan reformed to save itself.
Victory works better than stalemate.
I don't really see how in this case total victory really can 'work'. Israel can fully occupy Gaza and the West Bank, and subdue and disarm the Palestinians who live there, but that wouldn't be enough. They would want to cleanse those areas of Palestinians to secure themselves permanently and make room for more Israelis to live there. Even if they didn't want to do this, they would still be stuck there. In West Germany, you could get rid of the Nazis, occupy the country for a while, and then leave and let the Germans get on with it. You can't do that in Gaza and the West Bank. The minute Israel leaves, anti-Israel forces would take hold, with some justification.
The only viable solution to me is, as I have said before, to empy Gaza of Palestinians and have them all move to the West Bank. And empty the West Bank of settlers and make them all move back to Israel and Gaza. Then you get a stable and secure Israel, and a viable Palestinian state.
That’s called ethnic cleansing and is a crime against humanity.
... with even Maureen Lipman saying this week she would vote for Kemi...
Dame Maureen has got close relatives in Israel and she's said in the past about how scared she is for them given the constant missile bombardment. Under Badenoch the Conservatives are solidly pro-Israel (I think - somebody correct me if wrong) and Labour under Burnham is lukewarm, so she has a valid reason for the switch.
Indeed, its sad to see the pro Hamas turn many in Labour have taken. Good to see principled lefties like Maureen take a stance.
It's not pro Hamas, it's anti genocidal, racist Israeli government
Barty seems to process scepticism of the Netanyahu Government as a pro Hamas narrative. Maybe Maureen Lipman is similarly minded.
I support the Israeli opposition that wants to see the corrupt Netanyahu be replaced, but be just as hardline at defeating Hamas.
The problem with Netanyahu is that he is (a) corrupt and (b) been too soft on Hamas.
Not that he has been too hard on them.
No, the problem is that Netanyahu's two goals, defeating Hamas and changing the regime in Iran, are and always were utterly unrealistic.
Israel simply cannot wipe out Hamas while the Palestinians' political grievances remain unaddressed. It has had limited military successes, but at the cost of further entrenching political support for Hames in Gaza.
And the war to overthrow the Iranian regime has been a total and utter failure - in fact, completely counter-productive because it has allowed the Iranian regime to clamp down on the opposition at home even more thoroughly.
All Netanyahu's strategy has achieved is to strengthen his enemies politically, ruin Israel's standing abroad and trap it in a never-ending cycle of war and atrocity.
It's the definition of a futile dead end.
From that point of view, at least, Netanyahu and Putin are twins.
That's quite a defeatist and nihilistic attitude.
It is absolutely possible to militarily defeat evil terrorists and fascist regimes like Hamas and Iran. There is plenty of precedence for doing so like defeating the Tamil Tigers and the Nazis and Imperial Japan.
What is needed is Total War until they are defeated and surrender unconditionally.
The problem is that Trump especially has been weak and chickened out, and Netanyahu has also been pulling his punches.
Israel needs to get more aggressive than it is and end the cycle of violence by eliminating the enemies.
Somewhat amazingly I find myself wanting to steer you back to the light comedy of the Laffer curve.
Barty is an absolutist. Even when it comes to killing civilians by the tens of thousands ... so long as it's done by the 'good guys'.
That is a fair comment.
I hold to the standards that what we did in WWII was right and that is the standard that Ukraine and Israel and other 'good guys' should operate to today.
Anything we did to defeat the Nazis was right and proper and legitimate for either Israel or Ukraine to do today.
War is hell and civilians die in it which is why it should be a last resort, but if you are in that last resort then you better bloody win.
I don't suppose you are a big fan of the Geneva Convention.
Geneva Conventions existed in WWII too. I think they should be shown as much respect today as we gave them then.
I am consistently not a fan of attempting to legislate away conflict. It does not work and never has.
Who’s “we”? The Western Allies generally showed the Geneva Conventions great respect, if not universally so. Unless the “we” you’re referring to is the Axis, which simultaneously makes sense of both your immediate point and your political standpoints.
Of course I mean the Allies.
I support Israel and Ukraine and other 'good guys' being held to the same standards as the UK was held to during WWII.
So you support captured Hamas fighters being held in prisoner of war camps, given the rights allowed under the Geneva Conventions then?
... with even Maureen Lipman saying this week she would vote for Kemi...
Dame Maureen has got close relatives in Israel and she's said in the past about how scared she is for them given the constant missile bombardment. Under Badenoch the Conservatives are solidly pro-Israel (I think - somebody correct me if wrong) and Labour under Burnham is lukewarm, so she has a valid reason for the switch.
Indeed, its sad to see the pro Hamas turn many in Labour have taken. Good to see principled lefties like Maureen take a stance.
It's not pro Hamas, it's anti genocidal, racist Israeli government
Barty seems to process scepticism of the Netanyahu Government as a pro Hamas narrative. Maybe Maureen Lipman is similarly minded.
I support the Israeli opposition that wants to see the corrupt Netanyahu be replaced, but be just as hardline at defeating Hamas.
The problem with Netanyahu is that he is (a) corrupt and (b) been too soft on Hamas.
Not that he has been too hard on them.
No, the problem is that Netanyahu's two goals, defeating Hamas and changing the regime in Iran, are and always were utterly unrealistic.
Israel simply cannot wipe out Hamas while the Palestinians' political grievances remain unaddressed. It has had limited military successes, but at the cost of further entrenching political support for Hames in Gaza.
And the war to overthrow the Iranian regime has been a total and utter failure - in fact, completely counter-productive because it has allowed the Iranian regime to clamp down on the opposition at home even more thoroughly.
All Netanyahu's strategy has achieved is to strengthen his enemies politically, ruin Israel's standing abroad and trap it in a never-ending cycle of war and atrocity.
It's the definition of a futile dead end.
From that point of view, at least, Netanyahu and Putin are twins.
That's quite a defeatist and nihilistic attitude.
It is absolutely possible to militarily defeat evil terrorists and fascist regimes like Hamas and Iran. There is plenty of precedence for doing so like defeating the Tamil Tigers and the Nazis and Imperial Japan.
What is needed is Total War until they are defeated and surrender unconditionally.
The problem is that Trump especially has been weak and chickened out, and Netanyahu has also been pulling his punches.
Israel needs to get more aggressive than it is and end the cycle of violence by eliminating the enemies.
Somewhat amazingly I find myself wanting to steer you back to the light comedy of the Laffer curve.
Barty is an absolutist. Even when it comes to killing civilians by the tens of thousands ... so long as it's done by the 'good guys'.
That is a fair comment.
I hold to the standards that what we did in WWII was right and that is the standard that Ukraine and Israel and other 'good guys' should operate to today.
Anything we did to defeat the Nazis was right and proper and legitimate for either Israel or Ukraine to do today.
War is hell and civilians die in it which is why it should be a last resort, but if you are in that last resort then you better bloody win.
I don't suppose you are a big fan of the Geneva Convention.
What we did to Germnay and the Allies to Japan was limited by the means available.
While we didn't terror bomb civilian areas to break the national spirit like the Blitz we nonetheless tried to destroy Axis industry with carpet bombing even through theire was civilian housing all around it. Likewise railway hubs and bridges.
In no small apart the casualties from UK bombing were a product of the innaccuracy of wrtime bombing particularly before 43/44.
It's harder to justify the use of Napalm on Tokyo, it's first wartime use, on the worlds largest timber city than as anything else than an attempt to force surrender by terror. The it prevented more deaths from an Invasion doesn't cut it when they were already a broken nation on teh edge of starvation.
That we weren't prosecuted was really because we won.
Were they proportional? Probably not.
Were they all we had? Yes.
So given total war and National survival, justified if disproportional.
Little of that applies to Israel today.
Has it far more accurate weapons and the intelegence to deploy them than we had? Yes.
Is it in a position to take it's time and strike precisely when targets emerge? Yes.
For all the horrendous nature of it's attacks and ideology is Hamas a threat to the existance of Israel? Realisticly No.
Wanting to destroy Israel and being able to do so are two different things. II can kill people just like the IRA but we didn't flatten Dublin.
Can Israel degrade and contain Hamas and Hezbollah, without the current and recent use of force and civilan casualties and damage? Yes.
Therefore because Israel clearly has ways to proscute this war with far less damage and fewer civilian casualties but chooses not to, it is not doing the same as we did in WW2, just as we didn't do in Northern Ireland what we did in WW2.
Indeed just like we didn't do in WW2 when we occupied Germany ,what we did in the Crusades when we took the Holyland!
Attendances for Hundred 20% down — despite bigger stars and fresh branding
I’m at Headingley on Tuesday for a match.
The corporate hospitality prices are down 40% from last year.
According to my colleague a fortnight ago the prices were 10% higher than last year.
I am getting spammed with offers.
They are trying to pitch the match on Tuesday as a Roses match.
Nah it’s Leeds Sunrisers v Manchester Supergiants.
The only things wrong with the Hundred are the stupid team names, the fact that the identity of the teams bears no relationship to the identity of the players (e.g. Root - Welsh Fire; Bairstow - London something etc) and therefore doesn't promote any sense of belonging, the fact that it's not proper cricket at all, the fact that it's really just about money, and the fact that it's pretty boring and predictable. Otherwise, it's fine.
Attendances for Hundred 20% down — despite bigger stars and fresh branding
I’m at Headingley on Tuesday for a match.
The corporate hospitality prices are down 40% from last year.
According to my colleague a fortnight ago the prices were 10% higher than last year.
I am getting spammed with offers.
They are trying to pitch the match on Tuesday as a Roses match.
Nah it’s Leeds Sunrisers v Manchester Supergiants.
The only things wrong with the Hundred are the stupid team names, the fact that the identity of the teams bears no relationship to the identity of the players (e.g. Root - Welsh Fire; Bairstow - London something etc) and therefore doesn't promote any sense of belonging, the fact that it's not proper cricket at all, and the fact that it's pretty boring. Otherwise, it's fine.
Well, apart from that, what did you think of the play, Mrs Lincoln?
Feck, I hate it when we import so much grief from the rest of the world, whether it is either the Jews or the Palestinians in Gaza, or anyone at all in the Punjab. These are not our problems.
There was a time when we were the world's policeman, when we ruled the waves and saw all of these conflicts through the prism of our interests but that was pre WW2. Right now we want to stay out of these fights. No one really gives a toss what we think and why should they?
We need to get real. We have minimal influence these days. Stay out of it. We have plenty of problems of our own.
There's a difference between accepting that the UK is not a superpower (and has not been for a very long time), and thinking it should not be a significant power at all. We are still a very large country (somewhere around 20th in terms of population) with a sizable economy. We cannot and should not get involved in many situations, we should be very discerning about where and how we do, but we have the capability to make that a choice, if we think it in our interests, and abandoning the ability to have any influence at all in that regard would be a mistake.
If anything I don't think the problem today is that the public think we are more powerful than we are and try to do too much, but that we don't think we can do anything at all.
Politicians, on the other hand, worry that the public will criticise them for being unambitious if they say we cannot do things, and so try to do too much whilst spending like we can do nothing. That disharmony then pisses people off.
I think you are still deluding yourself about our capacity to change things around the world. We simply can't. Our political class look to express their morals and interests but it is demonstrative and frankly irrelevant.
I am appalled by Israeli brutality in Gaza and the West Bank, I loathe the murderous fanaticism of the Iranian regime, I am disgusted by the cruel brutality of Russia in the Ukraine and many, many others. But so what? No one gives a damn what we think, we don't have the power or the moral authority to assert our views and they are irrelevant anyway.
But I really do care when this hatred is let loose on our streets.
There is little we can do besides standing behind our allies and supporting them to be victorious.
That's not nothing though.
A whole list of countries did that in WW2...It was called the Axis!
... with even Maureen Lipman saying this week she would vote for Kemi...
Dame Maureen has got close relatives in Israel and she's said in the past about how scared she is for them given the constant missile bombardment. Under Badenoch the Conservatives are solidly pro-Israel (I think - somebody correct me if wrong) and Labour under Burnham is lukewarm, so she has a valid reason for the switch.
Indeed, its sad to see the pro Hamas turn many in Labour have taken. Good to see principled lefties like Maureen take a stance.
It's not pro Hamas, it's anti genocidal, racist Israeli government
Barty seems to process scepticism of the Netanyahu Government as a pro Hamas narrative. Maybe Maureen Lipman is similarly minded.
I support the Israeli opposition that wants to see the corrupt Netanyahu be replaced, but be just as hardline at defeating Hamas.
The problem with Netanyahu is that he is (a) corrupt and (b) been too soft on Hamas.
Not that he has been too hard on them.
No, the problem is that Netanyahu's two goals, defeating Hamas and changing the regime in Iran, are and always were utterly unrealistic.
Israel simply cannot wipe out Hamas while the Palestinians' political grievances remain unaddressed. It has had limited military successes, but at the cost of further entrenching political support for Hames in Gaza.
And the war to overthrow the Iranian regime has been a total and utter failure - in fact, completely counter-productive because it has allowed the Iranian regime to clamp down on the opposition at home even more thoroughly.
All Netanyahu's strategy has achieved is to strengthen his enemies politically, ruin Israel's standing abroad and trap it in a never-ending cycle of war and atrocity.
It's the definition of a futile dead end.
From that point of view, at least, Netanyahu and Putin are twins.
That's quite a defeatist and nihilistic attitude.
It is absolutely possible to militarily defeat evil terrorists and fascist regimes like Hamas and Iran. There is plenty of precedence for doing so like defeating the Tamil Tigers and the Nazis and Imperial Japan.
What is needed is Total War until they are defeated and surrender unconditionally.
The problem is that Trump especially has been weak and chickened out, and Netanyahu has also been pulling his punches.
Israel needs to get more aggressive than it is and end the cycle of violence by eliminating the enemies.
Somewhat amazingly I find myself wanting to steer you back to the light comedy of the Laffer curve.
Barty is an absolutist. Even when it comes to killing civilians by the tens of thousands ... so long as it's done by the 'good guys'.
That is a fair comment.
I hold to the standards that what we did in WWII was right and that is the standard that Ukraine and Israel and other 'good guys' should operate to today.
Anything we did to defeat the Nazis was right and proper and legitimate for either Israel or Ukraine to do today.
War is hell and civilians die in it which is why it should be a last resort, but if you are in that last resort then you better bloody win.
I don't suppose you are a big fan of the Geneva Convention.
Geneva Conventions existed in WWII too. I think they should be shown as much respect today as we gave them then.
I am consistently not a fan of attempting to legislate away conflict. It does not work and never has.
WWI saw extensive use of chemical weapons. WWII and since hasn’t (with some exceptions). I think that counts as a victory for a legalistic approach.
I'm not convinced that the non use of chemicals is quite the victory for a legal approach that you claim. There were lots of reasons why neither/any sides deployed them, but fear of retaliation in the era of area bombing is surely the number one.
Attendances for Hundred 20% down — despite bigger stars and fresh branding
I’m at Headingley on Tuesday for a match.
The corporate hospitality prices are down 40% from last year.
According to my colleague a fortnight ago the prices were 10% higher than last year.
I am getting spammed with offers.
They are trying to pitch the match on Tuesday as a Roses match.
Nah it’s Leeds Sunrisers v Manchester Supergiants.
The only things wrong with the Hundred are the stupid team names, the fact that the identity of the teams bears no relationship to the identity of the players (e.g. Root - Welsh Fire; Bairstow - London something etc) and therefore doesn't promote any sense of belonging, the fact that it's not proper cricket at all, the fact that it's really just about money, and the fact that it's pretty boring and predictable. Otherwise, it's fine.
The only reason I am going on Tuesday is meet some clients and former colleagues.
Oh and the salmon and cheese sandwiches, they are the dog's dangly bits.
... with even Maureen Lipman saying this week she would vote for Kemi...
Dame Maureen has got close relatives in Israel and she's said in the past about how scared she is for them given the constant missile bombardment. Under Badenoch the Conservatives are solidly pro-Israel (I think - somebody correct me if wrong) and Labour under Burnham is lukewarm, so she has a valid reason for the switch.
Indeed, its sad to see the pro Hamas turn many in Labour have taken. Good to see principled lefties like Maureen take a stance.
It's not pro Hamas, it's anti genocidal, racist Israeli government
Barty seems to process scepticism of the Netanyahu Government as a pro Hamas narrative. Maybe Maureen Lipman is similarly minded.
I support the Israeli opposition that wants to see the corrupt Netanyahu be replaced, but be just as hardline at defeating Hamas.
The problem with Netanyahu is that he is (a) corrupt and (b) been too soft on Hamas.
Not that he has been too hard on them.
No, the problem is that Netanyahu's two goals, defeating Hamas and changing the regime in Iran, are and always were utterly unrealistic.
Israel simply cannot wipe out Hamas while the Palestinians' political grievances remain unaddressed. It has had limited military successes, but at the cost of further entrenching political support for Hames in Gaza.
And the war to overthrow the Iranian regime has been a total and utter failure - in fact, completely counter-productive because it has allowed the Iranian regime to clamp down on the opposition at home even more thoroughly.
All Netanyahu's strategy has achieved is to strengthen his enemies politically, ruin Israel's standing abroad and trap it in a never-ending cycle of war and atrocity.
It's the definition of a futile dead end.
From that point of view, at least, Netanyahu and Putin are twins.
That's quite a defeatist and nihilistic attitude.
It is absolutely possible to militarily defeat evil terrorists and fascist regimes like Hamas and Iran. There is plenty of precedence for doing so like defeating the Tamil Tigers and the Nazis and Imperial Japan.
What is needed is Total War until they are defeated and surrender unconditionally.
The problem is that Trump especially has been weak and chickened out, and Netanyahu has also been pulling his punches.
Israel needs to get more aggressive than it is and end the cycle of violence by eliminating the enemies.
Somewhat amazingly I find myself wanting to steer you back to the light comedy of the Laffer curve.
Barty is an absolutist. Even when it comes to killing civilians by the tens of thousands ... so long as it's done by the 'good guys'.
That is a fair comment.
I hold to the standards that what we did in WWII was right and that is the standard that Ukraine and Israel and other 'good guys' should operate to today.
Anything we did to defeat the Nazis was right and proper and legitimate for either Israel or Ukraine to do today.
War is hell and civilians die in it which is why it should be a last resort, but if you are in that last resort then you better bloody win.
I don't suppose you are a big fan of the Geneva Convention.
Geneva Conventions existed in WWII too. I think they should be shown as much respect today as we gave them then.
I am consistently not a fan of attempting to legislate away conflict. It does not work and never has.
WWI saw extensive use of chemical weapons. WWII and since hasn’t (with some exceptions). I think that counts as a victory for a legalistic approach.
You mean if we turn a blind eye to how only a few years ago Syria under Assad used chemical weapons . . . and Miliband and other MPs then shamefully blocked the UK taking action against them?
Attendances for Hundred 20% down — despite bigger stars and fresh branding
I’m at Headingley on Tuesday for a match.
The corporate hospitality prices are down 40% from last year.
According to my colleague a fortnight ago the prices were 10% higher than last year.
I am getting spammed with offers.
They are trying to pitch the match on Tuesday as a Roses match.
Nah it’s Leeds Sunrisers v Manchester Supergiants.
The only things wrong with the Hundred are the stupid team names, the fact that the identity of the teams bears no relationship to the identity of the players (e.g. Root - Welsh Fire; Bairstow - London something etc) and therefore doesn't promote any sense of belonging, the fact that it's not proper cricket at all, the fact that it's really just about money, and the fact that it's pretty boring and predictable. Otherwise, it's fine.
The only reason I am going on Tuesday is meet some clients and former colleagues.
Oh and the salmon and cheese sandwiches, they are the dog's dangly bits.
That's two types of sandwiches right? Please say that's two types of sandwiches...
Attendances for Hundred 20% down — despite bigger stars and fresh branding
I’m at Headingley on Tuesday for a match.
The corporate hospitality prices are down 40% from last year.
According to my colleague a fortnight ago the prices were 10% higher than last year.
I am getting spammed with offers.
They are trying to pitch the match on Tuesday as a Roses match.
Nah it’s Leeds Sunrisers v Manchester Supergiants.
The only things wrong with the Hundred are the stupid team names, the fact that the identity of the teams bears no relationship to the identity of the players (e.g. Root - Welsh Fire; Bairstow - London something etc) and therefore doesn't promote any sense of belonging, the fact that it's not proper cricket at all, the fact that it's really just about money, and the fact that it's pretty boring and predictable. Otherwise, it's fine.
The only reason I am going on Tuesday is meet some clients and former colleagues.
Oh and the salmon and cheese sandwiches, they are the dog's dangly bits.
That's two types of sandwiches right? Please say that's two types of sandwiches...
Attendances for Hundred 20% down — despite bigger stars and fresh branding
I’m at Headingley on Tuesday for a match.
The corporate hospitality prices are down 40% from last year.
According to my colleague a fortnight ago the prices were 10% higher than last year.
