Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The other upcoming leadership contest – Who will replace Jerem

SystemSystem Posts: 6,389
edited July 27 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The other upcoming leadership contest – Who will replace Jeremy Corbyn?

 

Read the full story here


«134

Comments

  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 27,444
    First like Jeremy in 2015 and 2016 :)
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 19,338
    Second like Jeremy in 2022.....
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 10,728
    edited July 27
    Third.

    Regarding the chat in previous thread, the 'Long Road Home' by Shephard is well worth a read. We tend to think of WWII as ending with the celebration and relief of VE and VJ Day, followed by grind of 1950s austerity. Yet for millions in central and Eastern Europe, both already displaced and about-to-be so, the miseries continued for years after 1945.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 19,338
    And tha tis a horrible header image! Makes him look like he is struggling for a word after a stroke....
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 14,489
    Fpt

    TOPPING said:

    surby said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:


    Could be. Is it supposed to be an angel? Are we? What relevance is that?

    Chiding liberals for supporting Israel when it was a plucky underdog then criticising it when it's strong and assertive was your construction. Personally I'm entirely happy to admire plucky underdogs and despise brutish bullies, even when they're different stages in the evolution(sic) of the same person/entity.
    It's all about their view towards the Jews and why there is an elision between criticism of Jews and Israel. The Jews were granted a country formally by the UN and many (not, of course, the UK) supported that. Why? In part because the Jews had had a hell of a time and needed a break.

    Since then the Jews have become stronger and, in your words, indiscriminately brutish. And hence the left is no longer a fan of Israel and that is where the elision comes in because after all, Israel is a Jewish country and hence the criticism of both as though they were the same thing. It of course extends to other strong Jews such as Soros et al.

    The Left is the same with rich people who started off poor - they go from needing saving, and thereby providing a natural constituency for the Left, to being part of the Imperialist Capitalist Boss Class and therefore the enemy.
    So, in your own words, the Jews needed a break and the Palestinians had to lose their lands to accommodate that.

    I repeat six million Jews were killed in the holocaust ! Palestinians did not kill even one of them. But they had to pay the price because "the Jews needed a break"

    Ah so you're the delegitimising kind of "Israel" critic.

    Totally understand where you're coming from. Better that Israel had never existed. Where was it that Ken said Hitler wanted to send the Jews?
    Good counter argument, I like the way you avoided his points and just brought up Hitler. One might suspect you feel you can't voice the reasons you feel Arabs who were mainly Muslims should have their lands taken off them in response to European crimes....
    I avoided none of his points. He wishes that the State of Israel had never been created.

    It is an argument which legitimises anti-Semitism because it deems the creation of Israel to be an original sin. From that point Israel and the Jews can do no right.

    When you and I had an exchange the other day I hadn't realised that you objected to the State of Israel also, as well as its supposed abuses. As I said then I'm looking forward to seeing you on the march to restore all modern nations to their indigenous populations.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 4,070
    edited July 27
    My first disappears like hopes of a sane Brexit...

    Thornberry is a good call, but I wouldnt dismiss some of the other sisters, notably Jess Philips and Stella Creasy. Outside the Shadow Cabinet, but ambitious and young. Not cultists, but both with other strengths. Jess is hardly a metropolitan elite, but quite close to HH, and Stella Creasy does EQ better than almost any other Labour first ranker.

    I dont think that Corbyn will be replaced by a Mini-me, leadership changes, in power and out of it are usually used to rethink approach.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 15,478
    Jez will replace Jez. He's a very good campaigner, as soon as it comes down to that point, his internal opponents will crumble.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 10,728
    I assume that suggesting Rebecca L-B as a credible successor was added through humorous intent.

    Thornberry is a possibility, although I would think she would struggle in an election.

    If he is replaced in office, credibly it can only be from someone already in the top team. Therefore it depends on who his key appointments are likely to be.

    A scenario not examined in the lead is if Labour finds itself only able to form a government by dealing with the SNP and/or the LibDems.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 12,252
    edited July 27
    It's not exactly a field full of promising candidates is it?

    It may be the Colonel faute de mieux, but as Theresa May is so graphically proving that's not a good reason to pick anyone.

    Edit - I should add, I think the value is in him retiring shortly. I thought before the last election that he would go next year when he hits 70, and unless there is a general election imminent it seems possible that will be when he quits.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 14,489
    edited July 27
    @TheJezziah fpt

    The UN had a vote and thereby partitioned Palestine.