I am getting spammed with offers.
They are trying to pitch the match on Tuesday as a Roses match.
Nah it’s Leeds Sunrisers v Manchester Supergiants.
The only things wrong with the Hundred are the stupid team names, the fact that the identity of the teams bears no relationship to the identity of the players (e.g. Root - Welsh Fire; Bairstow - London something etc) and therefore doesn't promote any sense of belonging, the fact that it's not proper cricket at all, the fact that it's really just about money, and the fact that it's pretty boring and predictable. Otherwise, it's fine.
The only reason I am going on Tuesday is meet some clients and former colleagues.
Oh and the salmon and cheese sandwiches, they are the dog's dangly bits.
That's two types of sandwiches right? Please say that's two types of sandwiches...
Smoked salmon and cottage cheese works quite nicely
... with even Maureen Lipman saying this week she would vote for Kemi...
Dame Maureen has got close relatives in Israel and she's said in the past about how scared she is for them given the constant missile bombardment. Under Badenoch the Conservatives are solidly pro-Israel (I think - somebody correct me if wrong) and Labour under Burnham is lukewarm, so she has a valid reason for the switch.
Indeed, its sad to see the pro Hamas turn many in Labour have taken. Good to see principled lefties like Maureen take a stance.
It's not pro Hamas, it's anti genocidal, racist Israeli government
Barty seems to process scepticism of the Netanyahu Government as a pro Hamas narrative. Maybe Maureen Lipman is similarly minded.
I support the Israeli opposition that wants to see the corrupt Netanyahu be replaced, but be just as hardline at defeating Hamas.
The problem with Netanyahu is that he is (a) corrupt and (b) been too soft on Hamas.
Not that he has been too hard on them.
No, the problem is that Netanyahu's two goals, defeating Hamas and changing the regime in Iran, are and always were utterly unrealistic.
Israel simply cannot wipe out Hamas while the Palestinians' political grievances remain unaddressed. It has had limited military successes, but at the cost of further entrenching political support for Hames in Gaza.
And the war to overthrow the Iranian regime has been a total and utter failure - in fact, completely counter-productive because it has allowed the Iranian regime to clamp down on the opposition at home even more thoroughly.
All Netanyahu's strategy has achieved is to strengthen his enemies politically, ruin Israel's standing abroad and trap it in a never-ending cycle of war and atrocity.
It's the definition of a futile dead end.
From that point of view, at least, Netanyahu and Putin are twins.
That's quite a defeatist and nihilistic attitude.
It is absolutely possible to militarily defeat evil terrorists and fascist regimes like Hamas and Iran. There is plenty of precedence for doing so like defeating the Tamil Tigers and the Nazis and Imperial Japan.
What is needed is Total War until they are defeated and surrender unconditionally.
The problem is that Trump especially has been weak and chickened out, and Netanyahu has also been pulling his punches.
Israel needs to get more aggressive than it is and end the cycle of violence by eliminating the enemies.
Somewhat amazingly I find myself wanting to steer you back to the light comedy of the Laffer curve.
Barty is an absolutist. Even when it comes to killing civilians by the tens of thousands ... so long as it's done by the 'good guys'.
That is a fair comment.
I hold to the standards that what we did in WWII was right and that is the standard that Ukraine and Israel and other 'good guys' should operate to today.
Anything we did to defeat the Nazis was right and proper and legitimate for either Israel or Ukraine to do today.
War is hell and civilians die in it which is why it should be a last resort, but if you are in that last resort then you better bloody win.
I don't suppose you are a big fan of the Geneva Convention.
What we did to Germnay and the Allies to Japan was limited by the means available.
While we didn't terror bomb civilian areas to break the national spirit like the Blitz we nonetheless tried to destroy Axis industry with carpet bombing even through theire was civilian housing all around it. Likewise railway hubs and bridges.
In no small apart the casualties from UK bombing were a product of the innaccuracy of wrtime bombing particularly before 43/44.
It's harder to justify the use of Napalm on Tokyo, it's first wartime use, on the worlds largest timber city than as anything else than an attempt to force surrender by terror. The it prevented more deaths from an Invasion doesn't cut it when they were already a broken nation on teh edge of starvation.
That we weren't prosecuted was really because we won.
Were they proportional? Probably not.
Were they all we had? Yes.
So given total war and National survival, justified if disproportional.
Little of that applies to Israel today.
Has it far more accurate weapons and the intelegence to deploy them than we had? Yes.
Is it in a position to take it's time and strike precisely when targets emerge? Yes.
For all the horrendous nature of it's attacks and ideology is Hamas a threat to the existance of Israel? Realisticly No.
Wanting to destroy Israel and being able to do so are two different things. II can kill people just like the IRA but we didn't flatten Dublin.
Can Israel degrade and contain Hamas and Hezbollah, without the current and recent use of force and civilan casualties and damage? Yes.
Therefore because Israel clearly has ways to proscute this war with far less damage and fewer civilian casualties but chooses not to, it is not doing the same as we did in WW2, just as we didn't do in Northern Ireland what we did in WW2.
Indeed just like we didn't do in WW2 when we occupied Germany ,what we did in the Crusades when we took the Holyland!
Peter.
You are completely wrong Breaking German civilian morale was an explicit aim of the allied bombing campaign. Harris and others were quite open about this.
... with even Maureen Lipman saying this week she would vote for Kemi...
Dame Maureen has got close relatives in Israel and she's said in the past about how scared she is for them given the constant missile bombardment. Under Badenoch the Conservatives are solidly pro-Israel (I think - somebody correct me if wrong) and Labour under Burnham is lukewarm, so she has a valid reason for the switch.
Indeed, its sad to see the pro Hamas turn many in Labour have taken. Good to see principled lefties like Maureen take a stance.
It's not pro Hamas, it's anti genocidal, racist Israeli government
Barty seems to process scepticism of the Netanyahu Government as a pro Hamas narrative. Maybe Maureen Lipman is similarly minded.
I support the Israeli opposition that wants to see the corrupt Netanyahu be replaced, but be just as hardline at defeating Hamas.
The problem with Netanyahu is that he is (a) corrupt and (b) been too soft on Hamas.
Not that he has been too hard on them.
No, the problem is that Netanyahu's two goals, defeating Hamas and changing the regime in Iran, are and always were utterly unrealistic.
Israel simply cannot wipe out Hamas while the Palestinians' political grievances remain unaddressed. It has had limited military successes, but at the cost of further entrenching political support for Hames in Gaza.
And the war to overthrow the Iranian regime has been a total and utter failure - in fact, completely counter-productive because it has allowed the Iranian regime to clamp down on the opposition at home even more thoroughly.
All Netanyahu's strategy has achieved is to strengthen his enemies politically, ruin Israel's standing abroad and trap it in a never-ending cycle of war and atrocity.
It's the definition of a futile dead end.
From that point of view, at least, Netanyahu and Putin are twins.
That's quite a defeatist and nihilistic attitude.
It is absolutely possible to militarily defeat evil terrorists and fascist regimes like Hamas and Iran. There is plenty of precedence for doing so like defeating the Tamil Tigers and the Nazis and Imperial Japan.
What is needed is Total War until they are defeated and surrender unconditionally.
The problem is that Trump especially has been weak and chickened out, and Netanyahu has also been pulling his punches.
Israel needs to get more aggressive than it is and end the cycle of violence by eliminating the enemies.
Somewhat amazingly I find myself wanting to steer you back to the light comedy of the Laffer curve.
Barty is an absolutist. Even when it comes to killing civilians by the tens of thousands ... so long as it's done by the 'good guys'.
That is a fair comment.
I hold to the standards that what we did in WWII was right and that is the standard that Ukraine and Israel and other 'good guys' should operate to today.
Anything we did to defeat the Nazis was right and proper and legitimate for either Israel or Ukraine to do today.
War is hell and civilians die in it which is why it should be a last resort, but if you are in that last resort then you better bloody win.
I don't suppose you are a big fan of the Geneva Convention.
Geneva Conventions existed in WWII too. I think they should be shown as much respect today as we gave them then.
I am consistently not a fan of attempting to legislate away conflict. It does not work and never has.
WWI saw extensive use of chemical weapons. WWII and since hasn’t (with some exceptions). I think that counts as a victory for a legalistic approach.
I'm not convinced that the non use of chemicals is quite the victory for a legal approach that you claim. There were lots of reasons why neither/any sides deployed them, but fear of retaliation in the era of area bombing is surely the number one.
That was part of it, but that alone would not have been enough. It needed some sort of larger framework to give structure to the idea that we won’t use them if you don’t use them.
... with even Maureen Lipman saying this week she would vote for Kemi...
Dame Maureen has got close relatives in Israel and she's said in the past about how scared she is for them given the constant missile bombardment. Under Badenoch the Conservatives are solidly pro-Israel (I think - somebody correct me if wrong) and Labour under Burnham is lukewarm, so she has a valid reason for the switch.
Indeed, its sad to see the pro Hamas turn many in Labour have taken. Good to see principled lefties like Maureen take a stance.
It's not pro Hamas, it's anti genocidal, racist Israeli government
Barty seems to process scepticism of the Netanyahu Government as a pro Hamas narrative. Maybe Maureen Lipman is similarly minded.
I support the Israeli opposition that wants to see the corrupt Netanyahu be replaced, but be just as hardline at defeating Hamas.
The problem with Netanyahu is that he is (a) corrupt and (b) been too soft on Hamas.
Not that he has been too hard on them.
No, the problem is that Netanyahu's two goals, defeating Hamas and changing the regime in Iran, are and always were utterly unrealistic.
Israel simply cannot wipe out Hamas while the Palestinians' political grievances remain unaddressed. It has had limited military successes, but at the cost of further entrenching political support for Hames in Gaza.
And the war to overthrow the Iranian regime has been a total and utter failure - in fact, completely counter-productive because it has allowed the Iranian regime to clamp down on the opposition at home even more thoroughly.
All Netanyahu's strategy has achieved is to strengthen his enemies politically, ruin Israel's standing abroad and trap it in a never-ending cycle of war and atrocity.
It's the definition of a futile dead end.
From that point of view, at least, Netanyahu and Putin are twins.
That's quite a defeatist and nihilistic attitude.
It is absolutely possible to militarily defeat evil terrorists and fascist regimes like Hamas and Iran. There is plenty of precedence for doing so like defeating the Tamil Tigers and the Nazis and Imperial Japan.
What is needed is Total War until they are defeated and surrender unconditionally.
The problem is that Trump especially has been weak and chickened out, and Netanyahu has also been pulling his punches.
Israel needs to get more aggressive than it is and end the cycle of violence by eliminating the enemies.
Somewhat amazingly I find myself wanting to steer you back to the light comedy of the Laffer curve.
Barty is an absolutist. Even when it comes to killing civilians by the tens of thousands ... so long as it's done by the 'good guys'.
That is a fair comment.
I hold to the standards that what we did in WWII was right and that is the standard that Ukraine and Israel and other 'good guys' should operate to today.
Anything we did to defeat the Nazis was right and proper and legitimate for either Israel or Ukraine to do today.
War is hell and civilians die in it which is why it should be a last resort, but if you are in that last resort then you better bloody win.
I don't suppose you are a big fan of the Geneva Convention.
Geneva Conventions existed in WWII too. I think they should be shown as much respect today as we gave them then.
I am consistently not a fan of attempting to legislate away conflict. It does not work and never has.
WWI saw extensive use of chemical weapons. WWII and since hasn’t (with some exceptions). I think that counts as a victory for a legalistic approach.
You mean if we turn a blind eye to how only a few years ago Syria under Assad used chemical weapons . . . and Miliband and other MPs then shamefully blocked the UK taking action against them?
As I said, there have been exceptions, but they have been rare, given how much war there has been.
I supported the UK taking action at the time. I’m surprised someone like you, who doesn’t believe in international law, supported actions to enforce international law.
Attendances for Hundred 20% down — despite bigger stars and fresh branding
I’m at Headingley on Tuesday for a match.
The corporate hospitality prices are down 40% from last year.
According to my colleague a fortnight ago the prices were 10% higher than last year.
I am getting spammed with offers.
They are trying to pitch the match on Tuesday as a Roses match.
Nah it’s Leeds Sunrisers v Manchester Supergiants.
The only things wrong with the Hundred are the stupid team names, the fact that the identity of the teams bears no relationship to the identity of the players (e.g. Root - Welsh Fire; Bairstow - London something etc) and therefore doesn't promote any sense of belonging, the fact that it's not proper cricket at all, the fact that it's really just about money, and the fact that it's pretty boring and predictable. Otherwise, it's fine.
And that the ECB is using it as a way to reduce the number of professional counties.
Attendances for Hundred 20% down — despite bigger stars and fresh branding
I’m at Headingley on Tuesday for a match.
The corporate hospitality prices are down 40% from last year.
According to my colleague a fortnight ago the prices were 10% higher than last year.
I am getting spammed with offers.
They are trying to pitch the match on Tuesday as a Roses match.
Nah it’s Leeds Sunrisers v Manchester Supergiants.
The only things wrong with the Hundred are the stupid team names, the fact that the identity of the teams bears no relationship to the identity of the players (e.g. Root - Welsh Fire; Bairstow - London something etc) and therefore doesn't promote any sense of belonging, the fact that it's not proper cricket at all, the fact that it's really just about money, and the fact that it's pretty boring and predictable. Otherwise, it's fine.
And that the ECB is using it as a way to reduce the number of professional counties.
Not just that. At the moment the ECB is nominally at least controlled by the members through the counties, whereas if they re-establish cricket based on franchises it will be de facto and de jure controlled by them as a commercial enterprise. They think this very desirable.
For the both of you that are interested, the second part of the legendary/infamous Star Trek fan film Axanar sequence, called "Axanar: the Coming Storm", is now out. Directed/produced by entrepreneur/scam artist Alex Peters, whose first part was so copyright-violating that Paramount had to issue extremelyrestrictive guidelines that killed manynascentfan film producers, it was in production for over a decade. This infuriated many fans who saw othermoretalentedproducers lap him in terms of production values and cadence.
Having seen it, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xFpTiIHNTJ0 it's a bit...meh. Not bad per se, but not as good as the field leaders. This is what happens when you spend ten years raising lots of funds and releasing very little.
... with even Maureen Lipman saying this week she would vote for Kemi...
Dame Maureen has got close relatives in Israel and she's said in the past about how scared she is for them given the constant missile bombardment. Under Badenoch the Conservatives are solidly pro-Israel (I think - somebody correct me if wrong) and Labour under Burnham is lukewarm, so she has a valid reason for the switch.
Indeed, its sad to see the pro Hamas turn many in Labour have taken. Good to see principled lefties like Maureen take a stance.
It's not pro Hamas, it's anti genocidal, racist Israeli government
Barty seems to process scepticism of the Netanyahu Government as a pro Hamas narrative. Maybe Maureen Lipman is similarly minded.
I support the Israeli opposition that wants to see the corrupt Netanyahu be replaced, but be just as hardline at defeating Hamas.
The problem with Netanyahu is that he is (a) corrupt and (b) been too soft on Hamas.
Not that he has been too hard on them.
No, the problem is that Netanyahu's two goals, defeating Hamas and changing the regime in Iran, are and always were utterly unrealistic.
Israel simply cannot wipe out Hamas while the Palestinians' political grievances remain unaddressed. It has had limited military successes, but at the cost of further entrenching political support for Hames in Gaza.
And the war to overthrow the Iranian regime has been a total and utter failure - in fact, completely counter-productive because it has allowed the Iranian regime to clamp down on the opposition at home even more thoroughly.
All Netanyahu's strategy has achieved is to strengthen his enemies politically, ruin Israel's standing abroad and trap it in a never-ending cycle of war and atrocity.
It's the definition of a futile dead end.
From that point of view, at least, Netanyahu and Putin are twins.
That's quite a defeatist and nihilistic attitude.
It is absolutely possible to militarily defeat evil terrorists and fascist regimes like Hamas and Iran. There is plenty of precedence for doing so like defeating the Tamil Tigers and the Nazis and Imperial Japan.
What is needed is Total War until they are defeated and surrender unconditionally.
The problem is that Trump especially has been weak and chickened out, and Netanyahu has also been pulling his punches.
Israel needs to get more aggressive than it is and end the cycle of violence by eliminating the enemies.
Somewhat amazingly I find myself wanting to steer you back to the light comedy of the Laffer curve.
Barty is an absolutist. Even when it comes to killing civilians by the tens of thousands ... so long as it's done by the 'good guys'.
That is a fair comment.
I hold to the standards that what we did in WWII was right and that is the standard that Ukraine and Israel and other 'good guys' should operate to today.
Anything we did to defeat the Nazis was right and proper and legitimate for either Israel or Ukraine to do today.
War is hell and civilians die in it which is why it should be a last resort, but if you are in that last resort then you better bloody win.
I don't suppose you are a big fan of the Geneva Convention.
What we did to Germnay and the Allies to Japan was limited by the means available.
While we didn't terror bomb civilian areas to break the national spirit like the Blitz we nonetheless tried to destroy Axis industry with carpet bombing even through theire was civilian housing all around it. Likewise railway hubs and bridges.
In no small apart the casualties from UK bombing were a product of the innaccuracy of wrtime bombing particularly before 43/44.
It's harder to justify the use of Napalm on Tokyo, it's first wartime use, on the worlds largest timber city than as anything else than an attempt to force surrender by terror. The it prevented more deaths from an Invasion doesn't cut it when they were already a broken nation on teh edge of starvation.
That we weren't prosecuted was really because we won.
Were they proportional? Probably not.
Were they all we had? Yes.
So given total war and National survival, justified if disproportional.
Little of that applies to Israel today.
Has it far more accurate weapons and the intelegence to deploy them than we had? Yes.
Is it in a position to take it's time and strike precisely when targets emerge? Yes.
For all the horrendous nature of it's attacks and ideology is Hamas a threat to the existance of Israel? Realisticly No.
Wanting to destroy Israel and being able to do so are two different things. II can kill people just like the IRA but we didn't flatten Dublin.
Can Israel degrade and contain Hamas and Hezbollah, without the current and recent use of force and civilan casualties and damage? Yes.
Therefore because Israel clearly has ways to proscute this war with far less damage and fewer civilian casualties but chooses not to, it is not doing the same as we did in WW2, just as we didn't do in Northern Ireland what we did in WW2.
Indeed just like we didn't do in WW2 when we occupied Germany ,what we did in the Crusades when we took the Holyland!
Peter.
You are completely wrong Breaking German civilian morale was an explicit aim of the allied bombing campaign. Harris and others were quite open about this.
It was something like tit for tat. They flattened Coventry we flattened Dresden.
... with even Maureen Lipman saying this week she would vote for Kemi...
Dame Maureen has got close relatives in Israel and she's said in the past about how scared she is for them given the constant missile bombardment. Under Badenoch the Conservatives are solidly pro-Israel (I think - somebody correct me if wrong) and Labour under Burnham is lukewarm, so she has a valid reason for the switch.
Indeed, its sad to see the pro Hamas turn many in Labour have taken. Good to see principled lefties like Maureen take a stance.
It's not pro Hamas, it's anti genocidal, racist Israeli government
Barty seems to process scepticism of the Netanyahu Government as a pro Hamas narrative. Maybe Maureen Lipman is similarly minded.
I support the Israeli opposition that wants to see the corrupt Netanyahu be replaced, but be just as hardline at defeating Hamas.
The problem with Netanyahu is that he is (a) corrupt and (b) been too soft on Hamas.
Not that he has been too hard on them.
No, the problem is that Netanyahu's two goals, defeating Hamas and changing the regime in Iran, are and always were utterly unrealistic.
Israel simply cannot wipe out Hamas while the Palestinians' political grievances remain unaddressed. It has had limited military successes, but at the cost of further entrenching political support for Hames in Gaza.
And the war to overthrow the Iranian regime has been a total and utter failure - in fact, completely counter-productive because it has allowed the Iranian regime to clamp down on the opposition at home even more thoroughly.
All Netanyahu's strategy has achieved is to strengthen his enemies politically, ruin Israel's standing abroad and trap it in a never-ending cycle of war and atrocity.
It's the definition of a futile dead end.
From that point of view, at least, Netanyahu and Putin are twins.
That's quite a defeatist and nihilistic attitude.
It is absolutely possible to militarily defeat evil terrorists and fascist regimes like Hamas and Iran. There is plenty of precedence for doing so like defeating the Tamil Tigers and the Nazis and Imperial Japan.
What is needed is Total War until they are defeated and surrender unconditionally.
The problem is that Trump especially has been weak and chickened out, and Netanyahu has also been pulling his punches.
Israel needs to get more aggressive than it is and end the cycle of violence by eliminating the enemies.
you still are and forever will be a complete lunatic
Lunacy is repeating the same mistakes and expecting other outcomes. Like having a repeated cycle of ceasefire, hatred, conflict, ceasefire.
Victory can break the cycle of violence. The Nazis are gone, the Tamil Tigers are gone. Imperial Japan reformed to save itself.
Victory works better than stalemate.
I don't really see how in this case total victory really can 'work'. Israel can fully occupy Gaza and the West Bank, and subdue and disarm the Palestinians who live there, but that wouldn't be enough. They would want to cleanse those areas of Palestinians to secure themselves permanently and make room for more Israelis to live there. Even if they didn't want to do this, they would still be stuck there. In West Germany, you could get rid of the Nazis, occupy the country for a while, and then leave and let the Germans get on with it. You can't do that in Gaza and the West Bank. The minute Israel leaves, anti-Israel forces would take hold, with some justification.
The only viable solution to me is, as I have said before, to empy Gaza of Palestinians and have them all move to the West Bank. And empty the West Bank of settlers and make them all move back to Israel and Gaza. Then you get a stable and secure Israel, and a viable Palestinian state.
That’s called ethnic cleansing and is a crime against humanity.
The current status quo and not doing anything about it because of some outdated terminology is the real crime against humanity.
... with even Maureen Lipman saying this week she would vote for Kemi...
Dame Maureen has got close relatives in Israel and she's said in the past about how scared she is for them given the constant missile bombardment. Under Badenoch the Conservatives are solidly pro-Israel (I think - somebody correct me if wrong) and Labour under Burnham is lukewarm, so she has a valid reason for the switch.
Indeed, its sad to see the pro Hamas turn many in Labour have taken. Good to see principled lefties like Maureen take a stance.
It's not pro Hamas, it's anti genocidal, racist Israeli government
Barty seems to process scepticism of the Netanyahu Government as a pro Hamas narrative. Maybe Maureen Lipman is similarly minded.
I support the Israeli opposition that wants to see the corrupt Netanyahu be replaced, but be just as hardline at defeating Hamas.
The problem with Netanyahu is that he is (a) corrupt and (b) been too soft on Hamas.
Not that he has been too hard on them.
No, the problem is that Netanyahu's two goals, defeating Hamas and changing the regime in Iran, are and always were utterly unrealistic.
Israel simply cannot wipe out Hamas while the Palestinians' political grievances remain unaddressed. It has had limited military successes, but at the cost of further entrenching political support for Hames in Gaza.
And the war to overthrow the Iranian regime has been a total and utter failure - in fact, completely counter-productive because it has allowed the Iranian regime to clamp down on the opposition at home even more thoroughly.
All Netanyahu's strategy has achieved is to strengthen his enemies politically, ruin Israel's standing abroad and trap it in a never-ending cycle of war and atrocity.
It's the definition of a futile dead end.
From that point of view, at least, Netanyahu and Putin are twins.
That's quite a defeatist and nihilistic attitude.
It is absolutely possible to militarily defeat evil terrorists and fascist regimes like Hamas and Iran. There is plenty of precedence for doing so like defeating the Tamil Tigers and the Nazis and Imperial Japan.
What is needed is Total War until they are defeated and surrender unconditionally.
The problem is that Trump especially has been weak and chickened out, and Netanyahu has also been pulling his punches.
Israel needs to get more aggressive than it is and end the cycle of violence by eliminating the enemies.
Somewhat amazingly I find myself wanting to steer you back to the light comedy of the Laffer curve.
Barty is an absolutist. Even when it comes to killing civilians by the tens of thousands ... so long as it's done by the 'good guys'.
That is a fair comment.
I hold to the standards that what we did in WWII was right and that is the standard that Ukraine and Israel and other 'good guys' should operate to today.
Anything we did to defeat the Nazis was right and proper and legitimate for either Israel or Ukraine to do today.
War is hell and civilians die in it which is why it should be a last resort, but if you are in that last resort then you better bloody win.
I don't suppose you are a big fan of the Geneva Convention.
What we did to Germnay and the Allies to Japan was limited by the means available.
While we didn't terror bomb civilian areas to break the national spirit like the Blitz we nonetheless tried to destroy Axis industry with carpet bombing even through theire was civilian housing all around it. Likewise railway hubs and bridges.
In no small apart the casualties from UK bombing were a product of the innaccuracy of wrtime bombing particularly before 43/44.
It's harder to justify the use of Napalm on Tokyo, it's first wartime use, on the worlds largest timber city than as anything else than an attempt to force surrender by terror. The it prevented more deaths from an Invasion doesn't cut it when they were already a broken nation on teh edge of starvation.
That we weren't prosecuted was really because we won.
Were they proportional? Probably not.
Were they all we had? Yes.
So given total war and National survival, justified if disproportional.
Little of that applies to Israel today.
Has it far more accurate weapons and the intelegence to deploy them than we had? Yes.
Is it in a position to take it's time and strike precisely when targets emerge? Yes.
For all the horrendous nature of it's attacks and ideology is Hamas a threat to the existance of Israel? Realisticly No.
Wanting to destroy Israel and being able to do so are two different things. II can kill people just like the IRA but we didn't flatten Dublin.
Can Israel degrade and contain Hamas and Hezbollah, without the current and recent use of force and civilan casualties and damage? Yes.
Therefore because Israel clearly has ways to proscute this war with far less damage and fewer civilian casualties but chooses not to, it is not doing the same as we did in WW2, just as we didn't do in Northern Ireland what we did in WW2.
Indeed just like we didn't do in WW2 when we occupied Germany ,what we did in the Crusades when we took the Holyland!
Peter.
You are completely wrong Breaking German civilian morale was an explicit aim of the allied bombing campaign. Harris and others were quite open about this.
It was something like tit for tat. They flattened Coventry we flattened Dresden.
The Nazis entered this war under the rather childish delusion that they were going to bomb everyone else, and nobody was going to bomb them. At Rotterdam, London, Warsaw, and half a hundred other places, they put their rather naive theory into operation. They sowed the wind, and now they are going to reap the whirlwind.
Attendances for Hundred 20% down — despite bigger stars and fresh branding
I’m at Headingley on Tuesday for a match.
The corporate hospitality prices are down 40% from last year.
According to my colleague a fortnight ago the prices were 10% higher than last year.
I am getting spammed with offers.
They are trying to pitch the match on Tuesday as a Roses match.
Nah it’s Leeds Sunrisers v Manchester Supergiants.
The only things wrong with the Hundred are the stupid team names, the fact that the identity of the teams bears no relationship to the identity of the players (e.g. Root - Welsh Fire; Bairstow - London something etc) and therefore doesn't promote any sense of belonging, the fact that it's not proper cricket at all, the fact that it's really just about money, and the fact that it's pretty boring and predictable. Otherwise, it's fine.
The only reason I am going on Tuesday is meet some clients and former colleagues.
Oh and the salmon and cheese sandwiches, they are the dog's dangly bits.
This picture is a sobering reminder of Test cricket’s peril. West Indies and Pakistan observe a minute’s silence for Sir Garfield Sobers in Trinidad and Tobago with hardly a spectator in sight
... with even Maureen Lipman saying this week she would vote for Kemi...
Dame Maureen has got close relatives in Israel and she's said in the past about how scared she is for them given the constant missile bombardment. Under Badenoch the Conservatives are solidly pro-Israel (I think - somebody correct me if wrong) and Labour under Burnham is lukewarm, so she has a valid reason for the switch.
Indeed, its sad to see the pro Hamas turn many in Labour have taken. Good to see principled lefties like Maureen take a stance.
It's not pro Hamas, it's anti genocidal, racist Israeli government
Barty seems to process scepticism of the Netanyahu Government as a pro Hamas narrative. Maybe Maureen Lipman is similarly minded.
I support the Israeli opposition that wants to see the corrupt Netanyahu be replaced, but be just as hardline at defeating Hamas.
The problem with Netanyahu is that he is (a) corrupt and (b) been too soft on Hamas.
Not that he has been too hard on them.
No, the problem is that Netanyahu's two goals, defeating Hamas and changing the regime in Iran, are and always were utterly unrealistic.
Israel simply cannot wipe out Hamas while the Palestinians' political grievances remain unaddressed. It has had limited military successes, but at the cost of further entrenching political support for Hames in Gaza.
And the war to overthrow the Iranian regime has been a total and utter failure - in fact, completely counter-productive because it has allowed the Iranian regime to clamp down on the opposition at home even more thoroughly.
All Netanyahu's strategy has achieved is to strengthen his enemies politically, ruin Israel's standing abroad and trap it in a never-ending cycle of war and atrocity.
It's the definition of a futile dead end.
From that point of view, at least, Netanyahu and Putin are twins.
That's quite a defeatist and nihilistic attitude.
It is absolutely possible to militarily defeat evil terrorists and fascist regimes like Hamas and Iran. There is plenty of precedence for doing so like defeating the Tamil Tigers and the Nazis and Imperial Japan.
What is needed is Total War until they are defeated and surrender unconditionally.
The problem is that Trump especially has been weak and chickened out, and Netanyahu has also been pulling his punches.
Israel needs to get more aggressive than it is and end the cycle of violence by eliminating the enemies.
you still are and forever will be a complete lunatic
Lunacy is repeating the same mistakes and expecting other outcomes. Like having a repeated cycle of ceasefire, hatred, conflict, ceasefire.
Victory can break the cycle of violence. The Nazis are gone, the Tamil Tigers are gone. Imperial Japan reformed to save itself.
Victory works better than stalemate.
I don't really see how in this case total victory really can 'work'. Israel can fully occupy Gaza and the West Bank, and subdue and disarm the Palestinians who live there, but that wouldn't be enough. They would want to cleanse those areas of Palestinians to secure themselves permanently and make room for more Israelis to live there. Even if they didn't want to do this, they would still be stuck there. In West Germany, you could get rid of the Nazis, occupy the country for a while, and then leave and let the Germans get on with it. You can't do that in Gaza and the West Bank. The minute Israel leaves, anti-Israel forces would take hold, with some justification.
The only viable solution to me is, as I have said before, to empy Gaza of Palestinians and have them all move to the West Bank. And empty the West Bank of settlers and make them all move back to Israel and Gaza. Then you get a stable and secure Israel, and a viable Palestinian state.
That’s called ethnic cleansing and is a crime against humanity.
The current status quo and not doing anything about it because of some outdated terminology is the real crime against humanity.
Even if that idea wasn't arrant nonsense I can't see the murderous West Bank farmers buying that one.
On topic - I'm expecting an earlier election simply because there is a risk of Reform imploding so holding an election as it implodes rather than after it's gone would be the sensible approach...
So I wouldn't 100% rule out 2027 as the sane choice.
What's striking is that no one is calling for an early election, in complete contrast to the last three or four times that the PM changed mid term.
Lots of reasons of course but the main one is that no one actually wants one right now. Reform would have a year ago but are on the slide. The Tories are basically nowhere. The greens are fading as their leaders balloon has burst on the twin boobs of failing to obey the law and actual scrutiny. The lib dems have made no impression on moving their vote share despite the government travails.
So no one wants an early election.
Shows just how cynical all those who repeatedly called for them in previous times were.
One of the reasons I am told that the Tories aren't keen on fighting a snap election is that they don't have a pot to piss in at the moment and they have to run a full campaign for the Greater Manchester Mayoral campaign which is expensive.
Also candidate selection, the other issue that some people are on the Tory candidate list who are also looking to join Reform....
I bet they regret returning £15m to Frank 'Dianne Abbott should be shot' Hester.
They did return it, didn't they?
Oh.
'Diane Abbott row: Tory minister says they'd take more cash from donor Frank Hester'
So Kemi's claims she has raised millions are about as accurate as her claims when she was in charge of International Trade and signed dozens of deals on worse terms!
I think on this occasion Burnham is wise not to be anything but form on the date.
The Country is sick and tired of the churn and short termism.
If he goes is 229 he can go with a message of stability and a manifesto for 5 -10 years with hopefully a degree of trust.
Farage I doubt will be the threat he still is, Tories will desperately need to wake up and realise the centre round is where they should be and not hard right where they are being taken. If there is an exodus of Tories it is more likely to be to LD's in strategically plausible incumbent hold deats across the South and Home Counties. Tories who are pro EU and pro renewables.
'Tories who are pro EU and pro renewables' have a ready made home in the Lib Dems
@HYUFD who is the best one to listen to on the conservative party, though we have our disagreements, has already made this point not least because the conservative party will not re-join the EU and wants to ameliorate the cost of domestic bills by reducing the climate change levies by £200 pa. Also open up the North Sea which seems to be likely now.
The ECHR is a problem across Europe with individual EU countries seeking to exclude immigration from their remit, and even introduce Rwanda style schemes
You have a 'bee in your bonnet' about Kemi but look at her polling and approval rates and note that she and Andy Burnham are the only leaders with positive ratings
The next 12 months will be the Andy v Kemi show, not least because Kemi is the leader of the opposition, and it promises to be interesting
So are you happy for her to basically deselect or refuse to select Politicians who are in support of net zero or some form of renewable POlicy or are in support of the basic tenets and vast majority of EHCR guidelines.
Are you happy for very good people like Street and Davison walk away?
Kemi is creating a new conservative party and yes, if they do not support her policies why would she allow them to stand ?
Because without a broad centre right coalition including the intelligent and thoughtful One Nation party it is impossible for the Tories to win 325 seats would be a top reason and quite enough for now.
You mean pro EU and net zero then one nation
One Nation will do fine thanks. It is worth noting that Labour, currently the government and likely to still be after the next election, are stuffed full of MPs and members who are pro EU but don't have now, or any plan to have, a policy of rejoining the EU.
As to net zero, most UK politicians don't accept that climate change caused by CO2 is a hoax. SFAICS it isn't even Reform policy as such. I don't think Kemi has said it's all a big lie. The policy of CO2 emissions is all about timing and bilateral movement with other emitters, not about principle.
Badenoch doesn't own the Conservative Party in the way Farage owns Reform. It belongs to the members who share the same principles (private enterprise, national cohesion, personal responsibility, for example). How those principles evolve into policies is the daily grind of big tent party politics and for Badenoch to short-circuit the process by excluding everyone who disagrees with her does not bode well. The Wets are drifting to the Libdems and the Dries are drifting to Reform, leaving behind the unelectable residue of her personal fan club. It's easy to see why the Tories chose her ("We're desperate. Let's try a girl from Lagos. We've never done it before"), less easy to imagine how it will succeed in practice. Her divisive policies are actually an irrelevance because she's never going to be in a position to enact them. She'll end up in the dustbin of history where Liz Truss awaits her, but at least she won't be expected to rock up to the Cenotaph every November.
I fully agree with this, being a 50 years Tory voter (in general elections) but now lost to them. The Tories without a centrist middle class, including a public sector middle class, is a lost cause in the long run.
An indicator worth keeping an eye on is in the sub samples (with the customary warnings of course) of polling, eg YouGov. In their latest polling, in the 'Higher' category (which I suppose is something ljke ABC1) Tory + Reform is only 39%. Tory at 22%. They have lost a lot of their traditional support, tending to be naturally centrist, to elsewhere.
Eh? The Tories are now polling best in the higher category on 22%, to 20% in the Intermediate category and just 19% with Routine groups.
Indeed, the only group where Labour and the Tories are still the top 2 parties is those in the higher social class category, with Labour on 27%, the Tories on 22%, Reform on just 17% and the LDs on 15%.
Whereas Reform lead with Intermediate and Routine groups on 28% and 30% and Labour, the traditional party of the working class is now only third with its former core vote on just 17% and 16% behind even the Tories in those groups on 20% and 19%
This slightly misses the point. The majority of the middle class votes left of centre. 78% of the middle class doesn't vote Tory. This is an existential crisis for the party.
No it doesn't, only 49% of those in the higher class vote Labour or Green and the LDs were in government with the Tories only just over 10 years ago.
The Tories still lead Reform with middle class voters, so while Reform lead Labour with working class voters, the Tories reach middle class voters still Reform can't
I am content with Kemi and the conservative party and the siren voices on here are entitled to their view
However, you do not achieve a plus approval rate with even Maureen Lipman saying this week she would vote for Kemi if you are not cutting through and predicting the demise of the conservative party is either wishful thinking or hope
There is a lot to happen over the next 3 years and predicting the next GE is impossible
Burnham may win but who knows even Kemi may upset all the predictions and become the next PM
I expect it to be one or the other as I do not see Farage as a threat for the next GE
Or rather let Farage concentrate on winning Labour held seats in the Northern redwall and Midlands and Wales and let Kemi concentrate on winning Labour seats in London and the South and a few SNP seats in Scotland.
Reform and the Tories only really need to fight each other in the 124 existing Tory held seats and the handful of seats Reform won from the Tories at the last general election, especially in areas like Kent and Essex and East Anglia, which is less than a quarter of the total number of seats in the Commons
“let Farage concentrate on winning Labour held seats in the Northern redwall and Midlands and Wales and let Kemi concentrate on winning Labour seats in London and the South and a few SNP seats in Scotland.”
I am sure your electoral logic is bankrupt there. Specifically Labour areas will switch to Reform in great quantities at a Parliamentary election.
When Labour had a bad locals that boosted Burnham’s takeover, 4 of their voters went left, to to just 1 right to Reform.
Boris had more appeal over these Labour area’s than Farage. Especially the crucial midlands seats.
The real picture is Conservative and Reform are standing everywhere and cancelling each out, fighting for what is most largely the same voter pool.
Reform still lead Labour 30% to 24% in the Midlands on last week's Yougov and Reform are 6% behind Labour in the North 25% to 31%.
In the South though the Tories lead on 25% to 22% for Reform and 21% for the LDs and just 14% for Labour and in London Reform did best in the outer suburbs like Havering but the Tories beat Reform and Labour in areas like Westminster, Enfield, Kensington and Chelsea and Wandsworth. So it makes sense for them to target different areas
For a realistic picture of who’s going to win seats, take a look at the % of vote and % of seats last time, the Seat number reform got from % of vote. Lack of tactical votes for Ref and Con.
What you are missing in your posts in this mini discussion, when you quote those numbers at us, is the 2019 election. Those voters you are shrugging and conceding are Reforms in those seats, voted Conservative in 2019, and so did so many of those seats in a landslide win.
The mistake I believe you are making, which you do all the time, is put the numbers into a seat calculator - 28% Reform - Labour in second place 22% so 28% of seats to Reform, 22% of seats to Labour, 20% to Conservatives who will get 20% seats just behind how many Labour get. It’s going to be tactical votes. Tactical votes are anti votes, attack votes. Whilst you often add the Con and Ref vote together as a voting block.
What has happened since 2019 wasn’t a transfer from Conservative to Reform like choosing a different or preferable brand or style of Ideology on a trip to the mall, Conservatives lost voters based on perception of competence. Halfway through last Parliament, the day Truss entered number 10 as PM, Reform did not exist as any political force.
This con to ref transfer being competence not ideology is so important way of understanding it, because it means 0% chance of Reform/Con coalition government, 0% chance of Reform Con party merger, if the whole reason for Reform having such support, and keeping such support, is they are not the conservatives and don’t have the record and perception of Conservative incompetence. And crucially too very little chance of tactical vote swaps.
Conservatives focus on these seats, Con on those, coalition government from two hefty seat hauls, possible merger of the parties - that’s all utter nonsense if you understand it is not been ideological or party differences between Reform and Tory, it’s that Reform only poll above 3% if Con are seen as incompetent.
If you try to squeeze what is actually happening into some sort of different parties with similar ideology model, you miss the crucial point about those tactical votes. On ideology Reform and Tory could both get mutual tactical votes across all constituencies. But if Reform voters not voting Conservative on basis of Boris wave, not stopping the boats, cost of living due to Incompetent Tory government, there are not the tactical votes there.
The only thing for Conservative Party, their friends in media and donor need to focus on, the only way forward for the Conservatives, is eradication of Reform back to “nothing” status they were at just a few years back on basis there’s only a lowish ceiling Reform can ever hit, certainly in polling, and definitely in seats. All right wing support to reform is now an utter waste of time, it’s hampering making a proper go at taking the electoral fight to the left.
Feck, I hate it when we import so much grief from the rest of the world, whether it is either the Jews or the Palestinians in Gaza, or anyone at all in the Punjab. These are not our problems.
There was a time when we were the world's policeman, when we ruled the waves and saw all of these conflicts through the prism of our interests but that was pre WW2. Right now we want to stay out of these fights. No one really gives a toss what we think and why should they?
We need to get real. We have minimal influence these days. Stay out of it. We have plenty of problems of our own.
There's a difference between accepting that the UK is not a superpower (and has not been for a very long time), and thinking it should not be a significant power at all. We are still a very large country (somewhere around 20th in terms of population) with a sizable economy. We cannot and should not get involved in many situations, we should be very discerning about where and how we do, but we have the capability to make that a choice, if we think it in our interests, and abandoning the ability to have any influence at all in that regard would be a mistake.
If anything I don't think the problem today is that the public think we are more powerful than we are and try to do too much, but that we don't think we can do anything at all.