    Both the Jews and the Palestinians had been there for centuries. Each got a State. Sounds fair to me. Why do you want to discriminate against one set of peoples?
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 68,320
    IanB2 said:

    I assume that suggesting Rebecca L-B as a credible successor was added through humorous intent.

    Thornberry is a possibility, although I would think she would struggle in an election.

    If he is replaced in office, credibly it can only be from someone already in the top team. Therefore it depends on who his key appointments are likely to be.

    A scenario not examined in the lead is if Labour finds itself only able to form a government by dealing with the SNP and/or the LibDems.

    It's a bit of oneumanship between myself, Alastair, and another PBer.

    Back in the Autumn of 2016 I bragged that I had bagged RBL at 66/1 and 100/1.

    Alastair then burst my bubble by saying he had got her at odds of 350/1.

    Then another PBer piped in and said he had got odds of even more than 350/1
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 27,444
    edited July 27
    TOPPING said:

    @TheJezziah fpt

    The UN had a vote and thereby partitioned Palestine.

    Both the Jews and the Palestinians had been there for centuries. Each got a State. Sounds fair to me. Why do you want to discriminate against one set of peoples?

    FPT also:
    In 2011, Mahmoud Abbas stated that it was a historic mistake for the Arabs not to have accepted the 1947 UN Partition Plan.

    https://www.haaretz.com/1.5216743
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 15,478
    It's a proper British summer now. Downpours mixed in with sunshine. Managed to save my pint from the rain a few times.
  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 9,066
    Bloodlands also has numbing content re ethnic cleansing, population exchanges across Eastern and Central Europe. Stalin encouraged much of it.

    Ian Kershaw To Hell and Back covers the unedifying events which kicked off once the fighting ended.
  • Acorn_AntiquesAcorn_Antiques Posts: 196
    IanB2 said:

    I assume that suggesting Rebecca L-B as a credible successor was added through humorous intent.

    Thornberry is a possibility, although I would think she would struggle in an election.

    If he is replaced in office, credibly it can only be from someone already in the top team. Therefore it depends on who his key appointments are likely to be.

    A scenario not examined in the lead is if Labour finds itself only able to form a government by dealing with the SNP and/or the LibDems.

    Not sure if that makes much difference. The SNP will back any Labour leader so long as they give Scotland Home Rule, £10bn extra per year, and devolve the right to hold more independence referendums at will to the Scottish Parliament. I can't see Corbyn or any likely successor having any difficulty with this.

    The likelihood of the rump Lib Dem party being in a position to hold the balance of power - i.e. Lab + SNP being both close enough to a majority for the LDs to get them over the finishing line, but not so far short as to render this impractical and allow the Tories to soldier on, seems remote.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 68,320
    Yorkshire have brought up their 100 after 7 overs.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 32,796
    It's not that astonishing the subject of Corbyn's leadership doesn't come up anymore. He won. His opponents tried, lost, they would probably have tried again had the party done worse in 2017, but it didn't so they won't, simple as.

    1 in 5 chance of standing down soon seems reasonable - possible, but pretty unlikely. A bit like May getting through the next phase of Brexit seems key as to whether he might step down, albeit for very different reasons. Whether there is an early election is key to both that, and whether he stands down after a GE win during or after a term in office, as it reduces the age issue.

    Starmer does have a credible air about him, generally seems to be playing things fairly smartly on the Brexit front while doing his own thing a bit, so I could see him as a successor.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 10,728

    IanB2 said:

    I assume that suggesting Rebecca L-B as a credible successor was added through humorous intent.

    Thornberry is a possibility, although I would think she would struggle in an election.

    If he is replaced in office, credibly it can only be from someone already in the top team. Therefore it depends on who his key appointments are likely to be.

    A scenario not examined in the lead is if Labour finds itself only able to form a government by dealing with the SNP and/or the LibDems.

    It's a bit of oneumanship between myself, Alastair, and another PBer.

    Back in the Autumn of 2016 I bragged that I had bagged RBL at 66/1 and 100/1.

    Alastair then burst my bubble by saying he had got her at odds of 350/1.