Politicians, on the other hand, worry that the public will criticise them for being unambitious if they say we cannot do things, and so try to do too much whilst spending like we can do nothing. That disharmony then pisses people off.
I think you are still deluding yourself about our capacity to change things around the world. We simply can't. Our political class look to express their morals and interests but it is demonstrative and frankly irrelevant.
I am appalled by Israeli brutality in Gaza and the West Bank, I loathe the murderous fanaticism of the Iranian regime, I am disgusted by the cruel brutality of Russia in the Ukraine and many, many others. But so what? No one gives a damn what we think, we don't have the power or the moral authority to assert our views and they are irrelevant anyway.
But I really do care when this hatred is let loose on our streets.
I think you are being a bit ridiculous. The idea we can do nothing at all anywhere is utterly silly. If we can not do anything then basically no one on earth can do anything, including nations which are doing things and yet are much poorer and less capable than us.
What I have suggested is we cannot do anywhere near as much as we used to, and we need to be very careful and discerning about where and when we do do anything. I certainly didn't suggest Gaza or Iran were an example of where we could meaningfully contribute - I don't think we can, and it isn't in our interests to do so.
I fail to see how my position is deluded when yours is just simplistic 'woe is us' doommongering and mine is a nuanced suggestion that we have limited capabilities and need to be careful how we exercise those capabilities.
You are swinging the dial well too far the other way, and presenting it as realpolitik. Plus the common misconception that if you are not a superpower then your nation is meaningless.
Only 2 nations (tops) can claim to be superpowers, but middling powers have roles to play in some capacity. I don't see how it is a delusion to say there is some potential for action in the world, vs what amounts to 'we aren't a superpower so we cannot do anything'.
Attendances for Hundred 20% down — despite bigger stars and fresh branding
I’m at Headingley on Tuesday for a match.
The corporate hospitality prices are down 40% from last year.
According to my colleague a fortnight ago the prices were 10% higher than last year.
I am getting spammed with offers.
They are trying to pitch the match on Tuesday as a Roses match.
Nah it’s Leeds Sunrisers v Manchester Supergiants.
The only things wrong with the Hundred are the stupid team names, the fact that the identity of the teams bears no relationship to the identity of the players (e.g. Root - Welsh Fire; Bairstow - London something etc) and therefore doesn't promote any sense of belonging, the fact that it's not proper cricket at all, the fact that it's really just about money, and the fact that it's pretty boring and predictable. Otherwise, it's fine.
And that the ECB is using it as a way to reduce the number of professional counties.
And, just, the non-stop inanity. There's nothing wrong with short form cricket as a concept, though its unclear why 100 balls would be an improvement on 120. But why must it be presented so stupidly? It shouts at you. It is ugly.
Attendances for Hundred 20% down — despite bigger stars and fresh branding
I’m at Headingley on Tuesday for a match.
The corporate hospitality prices are down 40% from last year.
According to my colleague a fortnight ago the prices were 10% higher than last year.
I am getting spammed with offers.
They are trying to pitch the match on Tuesday as a Roses match.
Nah it’s Leeds Sunrisers v Manchester Supergiants.
The only things wrong with the Hundred are the stupid team names, the fact that the identity of the teams bears no relationship to the identity of the players (e.g. Root - Welsh Fire; Bairstow - London something etc) and therefore doesn't promote any sense of belonging, the fact that it's not proper cricket at all, the fact that it's really just about money, and the fact that it's pretty boring and predictable. Otherwise, it's fine.
The only reason I am going on Tuesday is meet some clients and former colleagues.
Oh and the salmon and cheese sandwiches, they are the dog's dangly bits.
Man of the people....
I had a real man of the people moment last week when out of 20 people I was the only who had read The Odyssey in the original Greek.
As my other half noted my face had this shocked look that I was the only one.
Attendances for Hundred 20% down — despite bigger stars and fresh branding
I’m at Headingley on Tuesday for a match.
The corporate hospitality prices are down 40% from last year.
According to my colleague a fortnight ago the prices were 10% higher than last year.
I am getting spammed with offers.
They are trying to pitch the match on Tuesday as a Roses match.
Nah it’s Leeds Sunrisers v Manchester Supergiants.
The only things wrong with the Hundred are the stupid team names, the fact that the identity of the teams bears no relationship to the identity of the players (e.g. Root - Welsh Fire; Bairstow - London something etc) and therefore doesn't promote any sense of belonging, the fact that it's not proper cricket at all, the fact that it's really just about money, and the fact that it's pretty boring and predictable. Otherwise, it's fine.
The only reason I am going on Tuesday is meet some clients and former colleagues.
Oh and the salmon and cheese sandwiches, they are the dog's dangly bits.
Man of the people....
I had a real man of the people moment last week when out of 20 people I was the only who had read The Odyssey in the original Greek.
As my other half noted my face had this shocked look that I was the only one.
I hope you won't be letting yourself down by attending the cricket in some scruffy yobbo £300 jeans / £600 jacket that look like £30 ones?
... with even Maureen Lipman saying this week she would vote for Kemi...
Dame Maureen has got close relatives in Israel and she's said in the past about how scared she is for them given the constant missile bombardment. Under Badenoch the Conservatives are solidly pro-Israel (I think - somebody correct me if wrong) and Labour under Burnham is lukewarm, so she has a valid reason for the switch.
Indeed, its sad to see the pro Hamas turn many in Labour have taken. Good to see principled lefties like Maureen take a stance.
It's not pro Hamas, it's anti genocidal, racist Israeli government
Barty seems to process scepticism of the Netanyahu Government as a pro Hamas narrative. Maybe Maureen Lipman is similarly minded.
I support the Israeli opposition that wants to see the corrupt Netanyahu be replaced, but be just as hardline at defeating Hamas.
The problem with Netanyahu is that he is (a) corrupt and (b) been too soft on Hamas.
Not that he has been too hard on them.
No, the problem is that Netanyahu's two goals, defeating Hamas and changing the regime in Iran, are and always were utterly unrealistic.
Israel simply cannot wipe out Hamas while the Palestinians' political grievances remain unaddressed. It has had limited military successes, but at the cost of further entrenching political support for Hames in Gaza.
And the war to overthrow the Iranian regime has been a total and utter failure - in fact, completely counter-productive because it has allowed the Iranian regime to clamp down on the opposition at home even more thoroughly.
All Netanyahu's strategy has achieved is to strengthen his enemies politically, ruin Israel's standing abroad and trap it in a never-ending cycle of war and atrocity.
It's the definition of a futile dead end.
From that point of view, at least, Netanyahu and Putin are twins.
That's quite a defeatist and nihilistic attitude.
It is absolutely possible to militarily defeat evil terrorists and fascist regimes like Hamas and Iran. There is plenty of precedence for doing so like defeating the Tamil Tigers and the Nazis and Imperial Japan.
What is needed is Total War until they are defeated and surrender unconditionally.
The problem is that Trump especially has been weak and chickened out, and Netanyahu has also been pulling his punches.
Israel needs to get more aggressive than it is and end the cycle of violence by eliminating the enemies.
Somewhat amazingly I find myself wanting to steer you back to the light comedy of the Laffer curve.
Barty is an absolutist. Even when it comes to killing civilians by the tens of thousands ... so long as it's done by the 'good guys'.
That is a fair comment.
I hold to the standards that what we did in WWII was right and that is the standard that Ukraine and Israel and other 'good guys' should operate to today.
Anything we did to defeat the Nazis was right and proper and legitimate for either Israel or Ukraine to do today.
War is hell and civilians die in it which is why it should be a last resort, but if you are in that last resort then you better bloody win.
If someone was to show that same indifference to the collective punishment of 2m Israeli citizens inc the slaughter of tens of thousands they would be outing themselves as a rank and disgusting antisemite.
You are no better. You're a sick joke on this topic.
This picture is a sobering reminder of Test cricket’s peril. West Indies and Pakistan observe a minute’s silence for Sir Garfield Sobers in Trinidad and Tobago with hardly a spectator in sight
... with even Maureen Lipman saying this week she would vote for Kemi...
Dame Maureen has got close relatives in Israel and she's said in the past about how scared she is for them given the constant missile bombardment. Under Badenoch the Conservatives are solidly pro-Israel (I think - somebody correct me if wrong) and Labour under Burnham is lukewarm, so she has a valid reason for the switch.
Indeed, its sad to see the pro Hamas turn many in Labour have taken. Good to see principled lefties like Maureen take a stance.
It's not pro Hamas, it's anti genocidal, racist Israeli government
Barty seems to process scepticism of the Netanyahu Government as a pro Hamas narrative. Maybe Maureen Lipman is similarly minded.
I support the Israeli opposition that wants to see the corrupt Netanyahu be replaced, but be just as hardline at defeating Hamas.
The problem with Netanyahu is that he is (a) corrupt and (b) been too soft on Hamas.
Not that he has been too hard on them.
No, the problem is that Netanyahu's two goals, defeating Hamas and changing the regime in Iran, are and always were utterly unrealistic.
Israel simply cannot wipe out Hamas while the Palestinians' political grievances remain unaddressed. It has had limited military successes, but at the cost of further entrenching political support for Hames in Gaza.
And the war to overthrow the Iranian regime has been a total and utter failure - in fact, completely counter-productive because it has allowed the Iranian regime to clamp down on the opposition at home even more thoroughly.
All Netanyahu's strategy has achieved is to strengthen his enemies politically, ruin Israel's standing abroad and trap it in a never-ending cycle of war and atrocity.
It's the definition of a futile dead end.
From that point of view, at least, Netanyahu and Putin are twins.
That's quite a defeatist and nihilistic attitude.
It is absolutely possible to militarily defeat evil terrorists and fascist regimes like Hamas and Iran. There is plenty of precedence for doing so like defeating the Tamil Tigers and the Nazis and Imperial Japan.
What is needed is Total War until they are defeated and surrender unconditionally.
The problem is that Trump especially has been weak and chickened out, and Netanyahu has also been pulling his punches.
Israel needs to get more aggressive than it is and end the cycle of violence by eliminating the enemies.
you still are and forever will be a complete lunatic
Lunacy is repeating the same mistakes and expecting other outcomes. Like having a repeated cycle of ceasefire, hatred, conflict, ceasefire.
Victory can break the cycle of violence. The Nazis are gone, the Tamil Tigers are gone. Imperial Japan reformed to save itself.
Victory works better than stalemate.
I don't really see how in this case total victory really can 'work'. Israel can fully occupy Gaza and the West Bank, and subdue and disarm the Palestinians who live there, but that wouldn't be enough. They would want to cleanse those areas of Palestinians to secure themselves permanently and make room for more Israelis to live there. Even if they didn't want to do this, they would still be stuck there. In West Germany, you could get rid of the Nazis, occupy the country for a while, and then leave and let the Germans get on with it. You can't do that in Gaza and the West Bank. The minute Israel leaves, anti-Israel forces would take hold, with some justification.
The only viable solution to me is, as I have said before, to empy Gaza of Palestinians and have them all move to the West Bank. And empty the West Bank of settlers and make them all move back to Israel and Gaza. Then you get a stable and secure Israel, and a viable Palestinian state.
That’s called ethnic cleansing and is a crime against humanity.
The current status quo and not doing anything about it because of some outdated terminology is the real crime against humanity.
Even if that idea wasn't arrant nonsense I can't see the .urderous West Bank farmers buying that one.
The idea is not any kind nonsense, or you wouldn't already be developing it in your head.
No, the West Bank settlers would not take kindly to it at all - I suspect they would burn down the buildings and poison the wells, and they would probably try armed resistance, but they would have to go. Israel would withdraw from the West Bank and a peacekeeping force take it over. It is necessary to have sacrifices on both sides - that is feature of a just peace.
Attendances for Hundred 20% down — despite bigger stars and fresh branding
I’m at Headingley on Tuesday for a match.
The corporate hospitality prices are down 40% from last year.
According to my colleague a fortnight ago the prices were 10% higher than last year.
I am getting spammed with offers.
They are trying to pitch the match on Tuesday as a Roses match.
Nah it’s Leeds Sunrisers v Manchester Supergiants.
The only things wrong with the Hundred are the stupid team names, the fact that the identity of the teams bears no relationship to the identity of the players (e.g. Root - Welsh Fire; Bairstow - London something etc) and therefore doesn't promote any sense of belonging, the fact that it's not proper cricket at all, the fact that it's really just about money, and the fact that it's pretty boring and predictable. Otherwise, it's fine.
The only reason I am going on Tuesday is meet some clients and former colleagues.
Oh and the salmon and cheese sandwiches, they are the dog's dangly bits.
Man of the people....
I had a real man of the people moment last week when out of 20 people I was the only who had read The Odyssey in the original Greek.
As my other half noted my face had this shocked look that I was the only one.
I'd be amazed if one in 20 had ever read it in any language.
Attendances for Hundred 20% down — despite bigger stars and fresh branding
I’m at Headingley on Tuesday for a match.
The corporate hospitality prices are down 40% from last year.
According to my colleague a fortnight ago the prices were 10% higher than last year.
I am getting spammed with offers.
They are trying to pitch the match on Tuesday as a Roses match.
Nah it’s Leeds Sunrisers v Manchester Supergiants.
The only things wrong with the Hundred are the stupid team names, the fact that the identity of the teams bears no relationship to the identity of the players (e.g. Root - Welsh Fire; Bairstow - London something etc) and therefore doesn't promote any sense of belonging, the fact that it's not proper cricket at all, the fact that it's really just about money, and the fact that it's pretty boring and predictable. Otherwise, it's fine.
The only reason I am going on Tuesday is meet some clients and former colleagues.
Oh and the salmon and cheese sandwiches, they are the dog's dangly bits.
Man of the people....
I had a real man of the people moment last week when out of 20 people I was the only who had read The Odyssey in the original Greek.
As my other half noted my face had this shocked look that I was the only one.
I hope you won't be letting yourself down by attending the cricket in some scruffy yobbo £300 jeans / £600 jacket that look like £30 ones?
Attendances for Hundred 20% down — despite bigger stars and fresh branding
I’m at Headingley on Tuesday for a match.
The corporate hospitality prices are down 40% from last year.
According to my colleague a fortnight ago the prices were 10% higher than last year.
I am getting spammed with offers.
They are trying to pitch the match on Tuesday as a Roses match.
Nah it’s Leeds Sunrisers v Manchester Supergiants.
The only things wrong with the Hundred are the stupid team names, the fact that the identity of the teams bears no relationship to the identity of the players (e.g. Root - Welsh Fire; Bairstow - London something etc) and therefore doesn't promote any sense of belonging, the fact that it's not proper cricket at all, the fact that it's really just about money, and the fact that it's pretty boring and predictable. Otherwise, it's fine.
The only reason I am going on Tuesday is meet some clients and former colleagues.
Oh and the salmon and cheese sandwiches, they are the dog's dangly bits.
Man of the people....
I had a real man of the people moment last week when out of 20 people I was the only who had read The Odyssey in the original Greek.
As my other half noted my face had this shocked look that I was the only one.
I'd be amazed if one in 20 had ever read it in any language.
On topic - I'm expecting an earlier election simply because there is a risk of Reform imploding so holding an election as it implodes rather than after it's gone would be the sensible approach...
So I wouldn't 100% rule out 2027 as the sane choice.
What's striking is that no one is calling for an early election, in complete contrast to the last three or four times that the PM changed mid term.
Lots of reasons of course but the main one is that no one actually wants one right now. Reform would have a year ago but are on the slide. The Tories are basically nowhere. The greens are fading as their leaders balloon has burst on the twin boobs of failing to obey the law and actual scrutiny. The lib dems have made no impression on moving their vote share despite the government travails.
So no one wants an early election.
Shows just how cynical all those who repeatedly called for them in previous times were.
One of the reasons I am told that the Tories aren't keen on fighting a snap election is that they don't have a pot to piss in at the moment and they have to run a full campaign for the Greater Manchester Mayoral campaign which is expensive.
Also candidate selection, the other issue that some people are on the Tory candidate list who are also looking to join Reform....
I bet they regret returning £15m to Frank 'Dianne Abbott should be shot' Hester.
They did return it, didn't they?
Oh.
'Diane Abbott row: Tory minister says they'd take more cash from donor Frank Hester'
So Kemi's claims she has raised millions are about as accurate as her claims when she was in charge of International Trade and signed dozens of deals on worse terms!
I think on this occasion Burnham is wise not to be anything but form on the date.
The Country is sick and tired of the churn and short termism.
If he goes is 229 he can go with a message of stability and a manifesto for 5 -10 years with hopefully a degree of trust.
Farage I doubt will be the threat he still is, Tories will desperately need to wake up and realise the centre round is where they should be and not hard right where they are being taken. If there is an exodus of Tories it is more likely to be to LD's in strategically plausible incumbent hold deats across the South and Home Counties. Tories who are pro EU and pro renewables.
'Tories who are pro EU and pro renewables' have a ready made home in the Lib Dems
@HYUFD who is the best one to listen to on the conservative party, though we have our disagreements, has already made this point not least because the conservative party will not re-join the EU and wants to ameliorate the cost of domestic bills by reducing the climate change levies by £200 pa. Also open up the North Sea which seems to be likely now.
The ECHR is a problem across Europe with individual EU countries seeking to exclude immigration from their remit, and even introduce Rwanda style schemes
You have a 'bee in your bonnet' about Kemi but look at her polling and approval rates and note that she and Andy Burnham are the only leaders with positive ratings
The next 12 months will be the Andy v Kemi show, not least because Kemi is the leader of the opposition, and it promises to be interesting
So are you happy for her to basically deselect or refuse to select Politicians who are in support of net zero or some form of renewable POlicy or are in support of the basic tenets and vast majority of EHCR guidelines.
Are you happy for very good people like Street and Davison walk away?
Kemi is creating a new conservative party and yes, if they do not support her policies why would she allow them to stand ?
Because without a broad centre right coalition including the intelligent and thoughtful One Nation party it is impossible for the Tories to win 325 seats would be a top reason and quite enough for now.
You mean pro EU and net zero then one nation
One Nation will do fine thanks. It is worth noting that Labour, currently the government and likely to still be after the next election, are stuffed full of MPs and members who are pro EU but don't have now, or any plan to have, a policy of rejoining the EU.
As to net zero, most UK politicians don't accept that climate change caused by CO2 is a hoax. SFAICS it isn't even Reform policy as such. I don't think Kemi has said it's all a big lie. The policy of CO2 emissions is all about timing and bilateral movement with other emitters, not about principle.
Badenoch doesn't own the Conservative Party in the way Farage owns Reform. It belongs to the members who share the same principles (private enterprise, national cohesion, personal responsibility, for example). How those principles evolve into policies is the daily grind of big tent party politics and for Badenoch to short-circuit the process by excluding everyone who disagrees with her does not bode well. The Wets are drifting to the Libdems and the Dries are drifting to Reform, leaving behind the unelectable residue of her personal fan club. It's easy to see why the Tories chose her ("We're desperate. Let's try a girl from Lagos. We've never done it before"), less easy to imagine how it will succeed in practice. Her divisive policies are actually an irrelevance because she's never going to be in a position to enact them. She'll end up in the dustbin of history where Liz Truss awaits her, but at least she won't be expected to rock up to the Cenotaph every November.
I fully agree with this, being a 50 years Tory voter (in general elections) but now lost to them. The Tories without a centrist middle class, including a public sector middle class, is a lost cause in the long run.
An indicator worth keeping an eye on is in the sub samples (with the customary warnings of course) of polling, eg YouGov. In their latest polling, in the 'Higher' category (which I suppose is something ljke ABC1) Tory + Reform is only 39%. Tory at 22%. They have lost a lot of their traditional support, tending to be naturally centrist, to elsewhere.
Eh? The Tories are now polling best in the higher category on 22%, to 20% in the Intermediate category and just 19% with Routine groups.
Indeed, the only group where Labour and the Tories are still the top 2 parties is those in the higher social class category, with Labour on 27%, the Tories on 22%, Reform on just 17% and the LDs on 15%.
Whereas Reform lead with Intermediate and Routine groups on 28% and 30% and Labour, the traditional party of the working class is now only third with its former core vote on just 17% and 16% behind even the Tories in those groups on 20% and 19%
This slightly misses the point. The majority of the middle class votes left of centre. 78% of the middle class doesn't vote Tory. This is an existential crisis for the party.
No it doesn't, only 49% of those in the higher class vote Labour or Green and the LDs were in government with the Tories only just over 10 years ago.
The Tories still lead Reform with middle class voters, so while Reform lead Labour with working class voters, the Tories reach middle class voters still Reform can't
I am content with Kemi and the conservative party and the siren voices on here are entitled to their view
However, you do not achieve a plus approval rate with even Maureen Lipman saying this week she would vote for Kemi if you are not cutting through and predicting the demise of the conservative party is either wishful thinking or hope
There is a lot to happen over the next 3 years and predicting the next GE is impossible
Burnham may win but who knows even Kemi may upset all the predictions and become the next PM
I expect it to be one or the other as I do not see Farage as a threat for the next GE
Or rather let Farage concentrate on winning Labour held seats in the Northern redwall and Midlands and Wales and let Kemi concentrate on winning Labour seats in London and the South and a few SNP seats in Scotland.
Reform and the Tories only really need to fight each other in the 124 existing Tory held seats and the handful of seats Reform won from the Tories at the last general election, especially in areas like Kent and Essex and East Anglia, which is less than a quarter of the total number of seats in the Commons
“let Farage concentrate on winning Labour held seats in the Northern redwall and Midlands and Wales and let Kemi concentrate on winning Labour seats in London and the South and a few SNP seats in Scotland.”
I am sure your electoral logic is bankrupt there. Specifically Labour areas will switch to Reform in great quantities at a Parliamentary election.
When Labour had a bad locals that boosted Burnham’s takeover, 4 of their voters went left, to to just 1 right to Reform.
Boris had more appeal over these Labour area’s than Farage. Especially the crucial midlands seats.
The real picture is Conservative and Reform are standing everywhere and cancelling each out, fighting for what is most largely the same voter pool.
Reform still lead Labour 30% to 24% in the Midlands on last week's Yougov and Reform are 6% behind Labour in the North 25% to 31%.
In the South though the Tories lead on 25% to 22% for Reform and 21% for the LDs and just 14% for Labour and in London Reform did best in the outer suburbs like Havering but the Tories beat Reform and Labour in areas like Westminster, Enfield, Kensington and Chelsea and Wandsworth. So it makes sense for them to target different areas
For a realistic picture of who’s going to win seats, take a look at the % of vote and % of seats last time, the Seat number reform got from % of vote. Lack of tactical votes for Ref and Con.
What you are missing in your posts in this mini discussion, when you quote those numbers at us, is the 2019 election. Those voters you are shrugging and conceding are Reforms in those seats, voted Conservative in 2019, and so did so many of those seats in a landslide win.
The mistake I believe you are making, which you do all the time, is put the numbers into a seat calculator - 28% Reform - Labour in second place 22% so 28% of seats to Reform, 22% of seats to Labour, 20% to Conservatives who will get 20% seats just behind how many Labour get. It’s going to be tactical votes. Tactical votes are anti votes, attack votes. Whilst you often add the Con and Ref vote together as a voting block.
What has happened since 2019 wasn’t a transfer from Conservative to Reform like choosing a different or preferable brand or style of Ideology on a trip to the mall, Conservatives lost voters based on perception of competence. Halfway through last Parliament, the day Truss entered number 10 as PM, Reform did not exist as any political force.
This con to ref transfer being competence not ideology is so important way of understanding it, because it means 0% chance of Reform/Con coalition government, 0% chance of Reform Con party merger, if the whole reason for Reform having such support, and keeping such support, is they are not the conservatives and don’t have the record and perception of Conservative incompetence. And crucially too very little chance of tactical vote swaps.
Conservatives focus on these seats, Con on those, coalition government from two hefty seat hauls, possible merger of the parties - that’s all utter nonsense if you understand it is not been ideological or party differences between Reform and Tory, it’s that Reform only poll above 3% if Con are seen as incompetent.
If you try to squeeze what is actually happening into some sort of different parties with similar ideology model, you miss the crucial point about those tactical votes. On ideology Reform and Tory could both get mutual tactical votes across all constituencies. But if Reform voters not voting Conservative on basis of Boris wave, not stopping the boats, cost of living due to Incompetent Tory government, there are not the tactical votes there.
The only thing for Conservative Party, their friends in media and donor need to focus on, the only way forward for the Conservatives, is eradication of Reform back to “nothing” status they were at just a few years back on basis there’s only a lowish ceiling Reform can ever hit, certainly in polling, and definitely in seats. All right wing support to reform is now an utter waste of time, it’s hampering making a proper go at taking the electoral fight to the left.
It was not competence that did for the Tories, it was delivery. It was being elected on one thing, and doing another.
Attendances for Hundred 20% down — despite bigger stars and fresh branding
I’m at Headingley on Tuesday for a match.
The corporate hospitality prices are down 40% from last year.
According to my colleague a fortnight ago the prices were 10% higher than last year.
I am getting spammed with offers.
They are trying to pitch the match on Tuesday as a Roses match.
Nah it’s Leeds Sunrisers v Manchester Supergiants.
The only things wrong with the Hundred are the stupid team names, the fact that the identity of the teams bears no relationship to the identity of the players (e.g. Root - Welsh Fire; Bairstow - London something etc) and therefore doesn't promote any sense of belonging, the fact that it's not proper cricket at all, the fact that it's really just about money, and the fact that it's pretty boring and predictable. Otherwise, it's fine.
And that the ECB is using it as a way to reduce the number of professional counties.
And, just, the non-stop inanity. There's nothing wrong with short form cricket as a concept, though its unclear why 100 balls would be an improvement on 120. But why must it be presented so stupidly? It shouts at you. It is ugly.
I remember seeing the glaringly garish 90s style overlays and odd camera angles in the early days (no idea if they still do it now) - it was obviously a deliberate choice to make it visually distinct from other forms of cricket and so technically succeeded in that sense, presumably to attract a new audience.
But whilst it was unattractive to a Test fan like me, I still don't see who such branding and presentation would appeal to - it looked very old fashioned, 90s era as I said, so to a younger person getting into the sport it wouldn't look new and exciting, it would still look dated.
It felt like something a room of 65 year old cricket administrators thought was hip and cool, without asking their grandkids if it actually was.
Attendances for Hundred 20% down — despite bigger stars and fresh branding
I’m at Headingley on Tuesday for a match.
The corporate hospitality prices are down 40% from last year.
According to my colleague a fortnight ago the prices were 10% higher than last year.
I am getting spammed with offers.
They are trying to pitch the match on Tuesday as a Roses match.
Nah it’s Leeds Sunrisers v Manchester Supergiants.
The only things wrong with the Hundred are the stupid team names, the fact that the identity of the teams bears no relationship to the identity of the players (e.g. Root - Welsh Fire; Bairstow - London something etc) and therefore doesn't promote any sense of belonging, the fact that it's not proper cricket at all, the fact that it's really just about money, and the fact that it's pretty boring and predictable. Otherwise, it's fine.
The only reason I am going on Tuesday is meet some clients and former colleagues.
Oh and the salmon and cheese sandwiches, they are the dog's dangly bits.
Man of the people....
I had a real man of the people moment last week when out of 20 people I was the only who had read The Odyssey in the original Greek.
As my other half noted my face had this shocked look that I was the only one.
This place may be the home of pseuds corner. You know the drill, posters debating their supercar ownership, Oxbridge, name dropping (I thank you all for reading my anecdotes!) buckshee first class flights to exotic locations, eating dogs and cats, and not getting out of bed in the morning for less than a seven figure salary. All a bit tiresome, however reading Homer in Greek is f***in' impressive. On the other hand I saw Odysseus last weekend and it was all Greek to me.
On topic - I'm expecting an earlier election simply because there is a risk of Reform imploding so holding an election as it implodes rather than after it's gone would be the sensible approach...
So I wouldn't 100% rule out 2027 as the sane choice.
What's striking is that no one is calling for an early election, in complete contrast to the last three or four times that the PM changed mid term.
Lots of reasons of course but the main one is that no one actually wants one right now. Reform would have a year ago but are on the slide. The Tories are basically nowhere. The greens are fading as their leaders balloon has burst on the twin boobs of failing to obey the law and actual scrutiny. The lib dems have made no impression on moving their vote share despite the government travails.
So no one wants an early election.
Shows just how cynical all those who repeatedly called for them in previous times were.
One of the reasons I am told that the Tories aren't keen on fighting a snap election is that they don't have a pot to piss in at the moment and they have to run a full campaign for the Greater Manchester Mayoral campaign which is expensive.
Also candidate selection, the other issue that some people are on the Tory candidate list who are also looking to join Reform....
I bet they regret returning £15m to Frank 'Dianne Abbott should be shot' Hester.
They did return it, didn't they?
Oh.
'Diane Abbott row: Tory minister says they'd take more cash from donor Frank Hester'
So Kemi's claims she has raised millions are about as accurate as her claims when she was in charge of International Trade and signed dozens of deals on worse terms!
I think on this occasion Burnham is wise not to be anything but form on the date.
The Country is sick and tired of the churn and short termism.
If he goes is 229 he can go with a message of stability and a manifesto for 5 -10 years with hopefully a degree of trust.
Farage I doubt will be the threat he still is, Tories will desperately need to wake up and realise the centre round is where they should be and not hard right where they are being taken. If there is an exodus of Tories it is more likely to be to LD's in strategically plausible incumbent hold deats across the South and Home Counties. Tories who are pro EU and pro renewables.
'Tories who are pro EU and pro renewables' have a ready made home in the Lib Dems
@HYUFD who is the best one to listen to on the conservative party, though we have our disagreements, has already made this point not least because the conservative party will not re-join the EU and wants to ameliorate the cost of domestic bills by reducing the climate change levies by £200 pa. Also open up the North Sea which seems to be likely now.
The ECHR is a problem across Europe with individual EU countries seeking to exclude immigration from their remit, and even introduce Rwanda style schemes
You have a 'bee in your bonnet' about Kemi but look at her polling and approval rates and note that she and Andy Burnham are the only leaders with positive ratings
The next 12 months will be the Andy v Kemi show, not least because Kemi is the leader of the opposition, and it promises to be interesting
So are you happy for her to basically deselect or refuse to select Politicians who are in support of net zero or some form of renewable POlicy or are in support of the basic tenets and vast majority of EHCR guidelines.
Are you happy for very good people like Street and Davison walk away?
Kemi is creating a new conservative party and yes, if they do not support her policies why would she allow them to stand ?
Because without a broad centre right coalition including the intelligent and thoughtful One Nation party it is impossible for the Tories to win 325 seats would be a top reason and quite enough for now.
You mean pro EU and net zero then one nation
One Nation will do fine thanks. It is worth noting that Labour, currently the government and likely to still be after the next election, are stuffed full of MPs and members who are pro EU but don't have now, or any plan to have, a policy of rejoining the EU.
As to net zero, most UK politicians don't accept that climate change caused by CO2 is a hoax. SFAICS it isn't even Reform policy as such. I don't think Kemi has said it's all a big lie. The policy of CO2 emissions is all about timing and bilateral movement with other emitters, not about principle.
Badenoch doesn't own the Conservative Party in the way Farage owns Reform. It belongs to the members who share the same principles (private enterprise, national cohesion, personal responsibility, for example). How those principles evolve into policies is the daily grind of big tent party politics and for Badenoch to short-circuit the process by excluding everyone who disagrees with her does not bode well. The Wets are drifting to the Libdems and the Dries are drifting to Reform, leaving behind the unelectable residue of her personal fan club. It's easy to see why the Tories chose her ("We're desperate. Let's try a girl from Lagos. We've never done it before"), less easy to imagine how it will succeed in practice. Her divisive policies are actually an irrelevance because she's never going to be in a position to enact them. She'll end up in the dustbin of history where Liz Truss awaits her, but at least she won't be expected to rock up to the Cenotaph every November.
I fully agree with this, being a 50 years Tory voter (in general elections) but now lost to them. The Tories without a centrist middle class, including a public sector middle class, is a lost cause in the long run.
An indicator worth keeping an eye on is in the sub samples (with the customary warnings of course) of polling, eg YouGov. In their latest polling, in the 'Higher' category (which I suppose is something ljke ABC1) Tory + Reform is only 39%. Tory at 22%. They have lost a lot of their traditional support, tending to be naturally centrist, to elsewhere.
Eh? The Tories are now polling best in the higher category on 22%, to 20% in the Intermediate category and just 19% with Routine groups.
Indeed, the only group where Labour and the Tories are still the top 2 parties is those in the higher social class category, with Labour on 27%, the Tories on 22%, Reform on just 17% and the LDs on 15%.
Whereas Reform lead with Intermediate and Routine groups on 28% and 30% and Labour, the traditional party of the working class is now only third with its former core vote on just 17% and 16% behind even the Tories in those groups on 20% and 19%
This slightly misses the point. The majority of the middle class votes left of centre. 78% of the middle class doesn't vote Tory. This is an existential crisis for the party.
No it doesn't, only 49% of those in the higher class vote Labour or Green and the LDs were in government with the Tories only just over 10 years ago.
The Tories still lead Reform with middle class voters, so while Reform lead Labour with working class voters, the Tories reach middle class voters still Reform can't
I am content with Kemi and the conservative party and the siren voices on here are entitled to their view
However, you do not achieve a plus approval rate with even Maureen Lipman saying this week she would vote for Kemi if you are not cutting through and predicting the demise of the conservative party is either wishful thinking or hope
There is a lot to happen over the next 3 years and predicting the next GE is impossible
Burnham may win but who knows even Kemi may upset all the predictions and become the next PM
I expect it to be one or the other as I do not see Farage as a threat for the next GE
Or rather let Farage concentrate on winning Labour held seats in the Northern redwall and Midlands and Wales and let Kemi concentrate on winning Labour seats in London and the South and a few SNP seats in Scotland.
Reform and the Tories only really need to fight each other in the 124 existing Tory held seats and the handful of seats Reform won from the Tories at the last general election, especially in areas like Kent and Essex and East Anglia, which is less than a quarter of the total number of seats in the Commons
“let Farage concentrate on winning Labour held seats in the Northern redwall and Midlands and Wales and let Kemi concentrate on winning Labour seats in London and the South and a few SNP seats in Scotland.”
I am sure your electoral logic is bankrupt there. Specifically Labour areas will switch to Reform in great quantities at a Parliamentary election.
When Labour had a bad locals that boosted Burnham’s takeover, 4 of their voters went left, to to just 1 right to Reform.
Boris had more appeal over these Labour area’s than Farage. Especially the crucial midlands seats.
The real picture is Conservative and Reform are standing everywhere and cancelling each out, fighting for what is most largely the same voter pool.
Reform still lead Labour 30% to 24% in the Midlands on last week's Yougov and Reform are 6% behind Labour in the North 25% to 31%.
In the South though the Tories lead on 25% to 22% for Reform and 21% for the LDs and just 14% for Labour and in London Reform did best in the outer suburbs like Havering but the Tories beat Reform and Labour in areas like Westminster, Enfield, Kensington and Chelsea and Wandsworth. So it makes sense for them to target different areas
For a realistic picture of who’s going to win seats, take a look at the % of vote and % of seats last time, the Seat number reform got from % of vote. Lack of tactical votes for Ref and Con.
What you are missing in your posts in this mini discussion, when you quote those numbers at us, is the 2019 election. Those voters you are shrugging and conceding are Reforms in those seats, voted Conservative in 2019, and so did so many of those seats in a landslide win.
The mistake I believe you are making, which you do all the time, is put the numbers into a seat calculator - 28% Reform - Labour in second place 22% so 28% of seats to Reform, 22% of seats to Labour, 20% to Conservatives who will get 20% seats just behind how many Labour get. It’s going to be tactical votes. Tactical votes are anti votes, attack votes. Whilst you often add the Con and Ref vote together as a voting block.
What has happened since 2019 wasn’t a transfer from Conservative to Reform like choosing a different or preferable brand or style of Ideology on a trip to the mall, Conservatives lost voters based on perception of competence. Halfway through last Parliament, the day Truss entered number 10 as PM, Reform did not exist as any political force.
This con to ref transfer being competence not ideology is so important way of understanding it, because it means 0% chance of Reform/Con coalition government, 0% chance of Reform Con party merger, if the whole reason for Reform having such support, and keeping such support, is they are not the conservatives and don’t have the record and perception of Conservative incompetence. And crucially too very little chance of tactical vote swaps.
Conservatives focus on these seats, Con on those, coalition government from two hefty seat hauls, possible merger of the parties - that’s all utter nonsense if you understand it is not been ideological or party differences between Reform and Tory, it’s that Reform only poll above 3% if Con are seen as incompetent.
If you try to squeeze what is actually happening into some sort of different parties with similar ideology model, you miss the crucial point about those tactical votes. On ideology Reform and Tory could both get mutual tactical votes across all constituencies. But if Reform voters not voting Conservative on basis of Boris wave, not stopping the boats, cost of living due to Incompetent Tory government, there are not the tactical votes there.
The only thing for Conservative Party, their friends in media and donor need to focus on, the only way forward for the Conservatives, is eradication of Reform back to “nothing” status they were at just a few years back on basis there’s only a lowish ceiling Reform can ever hit, certainly in polling, and definitely in seats. All right wing support to reform is now an utter waste of time, it’s hampering making a proper go at taking the electoral fight to the left.
It was not competence that did for the Tories, it was delivery. It was being elected on one thing, and doing another.
It was both - if you are competent enough to deliver something people broadly like, you may pick up enough voters to make up for those disappointed you did not achieve specific targets or policies, or keep enough on board to give you another shot (even after 14 years).
Attendances for Hundred 20% down — despite bigger stars and fresh branding
I’m at Headingley on Tuesday for a match.
The corporate hospitality prices are down 40% from last year.
According to my colleague a fortnight ago the prices were 10% higher than last year.
I am getting spammed with offers.
They are trying to pitch the match on Tuesday as a Roses match.
Nah it’s Leeds Sunrisers v Manchester Supergiants.
The only things wrong with the Hundred are the stupid team names, the fact that the identity of the teams bears no relationship to the identity of the players (e.g. Root - Welsh Fire; Bairstow - London something etc) and therefore doesn't promote any sense of belonging, the fact that it's not proper cricket at all, the fact that it's really just about money, and the fact that it's pretty boring and predictable. Otherwise, it's fine.
The only reason I am going on Tuesday is meet some clients and former colleagues.
Oh and the salmon and cheese sandwiches, they are the dog's dangly bits.
Man of the people....
I had a real man of the people moment last week when out of 20 people I was the only who had read The Odyssey in the original Greek.
As my other half noted my face had this shocked look that I was the only one.
I'd be amazed if one in 20 had ever read it in any language.
That was the consensus of the other 19 people.
I have read a translation, but it was (gasp) in prose, so doesn't count.
Attendances for Hundred 20% down — despite bigger stars and fresh branding
I’m at Headingley on Tuesday for a match.
The corporate hospitality prices are down 40% from last year.
According to my colleague a fortnight ago the prices were 10% higher than last year.
I am getting spammed with offers.
They are trying to pitch the match on Tuesday as a Roses match.
Nah it’s Leeds Sunrisers v Manchester Supergiants.
The only things wrong with the Hundred are the stupid team names, the fact that the identity of the teams bears no relationship to the identity of the players (e.g. Root - Welsh Fire; Bairstow - London something etc) and therefore doesn't promote any sense of belonging, the fact that it's not proper cricket at all, the fact that it's really just about money, and the fact that it's pretty boring and predictable. Otherwise, it's fine.
The only reason I am going on Tuesday is meet some clients and former colleagues.
Oh and the salmon and cheese sandwiches, they are the dog's dangly bits.
Man of the people....
I had a real man of the people moment last week when out of 20 people I was the only who had read The Odyssey in the original Greek.
As my other half noted my face had this shocked look that I was the only one.
I'd be amazed if one in 20 had ever read it in any language.
I studied the Aeneid
Ravaged by war, and spurned by the fates, the leaders of the Greeks built a horse..
Politics UK @PolitlcsUK 🚨 NEW: Andy Burnham is strongly considering replacing council tax and stamp duty with a 0.48% annual tax on a home's current value
... with even Maureen Lipman saying this week she would vote for Kemi...
Dame Maureen has got close relatives in Israel and she's said in the past about how scared she is for them given the constant missile bombardment. Under Badenoch the Conservatives are solidly pro-Israel (I think - somebody correct me if wrong) and Labour under Burnham is lukewarm, so she has a valid reason for the switch.
Indeed, its sad to see the pro Hamas turn many in Labour have taken. Good to see principled lefties like Maureen take a stance.
It's not pro Hamas, it's anti genocidal, racist Israeli government
Barty seems to process scepticism of the Netanyahu Government as a pro Hamas narrative. Maybe Maureen Lipman is similarly minded.
I support the Israeli opposition that wants to see the corrupt Netanyahu be replaced, but be just as hardline at defeating Hamas.
The problem with Netanyahu is that he is (a) corrupt and (b) been too soft on Hamas.
Not that he has been too hard on them.
No, the problem is that Netanyahu's two goals, defeating Hamas and changing the regime in Iran, are and always were utterly unrealistic.
Israel simply cannot wipe out Hamas while the Palestinians' political grievances remain unaddressed. It has had limited military successes, but at the cost of further entrenching political support for Hames in Gaza.
And the war to overthrow the Iranian regime has been a total and utter failure - in fact, completely counter-productive because it has allowed the Iranian regime to clamp down on the opposition at home even more thoroughly.
All Netanyahu's strategy has achieved is to strengthen his enemies politically, ruin Israel's standing abroad and trap it in a never-ending cycle of war and atrocity.
It's the definition of a futile dead end.
From that point of view, at least, Netanyahu and Putin are twins.
That's quite a defeatist and nihilistic attitude.
It is absolutely possible to militarily defeat evil terrorists and fascist regimes like Hamas and Iran. There is plenty of precedence for doing so like defeating the Tamil Tigers and the Nazis and Imperial Japan.
What is needed is Total War until they are defeated and surrender unconditionally.
The problem is that Trump especially has been weak and chickened out, and Netanyahu has also been pulling his punches.
Israel needs to get more aggressive than it is and end the cycle of violence by eliminating the enemies.
Somewhat amazingly I find myself wanting to steer you back to the light comedy of the Laffer curve.
Barty is an absolutist. Even when it comes to killing civilians by the tens of thousands ... so long as it's done by the 'good guys'.
That is a fair comment.
I hold to the standards that what we did in WWII was right and that is the standard that Ukraine and Israel and other 'good guys' should operate to today.
Anything we did to defeat the Nazis was right and proper and legitimate for either Israel or Ukraine to do today.
War is hell and civilians die in it which is why it should be a last resort, but if you are in that last resort then you better bloody win.
I don't suppose you are a big fan of the Geneva Convention.
What we did to Germnay and the Allies to Japan was limited by the means available.
While we didn't terror bomb civilian areas to break the national spirit like the Blitz we nonetheless tried to destroy Axis industry with carpet bombing even through theire was civilian housing all around it. Likewise railway hubs and bridges.
In no small apart the casualties from UK bombing were a product of the innaccuracy of wrtime bombing particularly before 43/44.
It's harder to justify the use of Napalm on Tokyo, it's first wartime use, on the worlds largest timber city than as anything else than an attempt to force surrender by terror. The it prevented more deaths from an Invasion doesn't cut it when they were already a broken nation on teh edge of starvation.
That we weren't prosecuted was really because we won.
Were they proportional? Probably not.
Were they all we had? Yes.
So given total war and National survival, justified if disproportional.
Little of that applies to Israel today.
Has it far more accurate weapons and the intelegence to deploy them than we had? Yes.
Is it in a position to take it's time and strike precisely when targets emerge? Yes.
For all the horrendous nature of it's attacks and ideology is Hamas a threat to the existance of Israel? Realisticly No.
Wanting to destroy Israel and being able to do so are two different things. II can kill people just like the IRA but we didn't flatten Dublin.
Can Israel degrade and contain Hamas and Hezbollah, without the current and recent use of force and civilan casualties and damage? Yes.
Therefore because Israel clearly has ways to proscute this war with far less damage and fewer civilian casualties but chooses not to, it is not doing the same as we did in WW2, just as we didn't do in Northern Ireland what we did in WW2.
Indeed just like we didn't do in WW2 when we occupied Germany ,what we did in the Crusades when we took the Holyland!
Peter.
You are completely wrong Breaking German civilian morale was an explicit aim of the allied bombing campaign. Harris and others were quite open about this.
What was advocated was to attack the ecosystem and dehouse was part of that; if the workers have nowhere to live they can't work.
Though Harris himself did talk about and advocate breaking morale the saturation attacks were a combination of hitting the whole industrial area and the fact that we operated at night.
In contrast the US who focused on the day raids where it was easiler to target key points. We did area bomb but not specifically to terrorise.
It did terrorise so it's a mute point, and there were those who wanted it too. But I go with it was more that we accepted the consequences rather than it was the main focus.
The point still stands; we did it because between German defences and our linitations, we had few other choices give the nature of the conflict. Israel isn't remotely in that position.
More importantly we should let thexperience of WW2, Ireland and Israel guide us to make better decisons next time ,not justify making the same ones again.
Ireland became a Republic in 49, israel a State in 48.
Both have faced terorism from the minority and both the UK and israel have pursued different strategies to overcome it.
Attendances for Hundred 20% down — despite bigger stars and fresh branding
I’m at Headingley on Tuesday for a match.
The corporate hospitality prices are down 40% from last year.
According to my colleague a fortnight ago the prices were 10% higher than last year.
I am getting spammed with offers.
They are trying to pitch the match on Tuesday as a Roses match.
Nah it’s Leeds Sunrisers v Manchester Supergiants.
The only things wrong with the Hundred are the stupid team names, the fact that the identity of the teams bears no relationship to the identity of the players (e.g. Root - Welsh Fire; Bairstow - London something etc) and therefore doesn't promote any sense of belonging, the fact that it's not proper cricket at all, the fact that it's really just about money, and the fact that it's pretty boring and predictable. Otherwise, it's fine.
The only reason I am going on Tuesday is meet some clients and former colleagues.
Oh and the salmon and cheese sandwiches, they are the dog's dangly bits.
Man of the people....
I had a real man of the people moment last week when out of 20 people I was the only who had read The Odyssey in the original Greek.
As my other half noted my face had this shocked look that I was the only one.
This place may be the home of pseuds corner. You know the drill, posters debating their supercar ownership, Oxbridge, name dropping (I thank you all for reading my anecdotes!) buckshee first class flights to exotic locations, eating dogs and cats, and not getting out of bed in the morning for less than a seven figure salary. All a bit tiresome, however reading Homer in Greek is f***in' impressive. On the other hand I saw Odysseus last weekend and it was all Greek to me.
Levels of airline tier status is so plebeian.
The true level of sophistication is Harrods rewards tier and AMEX card tier.
The reason I love Supermac and Greek is this story.
in September 1916, [Harold Macmillan] was severely wounded, and lay for over twelve hours in a shell hole, sometimes feigning death when Germans passed, and reading Aeschylus in the original Greek
Politics UK @PolitlcsUK 🚨 NEW: Andy Burnham is strongly considering replacing council tax and stamp duty with a 0.48% annual tax on a home's current value
I have no idea if that would be a good idea or not, but council tax has stuck around stubbornly for a very long time despite a lot of people raising complaints about it, so it would be interesting if he was bold enough to change it fundamentally.
'Seriously considering' suggests to me this is just kite flying though.
Attendances for Hundred 20% down — despite bigger stars and fresh branding
I’m at Headingley on Tuesday for a match.
The corporate hospitality prices are down 40% from last year.
According to my colleague a fortnight ago the prices were 10% higher than last year.
I am getting spammed with offers.
They are trying to pitch the match on Tuesday as a Roses match.
Nah it’s Leeds Sunrisers v Manchester Supergiants.
The only things wrong with the Hundred are the stupid team names, the fact that the identity of the teams bears no relationship to the identity of the players (e.g. Root - Welsh Fire; Bairstow - London something etc) and therefore doesn't promote any sense of belonging, the fact that it's not proper cricket at all, the fact that it's really just about money, and the fact that it's pretty boring and predictable. Otherwise, it's fine.
The only reason I am going on Tuesday is meet some clients and former colleagues.
Oh and the salmon and cheese sandwiches, they are the dog's dangly bits.
Man of the people....
I had a real man of the people moment last week when out of 20 people I was the only who had read The Odyssey in the original Greek.
As my other half noted my face had this shocked look that I was the only one.
I'd be amazed if one in 20 had ever read it in any language.
I studied the Aeneid
Ravaged by war, and spurned by the fates, the leaders of the Greeks built a horse..
I learned everything I needed to know from Age of Mythology, a spin off the of the Age of Empires series.
Politics UK @PolitlcsUK 🚨 NEW: Andy Burnham is strongly considering replacing council tax and stamp duty with a 0.48% annual tax on a home's current value
Has anyone told Burnham yet? The final figure would not be dissimilar for me.
On topic - I'm expecting an earlier election simply because there is a risk of Reform imploding so holding an election as it implodes rather than after it's gone would be the sensible approach...
So I wouldn't 100% rule out 2027 as the sane choice.
What's striking is that no one is calling for an early election, in complete contrast to the last three or four times that the PM changed mid term.
Lots of reasons of course but the main one is that no one actually wants one right now. Reform would have a year ago but are on the slide. The Tories are basically nowhere. The greens are fading as their leaders balloon has burst on the twin boobs of failing to obey the law and actual scrutiny. The lib dems have made no impression on moving their vote share despite the government travails.
So no one wants an early election.
Shows just how cynical all those who repeatedly called for them in previous times were.
One of the reasons I am told that the Tories aren't keen on fighting a snap election is that they don't have a pot to piss in at the moment and they have to run a full campaign for the Greater Manchester Mayoral campaign which is expensive.
Also candidate selection, the other issue that some people are on the Tory candidate list who are also looking to join Reform....
I bet they regret returning £15m to Frank 'Dianne Abbott should be shot' Hester.
They did return it, didn't they?
Oh.
'Diane Abbott row: Tory minister says they'd take more cash from donor Frank Hester'
So Kemi's claims she has raised millions are about as accurate as her claims when she was in charge of International Trade and signed dozens of deals on worse terms!
I think on this occasion Burnham is wise not to be anything but form on the date.
The Country is sick and tired of the churn and short termism.
If he goes is 229 he can go with a message of stability and a manifesto for 5 -10 years with hopefully a degree of trust.
Farage I doubt will be the threat he still is, Tories will desperately need to wake up and realise the centre round is where they should be and not hard right where they are being taken. If there is an exodus of Tories it is more likely to be to LD's in strategically plausible incumbent hold deats across the South and Home Counties. Tories who are pro EU and pro renewables.
'Tories who are pro EU and pro renewables' have a ready made home in the Lib Dems
@HYUFD who is the best one to listen to on the conservative party, though we have our disagreements, has already made this point not least because the conservative party will not re-join the EU and wants to ameliorate the cost of domestic bills by reducing the climate change levies by £200 pa. Also open up the North Sea which seems to be likely now.
The ECHR is a problem across Europe with individual EU countries seeking to exclude immigration from their remit, and even introduce Rwanda style schemes
You have a 'bee in your bonnet' about Kemi but look at her polling and approval rates and note that she and Andy Burnham are the only leaders with positive ratings
The next 12 months will be the Andy v Kemi show, not least because Kemi is the leader of the opposition, and it promises to be interesting
So are you happy for her to basically deselect or refuse to select Politicians who are in support of net zero or some form of renewable POlicy or are in support of the basic tenets and vast majority of EHCR guidelines.
Are you happy for very good people like Street and Davison walk away?
Kemi is creating a new conservative party and yes, if they do not support her policies why would she allow them to stand ?
Because without a broad centre right coalition including the intelligent and thoughtful One Nation party it is impossible for the Tories to win 325 seats would be a top reason and quite enough for now.
You mean pro EU and net zero then one nation
One Nation will do fine thanks. It is worth noting that Labour, currently the government and likely to still be after the next election, are stuffed full of MPs and members who are pro EU but don't have now, or any plan to have, a policy of rejoining the EU.
As to net zero, most UK politicians don't accept that climate change caused by CO2 is a hoax. SFAICS it isn't even Reform policy as such. I don't think Kemi has said it's all a big lie. The policy of CO2 emissions is all about timing and bilateral movement with other emitters, not about principle.
Badenoch doesn't own the Conservative Party in the way Farage owns Reform. It belongs to the members who share the same principles (private enterprise, national cohesion, personal responsibility, for example). How those principles evolve into policies is the daily grind of big tent party politics and for Badenoch to short-circuit the process by excluding everyone who disagrees with her does not bode well. The Wets are drifting to the Libdems and the Dries are drifting to Reform, leaving behind the unelectable residue of her personal fan club. It's easy to see why the Tories chose her ("We're desperate. Let's try a girl from Lagos. We've never done it before"), less easy to imagine how it will succeed in practice. Her divisive policies are actually an irrelevance because she's never going to be in a position to enact them. She'll end up in the dustbin of history where Liz Truss awaits her, but at least she won't be expected to rock up to the Cenotaph every November.
I fully agree with this, being a 50 years Tory voter (in general elections) but now lost to them. The Tories without a centrist middle class, including a public sector middle class, is a lost cause in the long run.
An indicator worth keeping an eye on is in the sub samples (with the customary warnings of course) of polling, eg YouGov. In their latest polling, in the 'Higher' category (which I suppose is something ljke ABC1) Tory + Reform is only 39%. Tory at 22%. They have lost a lot of their traditional support, tending to be naturally centrist, to elsewhere.
Eh? The Tories are now polling best in the higher category on 22%, to 20% in the Intermediate category and just 19% with Routine groups.
Indeed, the only group where Labour and the Tories are still the top 2 parties is those in the higher social class category, with Labour on 27%, the Tories on 22%, Reform on just 17% and the LDs on 15%.
Whereas Reform lead with Intermediate and Routine groups on 28% and 30% and Labour, the traditional party of the working class is now only third with its former core vote on just 17% and 16% behind even the Tories in those groups on 20% and 19%
This slightly misses the point. The majority of the middle class votes left of centre. 78% of the middle class doesn't vote Tory. This is an existential crisis for the party.
No it doesn't, only 49% of those in the higher class vote Labour or Green and the LDs were in government with the Tories only just over 10 years ago.
The Tories still lead Reform with middle class voters, so while Reform lead Labour with working class voters, the Tories reach middle class voters still Reform can't
I am content with Kemi and the conservative party and the siren voices on here are entitled to their view
However, you do not achieve a plus approval rate with even Maureen Lipman saying this week she would vote for Kemi if you are not cutting through and predicting the demise of the conservative party is either wishful thinking or hope
There is a lot to happen over the next 3 years and predicting the next GE is impossible
Burnham may win but who knows even Kemi may upset all the predictions and become the next PM
I expect it to be one or the other as I do not see Farage as a threat for the next GE
Or rather let Farage concentrate on winning Labour held seats in the Northern redwall and Midlands and Wales and let Kemi concentrate on winning Labour seats in London and the South and a few SNP seats in Scotland.
Reform and the Tories only really need to fight each other in the 124 existing Tory held seats and the handful of seats Reform won from the Tories at the last general election, especially in areas like Kent and Essex and East Anglia, which is less than a quarter of the total number of seats in the Commons
“let Farage concentrate on winning Labour held seats in the Northern redwall and Midlands and Wales and let Kemi concentrate on winning Labour seats in London and the South and a few SNP seats in Scotland.”
I am sure your electoral logic is bankrupt there. Specifically Labour areas will switch to Reform in great quantities at a Parliamentary election.
When Labour had a bad locals that boosted Burnham’s takeover, 4 of their voters went left, to to just 1 right to Reform.
Boris had more appeal over these Labour area’s than Farage. Especially the crucial midlands seats.
The real picture is Conservative and Reform are standing everywhere and cancelling each out, fighting for what is most largely the same voter pool.
Reform still lead Labour 30% to 24% in the Midlands on last week's Yougov and Reform are 6% behind Labour in the North 25% to 31%.
In the South though the Tories lead on 25% to 22% for Reform and 21% for the LDs and just 14% for Labour and in London Reform did best in the outer suburbs like Havering but the Tories beat Reform and Labour in areas like Westminster, Enfield, Kensington and Chelsea and Wandsworth. So it makes sense for them to target different areas
For a realistic picture of who’s going to win seats, take a look at the % of vote and % of seats last time, the Seat number reform got from % of vote. Lack of tactical votes for Ref and Con.
What you are missing in your posts in this mini discussion, when you quote those numbers at us, is the 2019 election. Those voters you are shrugging and conceding are Reforms in those seats, voted Conservative in 2019, and so did so many of those seats in a landslide win.
The mistake I believe you are making, which you do all the time, is put the numbers into a seat calculator - 28% Reform - Labour in second place 22% so 28% of seats to Reform, 22% of seats to Labour, 20% to Conservatives who will get 20% seats just behind how many Labour get. It’s going to be tactical votes. Tactical votes are anti votes, attack votes. Whilst you often add the Con and Ref vote together as a voting block.
What has happened since 2019 wasn’t a transfer from Conservative to Reform like choosing a different or preferable brand or style of Ideology on a trip to the mall, Conservatives lost voters based on perception of competence. Halfway through last Parliament, the day Truss entered number 10 as PM, Reform did not exist as any political force.
This con to ref transfer being competence not ideology is so important way of understanding it, because it means 0% chance of Reform/Con coalition government, 0% chance of Reform Con party merger, if the whole reason for Reform having such support, and keeping such support, is they are not the conservatives and don’t have the record and perception of Conservative incompetence. And crucially too very little chance of tactical vote swaps.
Conservatives focus on these seats, Con on those, coalition government from two hefty seat hauls, possible merger of the parties - that’s all utter nonsense if you understand it is not been ideological or party differences between Reform and Tory, it’s that Reform only poll above 3% if Con are seen as incompetent.
If you try to squeeze what is actually happening into some sort of different parties with similar ideology model, you miss the crucial point about those tactical votes. On ideology Reform and Tory could both get mutual tactical votes across all constituencies. But if Reform voters not voting Conservative on basis of Boris wave, not stopping the boats, cost of living due to Incompetent Tory government, there are not the tactical votes there.
The only thing for Conservative Party, their friends in media and donor need to focus on, the only way forward for the Conservatives, is eradication of Reform back to “nothing” status they were at just a few years back on basis there’s only a lowish ceiling Reform can ever hit, certainly in polling, and definitely in seats. All right wing support to reform is now an utter waste of time, it’s hampering making a proper go at taking the electoral fight to the left.
They did but then the Tories stupidly got rid of Boris who was the only leader to ever win most of those voters (with a few lent to May because of Brexit) and they aren't coming back from Farage anytime soon. As you say when Boris was still PM Reform were nowhere.
The loss of competence vote was straight Tory to Labour mainly after the disastrous Truss budget, those are voters the Tories can start to win back and indeed are winning back in the South, where they now lead and in London in some areas where they won back councils like Westminster and Enfield.
Reform voters though more likely to tactically vote Tory to beat Labour in the few areas Reform can't win than Tory voters are to vote Reform as Yougov shows. In most seats the Reform vote is rock solid though and is not going Tory again for the foreseeable future.
Politics UK @PolitlcsUK 🚨 NEW: Andy Burnham is strongly considering replacing council tax and stamp duty with a 0.48% annual tax on a home's current value
I have no idea if that would be a good idea or not, but council tax has stuck around stubbornly for a very long time despite a lot of people raising complaints about it, so it would be interesting if he was bold enough to change it fundamentally.
'Seriously considering' suggests to me this is just kite flying though.
We had "seriously considering" increasing the tax free threshold and 50% tax band last week.
Politics UK @PolitlcsUK 🚨 NEW: Andy Burnham is strongly considering replacing council tax and stamp duty with a 0.48% annual tax on a home's current value
Has anyone told Burnham yet? The final figure would not be dissimilar for me.
It would be a stonking increase for me. Well and truly test my mettle. Would I be a 'patriotic London home owner'?
Attendances for Hundred 20% down — despite bigger stars and fresh branding
I’m at Headingley on Tuesday for a match.
The corporate hospitality prices are down 40% from last year.
According to my colleague a fortnight ago the prices were 10% higher than last year.
I am getting spammed with offers.
They are trying to pitch the match on Tuesday as a Roses match.
Nah it’s Leeds Sunrisers v Manchester Supergiants.
The only things wrong with the Hundred are the stupid team names, the fact that the identity of the teams bears no relationship to the identity of the players (e.g. Root - Welsh Fire; Bairstow - London something etc) and therefore doesn't promote any sense of belonging, the fact that it's not proper cricket at all, the fact that it's really just about money, and the fact that it's pretty boring and predictable. Otherwise, it's fine.
The only reason I am going on Tuesday is meet some clients and former colleagues.
Oh and the salmon and cheese sandwiches, they are the dog's dangly bits.
Man of the people....
I had a real man of the people moment last week when out of 20 people I was the only who had read The Odyssey in the original Greek.
As my other half noted my face had this shocked look that I was the only one.
I'd be amazed if one in 20 had ever read it in any language.
I studied the Aeneid
Ravaged by war, and spurned by the fates, the leaders of the Greeks built a horse..
Attendances for Hundred 20% down — despite bigger stars and fresh branding
I’m at Headingley on Tuesday for a match.
The corporate hospitality prices are down 40% from last year.
According to my colleague a fortnight ago the prices were 10% higher than last year.
I am getting spammed with offers.
They are trying to pitch the match on Tuesday as a Roses match.
Nah it’s Leeds Sunrisers v Manchester Supergiants.
The only things wrong with the Hundred are the stupid team names, the fact that the identity of the teams bears no relationship to the identity of the players (e.g. Root - Welsh Fire; Bairstow - London something etc) and therefore doesn't promote any sense of belonging, the fact that it's not proper cricket at all, the fact that it's really just about money, and the fact that it's pretty boring and predictable. Otherwise, it's fine.
The only reason I am going on Tuesday is meet some clients and former colleagues.
Oh and the salmon and cheese sandwiches, they are the dog's dangly bits.
Man of the people....
I had a real man of the people moment last week when out of 20 people I was the only who had read The Odyssey in the original Greek.
As my other half noted my face had this shocked look that I was the only one.
This place may be the home of pseuds corner. You know the drill, posters debating their supercar ownership, Oxbridge, name dropping (I thank you all for reading my anecdotes!) buckshee first class flights to exotic locations, eating dogs and cats, and not getting out of bed in the morning for less than a seven figure salary. All a bit tiresome, however reading Homer in Greek is f***in' impressive. On the other hand I saw Odysseus last weekend and it was all Greek to me.
My wife, a son in law and I have all read at least some of the Odyssey (and Iliad) in Greek. In my case not recently. I remember before an exam reading a Euripides play (possibly Medea) at Lords during Middlesex matches. One line between each ball. JSE Price had a long runup.
... with even Maureen Lipman saying this week she would vote for Kemi...
Dame Maureen has got close relatives in Israel and she's said in the past about how scared she is for them given the constant missile bombardment. Under Badenoch the Conservatives are solidly pro-Israel (I think - somebody correct me if wrong) and Labour under Burnham is lukewarm, so she has a valid reason for the switch.
Indeed, its sad to see the pro Hamas turn many in Labour have taken. Good to see principled lefties like Maureen take a stance.
It's not pro Hamas, it's anti genocidal, racist Israeli government
Barty seems to process scepticism of the Netanyahu Government as a pro Hamas narrative. Maybe Maureen Lipman is similarly minded.
I support the Israeli opposition that wants to see the corrupt Netanyahu be replaced, but be just as hardline at defeating Hamas.
The problem with Netanyahu is that he is (a) corrupt and (b) been too soft on Hamas.
Not that he has been too hard on them.
No, the problem is that Netanyahu's two goals, defeating Hamas and changing the regime in Iran, are and always were utterly unrealistic.
Israel simply cannot wipe out Hamas while the Palestinians' political grievances remain unaddressed. It has had limited military successes, but at the cost of further entrenching political support for Hames in Gaza.
And the war to overthrow the Iranian regime has been a total and utter failure - in fact, completely counter-productive because it has allowed the Iranian regime to clamp down on the opposition at home even more thoroughly.
All Netanyahu's strategy has achieved is to strengthen his enemies politically, ruin Israel's standing abroad and trap it in a never-ending cycle of war and atrocity.
It's the definition of a futile dead end.
From that point of view, at least, Netanyahu and Putin are twins.
That's quite a defeatist and nihilistic attitude.
It is absolutely possible to militarily defeat evil terrorists and fascist regimes like Hamas and Iran. There is plenty of precedence for doing so like defeating the Tamil Tigers and the Nazis and Imperial Japan.
What is needed is Total War until they are defeated and surrender unconditionally.
The problem is that Trump especially has been weak and chickened out, and Netanyahu has also been pulling his punches.
Israel needs to get more aggressive than it is and end the cycle of violence by eliminating the enemies.
Somewhat amazingly I find myself wanting to steer you back to the light comedy of the Laffer curve.
Barty is an absolutist. Even when it comes to killing civilians by the tens of thousands ... so long as it's done by the 'good guys'.
That is a fair comment.
I hold to the standards that what we did in WWII was right and that is the standard that Ukraine and Israel and other 'good guys' should operate to today.
Anything we did to defeat the Nazis was right and proper and legitimate for either Israel or Ukraine to do today.
War is hell and civilians die in it which is why it should be a last resort, but if you are in that last resort then you better bloody win.
If someone was to show that same indifference to the collective punishment of 2m Israeli citizens inc the slaughter of tens of thousands they would be outing themselves as a rank and disgusting antisemite.
You are no better. You're a sick joke on this topic.
Its not indifference. I literally said in the post you quoted that "war is hell".
Politics UK @PolitlcsUK 🚨 NEW: Andy Burnham is strongly considering replacing council tax and stamp duty with a 0.48% annual tax on a home's current value
I have no idea if that would be a good idea or not, but council tax has stuck around stubbornly for a very long time despite a lot of people raising complaints about it, so it would be interesting if he was bold enough to change it fundamentally.
'Seriously considering' suggests to me this is just kite flying though.
“It is understood that about 4,000 tickets were given away for the opening fixture on Tuesday at the Oval, home to MI London, which in its previous guise of Oval Invincibles won the past three men’s tournaments. The official attendance for the match was 20,540. “
Attendances for Hundred 20% down — despite bigger stars and fresh branding
I’m at Headingley on Tuesday for a match.
The corporate hospitality prices are down 40% from last year.
According to my colleague a fortnight ago the prices were 10% higher than last year.
I am getting spammed with offers.
They are trying to pitch the match on Tuesday as a Roses match.
Nah it’s Leeds Sunrisers v Manchester Supergiants.
The only things wrong with the Hundred are the stupid team names, the fact that the identity of the teams bears no relationship to the identity of the players (e.g. Root - Welsh Fire; Bairstow - London something etc) and therefore doesn't promote any sense of belonging, the fact that it's not proper cricket at all, the fact that it's really just about money, and the fact that it's pretty boring and predictable. Otherwise, it's fine.
The only reason I am going on Tuesday is meet some clients and former colleagues.
Oh and the salmon and cheese sandwiches, they are the dog's dangly bits.
Man of the people....
I had a real man of the people moment last week when out of 20 people I was the only who had read The Odyssey in the original Greek.
As my other half noted my face had this shocked look that I was the only one.
I'd be amazed if one in 20 had ever read it in any language.
I studied the Aeneid
Ravaged by war, and spurned by the fates, the leaders of the Greeks built a horse..
"Germany faces 'political discussion' over how attack could happen
Timo Lehmann, a correspondent for German news website Der Spiegel, tells the BBC that there will be a "political discussion" over the next few days, surrounding "what went wrong and how it could happen".
He says the suspect was "clearly on watch by the police, and still they couldn't stop what happened yesterday".
As a reminder, Abdul Ballout had been convicted and given a prison sentence that he had not yet served. Officials said a year ago he had tried to join the Islamic State group."
Attendances for Hundred 20% down — despite bigger stars and fresh branding
I’m at Headingley on Tuesday for a match.
The corporate hospitality prices are down 40% from last year.
According to my colleague a fortnight ago the prices were 10% higher than last year.
I am getting spammed with offers.
They are trying to pitch the match on Tuesday as a Roses match.
Nah it’s Leeds Sunrisers v Manchester Supergiants.
The only things wrong with the Hundred are the stupid team names, the fact that the identity of the teams bears no relationship to the identity of the players (e.g. Root - Welsh Fire; Bairstow - London something etc) and therefore doesn't promote any sense of belonging, the fact that it's not proper cricket at all, the fact that it's really just about money, and the fact that it's pretty boring and predictable. Otherwise, it's fine.
The only reason I am going on Tuesday is meet some clients and former colleagues.
Oh and the salmon and cheese sandwiches, they are the dog's dangly bits.
Man of the people....
I had a real man of the people moment last week when out of 20 people I was the only who had read The Odyssey in the original Greek.
As my other half noted my face had this shocked look that I was the only one.
This place may be the home of pseuds corner. You know the drill, posters debating their supercar ownership, Oxbridge, name dropping (I thank you all for reading my anecdotes!) buckshee first class flights to exotic locations, eating dogs and cats, and not getting out of bed in the morning for less than a seven figure salary. All a bit tiresome, however reading Homer in Greek is f***in' impressive. On the other hand I saw Odysseus last weekend and it was all Greek to me.
Levels of airline tier status is so plebeian.
The true level of sophistication is Harrods rewards tier and AMEX card tier.
The reason I love Supermac and Greek is this story.
in September 1916, [Harold Macmillan] was severely wounded, and lay for over twelve hours in a shell hole, sometimes feigning death when Germans passed, and reading Aeschylus in the original Greek
I would have thought Harrods Rewards and AMEX card status willy waving is incredibly gauche.
I find Harrods as a retailer to be pretentious in a way Fortnums is clearly designed simply for the man on the Clapham Omnibus to buy tea.
“It is understood that about 4,000 tickets were given away for the opening fixture on Tuesday at the Oval, home to MI London, which in its previous guise of Oval Invincibles won the past three men’s tournaments. The official attendance for the match was 20,540. “
No wonder they are slashing corporate hospitality prices.
Politics UK @PolitlcsUK 🚨 NEW: Andy Burnham is strongly considering replacing council tax and stamp duty with a 0.48% annual tax on a home's current value
Attendances for Hundred 20% down — despite bigger stars and fresh branding
I’m at Headingley on Tuesday for a match.
The corporate hospitality prices are down 40% from last year.
According to my colleague a fortnight ago the prices were 10% higher than last year.
I am getting spammed with offers.
They are trying to pitch the match on Tuesday as a Roses match.
Nah it’s Leeds Sunrisers v Manchester Supergiants.
The only things wrong with the Hundred are the stupid team names, the fact that the identity of the teams bears no relationship to the identity of the players (e.g. Root - Welsh Fire; Bairstow - London something etc) and therefore doesn't promote any sense of belonging, the fact that it's not proper cricket at all, the fact that it's really just about money, and the fact that it's pretty boring and predictable. Otherwise, it's fine.
The only reason I am going on Tuesday is meet some clients and former colleagues.
Oh and the salmon and cheese sandwiches, they are the dog's dangly bits.
Man of the people....
I had a real man of the people moment last week when out of 20 people I was the only who had read The Odyssey in the original Greek.
As my other half noted my face had this shocked look that I was the only one.
This place may be the home of pseuds corner. You know the drill, posters debating their supercar ownership, Oxbridge, name dropping (I thank you all for reading my anecdotes!) buckshee first class flights to exotic locations, eating dogs and cats, and not getting out of bed in the morning for less than a seven figure salary. All a bit tiresome, however reading Homer in Greek is f***in' impressive. On the other hand I saw Odysseus last weekend and it was all Greek to me.
My wife, a son in law and I have all read at least some of the Odyssey (and Iliad) in Greek. In my case not recently. I remember before an exam reading a Euripides play (possibly Medea) at Lords during Middlesex matches. One line between each ball. JSE Price had a long runup.
You were doing so well until you fell down the "I spent my days revising for important exams at the cricket" PB rabbit hole.
Politics UK @PolitlcsUK 🚨 NEW: Andy Burnham is strongly considering replacing council tax and stamp duty with a 0.48% annual tax on a home's current value
I have no idea if that would be a good idea or not, but council tax has stuck around stubbornly for a very long time despite a lot of people raising complaints about it, so it would be interesting if he was bold enough to change it fundamentally.
'Seriously considering' suggests to me this is just kite flying though.
We had "seriously considering" increasing the tax free threshold and 50% tax band last week.
I think we will have papers making stuff up to scare their readership for months because papers abhore a news vacuum and that's what Andy is giving them at the moment..
Politics UK @PolitlcsUK 🚨 NEW: Andy Burnham is strongly considering replacing council tax and stamp duty with a 0.48% annual tax on a home's current value
I have no idea if that would be a good idea or not, but council tax has stuck around stubbornly for a very long time despite a lot of people raising complaints about it, so it would be interesting if he was bold enough to change it fundamentally.
'Seriously considering' suggests to me this is just kite flying though.
We had "seriously considering" increasing the tax free threshold and 50% tax band last week.
I think we will have papers making stuff up to scare their readership for months because papers abhore a news vacuum and that's what Andy is giving them at the moment..
Much that the Telegraph loved to make up all the scary stuff Reeves was going to do to such extent it became a meme, those policies where on the record briefings that across the media carried.
... with even Maureen Lipman saying this week she would vote for Kemi...
Dame Maureen has got close relatives in Israel and she's said in the past about how scared she is for them given the constant missile bombardment. Under Badenoch the Conservatives are solidly pro-Israel (I think - somebody correct me if wrong) and Labour under Burnham is lukewarm, so she has a valid reason for the switch.
Indeed, its sad to see the pro Hamas turn many in Labour have taken. Good to see principled lefties like Maureen take a stance.
It's not pro Hamas, it's anti genocidal, racist Israeli government
Barty seems to process scepticism of the Netanyahu Government as a pro Hamas narrative. Maybe Maureen Lipman is similarly minded.
I support the Israeli opposition that wants to see the corrupt Netanyahu be replaced, but be just as hardline at defeating Hamas.
The problem with Netanyahu is that he is (a) corrupt and (b) been too soft on Hamas.
Not that he has been too hard on them.
No, the problem is that Netanyahu's two goals, defeating Hamas and changing the regime in Iran, are and always were utterly unrealistic.
Israel simply cannot wipe out Hamas while the Palestinians' political grievances remain unaddressed. It has had limited military successes, but at the cost of further entrenching political support for Hames in Gaza.
And the war to overthrow the Iranian regime has been a total and utter failure - in fact, completely counter-productive because it has allowed the Iranian regime to clamp down on the opposition at home even more thoroughly.
All Netanyahu's strategy has achieved is to strengthen his enemies politically, ruin Israel's standing abroad and trap it in a never-ending cycle of war and atrocity.
It's the definition of a futile dead end.
From that point of view, at least, Netanyahu and Putin are twins.
That's quite a defeatist and nihilistic attitude.
It is absolutely possible to militarily defeat evil terrorists and fascist regimes like Hamas and Iran. There is plenty of precedence for doing so like defeating the Tamil Tigers and the Nazis and Imperial Japan.
What is needed is Total War until they are defeated and surrender unconditionally.
The problem is that Trump especially has been weak and chickened out, and Netanyahu has also been pulling his punches.
Israel needs to get more aggressive than it is and end the cycle of violence by eliminating the enemies.
you still are and forever will be a complete lunatic
Lunacy is repeating the same mistakes and expecting other outcomes. Like having a repeated cycle of ceasefire, hatred, conflict, ceasefire.
Victory can break the cycle of violence. The Nazis are gone, the Tamil Tigers are gone. Imperial Japan reformed to save itself.
Victory works better than stalemate.
I don't really see how in this case total victory really can 'work'. Israel can fully occupy Gaza and the West Bank, and subdue and disarm the Palestinians who live there, but that wouldn't be enough. They would want to cleanse those areas of Palestinians to secure themselves permanently and make room for more Israelis to live there. Even if they didn't want to do this, they would still be stuck there. In West Germany, you could get rid of the Nazis, occupy the country for a while, and then leave and let the Germans get on with it. You can't do that in Gaza and the West Bank. The minute Israel leaves, anti-Israel forces would take hold, with some justification.
The only viable solution to me is, as I have said before, to empy Gaza of Palestinians and have them all move to the West Bank. And empty the West Bank of settlers and make them all move back to Israel and Gaza. Then you get a stable and secure Israel, and a viable Palestinian state.
Doesn’t work without resolving water rights (which wa what killed Oslo)
... with even Maureen Lipman saying this week she would vote for Kemi...
Dame Maureen has got close relatives in Israel and she's said in the past about how scared she is for them given the constant missile bombardment. Under Badenoch the Conservatives are solidly pro-Israel (I think - somebody correct me if wrong) and Labour under Burnham is lukewarm, so she has a valid reason for the switch.
Indeed, its sad to see the pro Hamas turn many in Labour have taken. Good to see principled lefties like Maureen take a stance.
It's not pro Hamas, it's anti genocidal, racist Israeli government
Barty seems to process scepticism of the Netanyahu Government as a pro Hamas narrative. Maybe Maureen Lipman is similarly minded.
I support the Israeli opposition that wants to see the corrupt Netanyahu be replaced, but be just as hardline at defeating Hamas.
The problem with Netanyahu is that he is (a) corrupt and (b) been too soft on Hamas.
Not that he has been too hard on them.
No, the problem is that Netanyahu's two goals, defeating Hamas and changing the regime in Iran, are and always were utterly unrealistic.
Israel simply cannot wipe out Hamas while the Palestinians' political grievances remain unaddressed. It has had limited military successes, but at the cost of further entrenching political support for Hames in Gaza.
And the war to overthrow the Iranian regime has been a total and utter failure - in fact, completely counter-productive because it has allowed the Iranian regime to clamp down on the opposition at home even more thoroughly.
All Netanyahu's strategy has achieved is to strengthen his enemies politically, ruin Israel's standing abroad and trap it in a never-ending cycle of war and atrocity.
It's the definition of a futile dead end.
From that point of view, at least, Netanyahu and Putin are twins.
That's quite a defeatist and nihilistic attitude.
It is absolutely possible to militarily defeat evil terrorists and fascist regimes like Hamas and Iran. There is plenty of precedence for doing so like defeating the Tamil Tigers and the Nazis and Imperial Japan.
What is needed is Total War until they are defeated and surrender unconditionally.
The problem is that Trump especially has been weak and chickened out, and Netanyahu has also been pulling his punches.
Israel needs to get more aggressive than it is and end the cycle of violence by eliminating the enemies.
you still are and forever will be a complete lunatic
Lunacy is repeating the same mistakes and expecting other outcomes. Like having a repeated cycle of ceasefire, hatred, conflict, ceasefire.
Victory can break the cycle of violence. The Nazis are gone, the Tamil Tigers are gone. Imperial Japan reformed to save itself.
Victory works better than stalemate.
I don't really see how in this case total victory really can 'work'. Israel can fully occupy Gaza and the West Bank, and subdue and disarm the Palestinians who live there, but that wouldn't be enough. They would want to cleanse those areas of Palestinians to secure themselves permanently and make room for more Israelis to live there. Even if they didn't want to do this, they would still be stuck there. In West Germany, you could get rid of the Nazis, occupy the country for a while, and then leave and let the Germans get on with it. You can't do that in Gaza and the West Bank. The minute Israel leaves, anti-Israel forces would take hold, with some justification.
The only viable solution to me is, as I have said before, to empy Gaza of Palestinians and have them all move to the West Bank. And empty the West Bank of settlers and make them all move back to Israel and Gaza. Then you get a stable and secure Israel, and a viable Palestinian state.
Well there's a few options.
It is worth remembering that Israel was out of Gaza, with all settlers removed, prior to the Hamas atrocity. The idea of 'settlers' may be an issue in the West Bank but it was not one in Gaza and yet Hamas still did its evil anyway.
Israel is willing to vote for peace with the Palestinians and has tried to time again. They have signed accords, even under Netanyahu, with many of their former enemies in the region too. The problem is the Palestinian leadership which has time and again rejected peace. Both completely under Hamas, and the PLO under Arafat in 2000 etc
I don't believe Gaza needs to be emptied of Palestinians. My preferred option would be to see Hamas surrender unconditionally, a new agreement reached between Israel and Palestinian leadership similar to that which Arafat rejected, and then a viable two state solution.
If that's not viable, then moving the Palestinians eg Jordan or anywhere else may become the only viable solution, but that would be again a very last resort. Even a further last resort than going to war.
Jordan doesn’t want them - don’t forget the Palestinians tried to assassinate the King and take over the country
... with even Maureen Lipman saying this week she would vote for Kemi...
Dame Maureen has got close relatives in Israel and she's said in the past about how scared she is for them given the constant missile bombardment. Under Badenoch the Conservatives are solidly pro-Israel (I think - somebody correct me if wrong) and Labour under Burnham is lukewarm, so she has a valid reason for the switch.
Indeed, its sad to see the pro Hamas turn many in Labour have taken. Good to see principled lefties like Maureen take a stance.
It's not pro Hamas, it's anti genocidal, racist Israeli government
Barty seems to process scepticism of the Netanyahu Government as a pro Hamas narrative. Maybe Maureen Lipman is similarly minded.
I support the Israeli opposition that wants to see the corrupt Netanyahu be replaced, but be just as hardline at defeating Hamas.
The problem with Netanyahu is that he is (a) corrupt and (b) been too soft on Hamas.
Not that he has been too hard on them.
No, the problem is that Netanyahu's two goals, defeating Hamas and changing the regime in Iran, are and always were utterly unrealistic.
Israel simply cannot wipe out Hamas while the Palestinians' political grievances remain unaddressed. It has had limited military successes, but at the cost of further entrenching political support for Hames in Gaza.
And the war to overthrow the Iranian regime has been a total and utter failure - in fact, completely counter-productive because it has allowed the Iranian regime to clamp down on the opposition at home even more thoroughly.
All Netanyahu's strategy has achieved is to strengthen his enemies politically, ruin Israel's standing abroad and trap it in a never-ending cycle of war and atrocity.
It's the definition of a futile dead end.
From that point of view, at least, Netanyahu and Putin are twins.
That's quite a defeatist and nihilistic attitude.
It is absolutely possible to militarily defeat evil terrorists and fascist regimes like Hamas and Iran. There is plenty of precedence for doing so like defeating the Tamil Tigers and the Nazis and Imperial Japan.
What is needed is Total War until they are defeated and surrender unconditionally.
The problem is that Trump especially has been weak and chickened out, and Netanyahu has also been pulling his punches.
Israel needs to get more aggressive than it is and end the cycle of violence by eliminating the enemies.
you still are and forever will be a complete lunatic
Lunacy is repeating the same mistakes and expecting other outcomes. Like having a repeated cycle of ceasefire, hatred, conflict, ceasefire.
Victory can break the cycle of violence. The Nazis are gone, the Tamil Tigers are gone. Imperial Japan reformed to save itself.
Victory works better than stalemate.
I don't really see how in this case total victory really can 'work'. Israel can fully occupy Gaza and the West Bank, and subdue and disarm the Palestinians who live there, but that wouldn't be enough. They would want to cleanse those areas of Palestinians to secure themselves permanently and make room for more Israelis to live there. Even if they didn't want to do this, they would still be stuck there. In West Germany, you could get rid of the Nazis, occupy the country for a while, and then leave and let the Germans get on with it. You can't do that in Gaza and the West Bank. The minute Israel leaves, anti-Israel forces would take hold, with some justification.
The only viable solution to me is, as I have said before, to empy Gaza of Palestinians and have them all move to the West Bank. And empty the West Bank of settlers and make them all move back to Israel and Gaza. Then you get a stable and secure Israel, and a viable Palestinian state.
Doesn’t work without resolving water rights (which wa what killed Oslo)
... with even Maureen Lipman saying this week she would vote for Kemi...
Dame Maureen has got close relatives in Israel and she's said in the past about how scared she is for them given the constant missile bombardment. Under Badenoch the Conservatives are solidly pro-Israel (I think - somebody correct me if wrong) and Labour under Burnham is lukewarm, so she has a valid reason for the switch.
Indeed, its sad to see the pro Hamas turn many in Labour have taken. Good to see principled lefties like Maureen take a stance.
It's not pro Hamas, it's anti genocidal, racist Israeli government
Barty seems to process scepticism of the Netanyahu Government as a pro Hamas narrative. Maybe Maureen Lipman is similarly minded.
I support the Israeli opposition that wants to see the corrupt Netanyahu be replaced, but be just as hardline at defeating Hamas.
The problem with Netanyahu is that he is (a) corrupt and (b) been too soft on Hamas.
Not that he has been too hard on them.
No, the problem is that Netanyahu's two goals, defeating Hamas and changing the regime in Iran, are and always were utterly unrealistic.
Israel simply cannot wipe out Hamas while the Palestinians' political grievances remain unaddressed. It has had limited military successes, but at the cost of further entrenching political support for Hames in Gaza.
And the war to overthrow the Iranian regime has been a total and utter failure - in fact, completely counter-productive because it has allowed the Iranian regime to clamp down on the opposition at home even more thoroughly.
All Netanyahu's strategy has achieved is to strengthen his enemies politically, ruin Israel's standing abroad and trap it in a never-ending cycle of war and atrocity.
It's the definition of a futile dead end.
From that point of view, at least, Netanyahu and Putin are twins.
That's quite a defeatist and nihilistic attitude.
It is absolutely possible to militarily defeat evil terrorists and fascist regimes like Hamas and Iran. There is plenty of precedence for doing so like defeating the Tamil Tigers and the Nazis and Imperial Japan.
What is needed is Total War until they are defeated and surrender unconditionally.
The problem is that Trump especially has been weak and chickened out, and Netanyahu has also been pulling his punches.
Israel needs to get more aggressive than it is and end the cycle of violence by eliminating the enemies.
Somewhat amazingly I find myself wanting to steer you back to the light comedy of the Laffer curve.
Barty is an absolutist. Even when it comes to killing civilians by the tens of thousands ... so long as it's done by the 'good guys'.
That is a fair comment.
I hold to the standards that what we did in WWII was right and that is the standard that Ukraine and Israel and other 'good guys' should operate to today.
Anything we did to defeat the Nazis was right and proper and legitimate for either Israel or Ukraine to do today.
War is hell and civilians die in it which is why it should be a last resort, but if you are in that last resort then you better bloody win.
If someone was to show that same indifference to the collective punishment of 2m Israeli citizens inc the slaughter of tens of thousands they would be outing themselves as a rank and disgusting antisemite.
You are no better. You're a sick joke on this topic.
Its not indifference. I literally said in the post you quoted that "war is hell".
That aids the prosecution not the defence. It's a banal throwaway phrase that very often (as in this case) precedes a justification of atrocities.
Specifically the utter nonsense of a WW2 comparison - equating the perpetrators of a terrorist attack against the dominant military power in the region, nuclear armed and backed to the hilt by the mighty USA, with the Nazi war machine.
Attendances for Hundred 20% down — despite bigger stars and fresh branding
I’m at Headingley on Tuesday for a match.
The corporate hospitality prices are down 40% from last year.
According to my colleague a fortnight ago the prices were 10% higher than last year.
I am getting spammed with offers.
They are trying to pitch the match on Tuesday as a Roses match.
Nah it’s Leeds Sunrisers v Manchester Supergiants.
The only things wrong with the Hundred are the stupid team names, the fact that the identity of the teams bears no relationship to the identity of the players (e.g. Root - Welsh Fire; Bairstow - London something etc) and therefore doesn't promote any sense of belonging, the fact that it's not proper cricket at all, the fact that it's really just about money, and the fact that it's pretty boring and predictable. Otherwise, it's fine.
The only reason I am going on Tuesday is meet some clients and former colleagues.
Oh and the salmon and cheese sandwiches, they are the dog's dangly bits.
Man of the people....
I had a real man of the people moment last week when out of 20 people I was the only who had read The Odyssey in the original Greek.
As my other half noted my face had this shocked look that I was the only one.
This place may be the home of pseuds corner. You know the drill, posters debating their supercar ownership, Oxbridge, name dropping (I thank you all for reading my anecdotes!) buckshee first class flights to exotic locations, eating dogs and cats, and not getting out of bed in the morning for less than a seven figure salary. All a bit tiresome, however reading Homer in Greek is f***in' impressive. On the other hand I saw Odysseus last weekend and it was all Greek to me.
Levels of airline tier status is so plebeian.
The true level of sophistication is Harrods rewards tier and AMEX card tier.
The reason I love Supermac and Greek is this story.
in September 1916, [Harold Macmillan] was severely wounded, and lay for over twelve hours in a shell hole, sometimes feigning death when Germans passed, and reading Aeschylus in the original Greek
I would have thought Harrods Rewards and AMEX card status willy waving is incredibly gauche.
I find Harrods as a retailer to be pretentious in a way Fortnums is clearly designed simply for the man on the Clapham Omnibus to buy tea.
Attendances for Hundred 20% down — despite bigger stars and fresh branding
I’m at Headingley on Tuesday for a match.
The corporate hospitality prices are down 40% from last year.
According to my colleague a fortnight ago the prices were 10% higher than last year.
I am getting spammed with offers.
They are trying to pitch the match on Tuesday as a Roses match.
Nah it’s Leeds Sunrisers v Manchester Supergiants.
The only things wrong with the Hundred are the stupid team names, the fact that the identity of the teams bears no relationship to the identity of the players (e.g. Root - Welsh Fire; Bairstow - London something etc) and therefore doesn't promote any sense of belonging, the fact that it's not proper cricket at all, the fact that it's really just about money, and the fact that it's pretty boring and predictable. Otherwise, it's fine.
The only reason I am going on Tuesday is meet some clients and former colleagues.
Oh and the salmon and cheese sandwiches, they are the dog's dangly bits.
Man of the people....
I had a real man of the people moment last week when out of 20 people I was the only who had read The Odyssey in the original Greek.
As my other half noted my face had this shocked look that I was the only one.
This place may be the home of pseuds corner. You know the drill, posters debating their supercar ownership, Oxbridge, name dropping (I thank you all for reading my anecdotes!) buckshee first class flights to exotic locations, eating dogs and cats, and not getting out of bed in the morning for less than a seven figure salary. All a bit tiresome, however reading Homer in Greek is f***in' impressive. On the other hand I saw Odysseus last weekend and it was all Greek to me.
Levels of airline tier status is so plebeian.
The true level of sophistication is Harrods rewards tier and AMEX card tier.
The reason I love Supermac and Greek is this story.
in September 1916, [Harold Macmillan] was severely wounded, and lay for over twelve hours in a shell hole, sometimes feigning death when Germans passed, and reading Aeschylus in the original Greek
I would have thought Harrods Rewards and AMEX card status willy waving is incredibly gauche.
I find Harrods as a retailer to be pretentious in a way Fortnums is clearly designed simply for the man on the Clapham Omnibus to buy tea.
Why would one ever go to Horrids?
For a laugh? I find Fortnum's far nicer in every way.
Comments
I am appalled by Israeli brutality in Gaza and the West Bank, I loathe the murderous fanaticism of the Iranian regime, I am disgusted by the cruel brutality of Russia in the Ukraine and many, many others. But so what? No one gives a damn what we think, we don't have the power or the moral authority to assert our views and they are irrelevant anyway.
But I really do care when this hatred is let loose on our streets.
I hold to the standards that what we did in WWII was right and that is the standard that Ukraine and Israel and other 'good guys' should operate to today.
Anything we did to defeat the Nazis was right and proper and legitimate for either Israel or Ukraine to do today.
War is hell and civilians die in it which is why it should be a last resort, but if you are in that last resort then you better bloody win.
That's not nothing though.
In the South though the Tories lead on 25% to 22% for Reform and 21% for the LDs and just 14% for Labour and in London Reform did best in the outer suburbs like Havering but the Tories beat Reform and Labour in areas like Westminster, Enfield, Kensington and Chelsea and Wandsworth. So it makes sense for them to target different areas
https://ygo-assets-websites-editorial-emea.yougov.net/documents/VotingIntention_MRP_Results_260723_w.pdf
I am consistently not a fan of attempting to legislate away conflict. It does not work and never has.
The only viable solution to me is, as I have said before, to empy Gaza of Palestinians and have them all move to the West Bank. And empty the West Bank of settlers and make them all move back to Israel and Gaza. Then you get a stable and secure Israel, and a viable Palestinian state.
The corporate hospitality prices are down 40% from last year.
According to my colleague a fortnight ago the prices were 10% higher than last year.
Nah it’s Leeds Sunrisers v Manchester Supergiants.
It is worth remembering that Israel was out of Gaza, with all settlers removed, prior to the Hamas atrocity. The idea of 'settlers' may be an issue in the West Bank but it was not one in Gaza and yet Hamas still did its evil anyway.
Israel is willing to vote for peace with the Palestinians and has tried to time again. They have signed accords, even under Netanyahu, with many of their former enemies in the region too. The problem is the Palestinian leadership which has time and again rejected peace. Both completely under Hamas, and the PLO under Arafat in 2000 etc
I don't believe Gaza needs to be emptied of Palestinians. My preferred option would be to see Hamas surrender unconditionally, a new agreement reached between Israel and Palestinian leadership similar to that which Arafat rejected, and then a viable two state solution.
If that's not viable, then moving the Palestinians eg Jordan or anywhere else may become the only viable solution, but that would be again a very last resort. Even a further last resort than going to war.
I support Israel and Ukraine and other 'good guys' being held to the same standards as the UK was held to during WWII.
How long until they apply common sense and make it a t20 competition..
This from last year.
The Hundred could be changed to a Twenty20 competition as soon as next year. The 100-ball format is enshrined in the England and Wales Cricket Board’s domestic TV contracts with Sky Sports and the BBC until 2028 but the Guardian has learned that both broadcasters are open to switching to T20 next summer if requested by the newly formed Hundred board, which will be dominated by representatives of the eight franchises.
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2025/aug/06/the-hundred-set-for-twenty20-transformation-as-early-as-next-year
While we didn't terror bomb civilian areas to break the national spirit like the Blitz we nonetheless tried to destroy Axis industry with carpet bombing even through theire was civilian housing all around it. Likewise railway hubs and bridges.
In no small apart the casualties from UK bombing were a product of the innaccuracy of wrtime bombing particularly before 43/44.
It's harder to justify the use of Napalm on Tokyo, it's first wartime use, on the worlds largest timber city than as anything else than an attempt to force surrender by terror. The it prevented more deaths from an Invasion doesn't cut it when they were already a broken nation on teh edge of starvation.
That we weren't prosecuted was really because we won.
Were they proportional? Probably not.
Were they all we had? Yes.
So given total war and National survival, justified if disproportional.
Little of that applies to Israel today.
Has it far more accurate weapons and the intelegence to deploy them than we had? Yes.
Is it in a position to take it's time and strike precisely when targets emerge? Yes.
For all the horrendous nature of it's attacks and ideology is Hamas a threat to the existance of Israel? Realisticly No.
Wanting to destroy Israel and being able to do so are two different things. II can kill people just like the IRA but we didn't flatten Dublin.
Can Israel degrade and contain Hamas and Hezbollah, without the current and recent use of force and civilan casualties and damage? Yes.
Therefore because Israel clearly has ways to proscute this war with far less damage and fewer civilian casualties but chooses not to, it is not doing the same as we did in WW2, just as we didn't do in Northern Ireland what we did in WW2.
Indeed just like we didn't do in WW2 when we occupied Germany ,what we did in the Crusades when we took the Holyland!
Peter.
Otherwise, it's fine.
Peter.
Oh and the salmon and cheese sandwiches, they are the dog's dangly bits.
I meant salmon and cream cheese.
I supported the UK taking action at the time. I’m surprised someone like you, who doesn’t believe in international law, supported actions to enforce international law.
Having seen it, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xFpTiIHNTJ0 it's a bit...meh. Not bad per se, but not as good as the field leaders. This is what happens when you spend ten years raising lots of funds and releasing very little.
The Nazis entered this war under the rather childish delusion that they were going to bomb everyone else, and nobody was going to bomb them. At Rotterdam, London, Warsaw, and half a hundred other places, they put their rather naive theory into operation. They sowed the wind, and now they are going to reap the whirlwind.
This picture is a sobering reminder of Test cricket’s peril. West Indies and Pakistan observe a minute’s silence for Sir Garfield Sobers in Trinidad and Tobago with hardly a spectator in sight
https://x.com/TeleCricket/status/2081363806366687386?s=20
What you are missing in your posts in this mini discussion, when you quote those numbers at us, is the 2019 election. Those voters you are shrugging and conceding are Reforms in those seats, voted Conservative in 2019, and so did so many of those seats in a landslide win.
The mistake I believe you are making, which you do all the time, is put the numbers into a seat calculator - 28% Reform - Labour in second place 22% so 28% of seats to Reform, 22% of seats to Labour, 20% to Conservatives who will get 20% seats just behind how many Labour get. It’s going to be tactical votes. Tactical votes are anti votes, attack votes. Whilst you often add the Con and Ref vote together as a voting block.
What has happened since 2019 wasn’t a transfer from Conservative to Reform like choosing a different or preferable brand or style of Ideology on a trip to the mall, Conservatives lost voters based on perception of competence. Halfway through last Parliament, the day Truss entered number 10 as PM, Reform did not exist as any political force.
This con to ref transfer being competence not ideology is so important way of understanding it, because it means 0% chance of Reform/Con coalition government, 0% chance of Reform Con party merger, if the whole reason for Reform having such support, and keeping such support, is they are not the conservatives and don’t have the record and perception of Conservative incompetence. And crucially too very little chance of tactical vote swaps.
Conservatives focus on these seats, Con on those, coalition government from two hefty seat hauls, possible merger of the parties - that’s all utter nonsense if you understand it is not been ideological or party differences between Reform and Tory, it’s that Reform only poll above 3% if Con are seen as incompetent.
If you try to squeeze what is actually happening into some sort of different parties with similar ideology model, you miss the crucial point about those tactical votes. On ideology Reform and Tory could both get mutual tactical votes across all constituencies. But if Reform voters not voting Conservative on basis of Boris wave, not stopping the boats, cost of living due to Incompetent Tory government, there are not the tactical votes there.
The only thing for Conservative Party, their friends in media and donor need to focus on, the only way forward for the Conservatives, is eradication of Reform back to “nothing” status they were at just a few years back on basis there’s only a lowish ceiling Reform can ever hit, certainly in polling, and definitely in seats. All right wing support to reform is now an utter waste of time, it’s hampering making a proper go at taking the electoral fight to the left.
What I have suggested is we cannot do anywhere near as much as we used to, and we need to be very careful and discerning about where and when we do do anything. I certainly didn't suggest Gaza or Iran were an example of where we could meaningfully contribute - I don't think we can, and it isn't in our interests to do so.
I fail to see how my position is deluded when yours is just simplistic 'woe is us' doommongering and mine is a nuanced suggestion that we have limited capabilities and need to be careful how we exercise those capabilities.
You are swinging the dial well too far the other way, and presenting it as realpolitik. Plus the common misconception that if you are not a superpower then your nation is meaningless.
Only 2 nations (tops) can claim to be superpowers, but middling powers have roles to play in some capacity. I don't see how it is a delusion to say there is some potential for action in the world, vs what amounts to 'we aren't a superpower so we cannot do anything'.
There's nothing wrong with short form cricket as a concept, though its unclear why 100 balls would be an improvement on 120. But why must it be presented so stupidly? It shouts at you. It is ugly.
As my other half noted my face had this shocked look that I was the only one.
You are no better. You're a sick joke on this topic.
I wish it were not the case, but the physical audiences do not lie.
No, the West Bank settlers would not take kindly to it at all - I suspect they would burn down the buildings and poison the wells, and they would probably try armed resistance, but they would have to go. Israel would withdraw from the West Bank and a peacekeeping force take it over. It is necessary to have sacrifices on both sides - that is feature of a just peace.
But whilst it was unattractive to a Test fan like me, I still don't see who such branding and presentation would appeal to - it looked very old fashioned, 90s era as I said, so to a younger person getting into the sport it wouldn't look new and exciting, it would still look dated.
It felt like something a room of 65 year old cricket administrators thought was hip and cool, without asking their grandkids if it actually was.
From Iran's perspective, if it cannot export its own oil, then no one else should be able to do so freely through the Gulf.
https://x.com/citrinowicz/status/2081450732851495145
From Iran's perspective, if it cannot export its own oil, then no one else should be able to do so freely through the Gulf.
https://x.com/citrinowicz/status/2081450732851495145
Ravaged by war, and spurned by the fates, the leaders of the Greeks built a horse..
Politics UK
@PolitlcsUK
🚨 NEW: Andy Burnham is strongly considering replacing council tax and stamp duty with a 0.48% annual tax on a home's current value
Though Harris himself did talk about and advocate breaking morale the saturation attacks were a combination of hitting the whole industrial area and the fact that we operated at night.
In contrast the US who focused on the day raids where it was easiler to target key points. We did area bomb but not specifically to terrorise.
It did terrorise so it's a mute point, and there were those who wanted it too.
But I go with it was more that we accepted the consequences rather than it was the main focus.
The point still stands; we did it because between German defences and our linitations, we had few other choices give the nature of the conflict.
Israel isn't remotely in that position.
More importantly we should let thexperience of WW2, Ireland and Israel guide us to make better decisons next time ,not justify making the same ones again.
Ireland became a Republic in 49, israel a State in 48.
Both have faced terorism from the minority and both the UK and israel have pursued different strategies to overcome it.
Which one has worked.
Peter.
The true level of sophistication is Harrods rewards tier and AMEX card tier.
The reason I love Supermac and Greek is this story.
in September 1916, [Harold Macmillan] was severely wounded, and lay for over twelve hours in a shell hole, sometimes feigning death when Germans passed, and reading Aeschylus in the original Greek
'Seriously considering' suggests to me this is just kite flying though.
The loss of competence vote was straight Tory to Labour mainly after the disastrous Truss budget, those are voters the Tories can start to win back and indeed are winning back in the South, where they now lead and in London in some areas where they won back councils like Westminster and Enfield.
Reform voters though more likely to tactically vote Tory to beat Labour in the few areas Reform can't win than Tory voters are to vote Reform as Yougov shows. In most seats the Reform vote is rock solid though and is not going Tory again for the foreseeable future.
https://yougov.com/en-gb/articles/54117-what-is-the-tactical-voting-landscape-in-february-2026
Timo Lehmann, a correspondent for German news website Der Spiegel, tells the BBC that there will be a "political discussion" over the next few days, surrounding "what went wrong and how it could happen".
He says the suspect was "clearly on watch by the police, and still they couldn't stop what happened yesterday".
As a reminder, Abdul Ballout had been convicted and given a prison sentence that he had not yet served. Officials said a year ago he had tried to join the Islamic State group."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/c3r2nz9ed3lt
I find Harrods as a retailer to be pretentious in a way Fortnums is clearly designed simply for the man on the Clapham Omnibus to buy tea.
Here we go again?
Weren't we remarking about Trevor Philips' problems?
He seems to have debagged Mr Philp quite effectively, but Philp is a bit of an auto-self-debagger himself sometimes.
Specifically the utter nonsense of a WW2 comparison - equating the perpetrators of a terrorist attack against the dominant military power in the region, nuclear armed and backed to the hilt by the mighty USA, with the Nazi war machine.
I mean, cmon. You're taking the piss.
https://x.com/Phil_Baty/status/2081072406756483391?s=20