    Then another PBer piped in and said he had got odds of even more than 350/1
    These tv interviews clearly aren't doing her any favours.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 14,489

    TOPPING said:

    @TheJezziah fpt

    The UN had a vote and thereby partitioned Palestine.

    Both the Jews and the Palestinians had been there for centuries. Each got a State. Sounds fair to me. Why do you want to discriminate against one set of peoples?

    FPT also:
    In 2011, Mahmoud Abbas stated that it was a historic mistake for the Arabs not to have accepted the 1947 UN Partition Plan.

    https://www.haaretz.com/1.5216743
    Indeed Sunil some of these Corbynites refuse to let logic or the facts get in the way of their racism.
  • TheJezziahTheJezziah Posts: 1,445
    edited July 27
    TOPPING said:

    @TheJezziah fpt

    The UN had a vote and thereby partitioned Palestine.

    Both the Jews and the Palestinians had been there for centuries. Each got a State. Sounds fair to me. Why do you want to discriminate against one set of peoples?

    A very small Jewish population had lived there centuries, the vast majority were recent (well recent-ish mainly starting in very late 1800's) immigrants.

    If the UN had a vote and thereby partitioned the UK and gave the Muslims a state by taking land out of England I am sure there would be complaints.

    Would this be because of discrimination?

    So to clarify, the reason it was okay for Arab Muslims to be punished for European crimes is because the UN voted to do it?

    The whole it is okay because people voted for it is a dark road.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 10,728

    TOPPING said:

    @TheJezziah fpt

    The UN had a vote and thereby partitioned Palestine.

    Both the Jews and the Palestinians had been there for centuries. Each got a State. Sounds fair to me. Why do you want to discriminate against one set of peoples?

    A very small Jewish population had lived there centuries, the vast majority were recent (well recent-ish mainly starting in very late 1800's) immigrants.

    If the UN had a vote and thereby partitioned the UK and gave the Muslims a state by taking land out of England I am sure there would be complaints.

    Would this be because of discrimination?

    So to clarify, the reason it was okay for Arab Muslims to be punished for European crimes is because the UN voted to do it?

    The whole it is okay because people voted for it is a dark road.
    Don't we know it
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 14,489

    TOPPING said:

    @TheJezziah fpt

    The UN had a vote and thereby partitioned Palestine.

    Both the Jews and the Palestinians had been there for centuries. Each got a State. Sounds fair to me. Why do you want to discriminate against one set of peoples?

    A very small Jewish population had lived there centuries, the vast majority were recent (well recent-ish mainly starting in very late 1800's) immigrants.

    If the UN had a vote and thereby partitioned the UK and gave the Muslims a state by taking land out of England I am sure there would be complaints.

    Would this be because of discrimination?

    So to clarify, the reason it was okay for Arab Muslims to be punished for European crimes is because the UN voted to do it?

    The whole it is okay because people voted for it is a dark road.
    Well if we are to believe the history books a whole Jewish nation lived there a few thousand years ago. But I agree with you: like the Native Americans, fuck 'em.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 27,444

    TOPPING said:

    @TheJezziah fpt

    The UN had a vote and thereby partitioned Palestine.

    Both the Jews and the Palestinians had been there for centuries. Each got a State. Sounds fair to me. Why do you want to discriminate against one set of peoples?

    A very small Jewish population had lived there centuries, the vast majority were recent (well recent-ish mainly starting in very late 1800's) immigrants.

    If the UN had a vote and thereby partitioned the UK and gave the Muslims a state by taking land out of England I am sure there would be complaints.

    Would this be because of discrimination?

    So to clarify, the reason it was okay for Arab Muslims to be punished for European crimes is because the UN voted to do it?

    The whole it is okay because people voted for it is a dark road.
    Do you agree with Mahmoud Abbas that it was a mistake for the Arabs NOT to have agreed to the UN Partition Plan of 1947?
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 15,478
    Having had a few pints, I really don't understand the beef Labour have with Jews. They're an awesome people. Smart, helpful and overall very community minded. They are brought up properly.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 68,320
    The Scots are savages.

    They've come up with something even more mingin' than pineapple on pizza.

    Mayonnaise Ice Cream.

    https://www.thisisinsider.com/mayonnaise-ice-cream-ice-artisan-2018-7
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 14,489
    edited July 27
    MaxPB said:

    Having had a few pints, I really don't understand the beef Labour have with Jews. They're an awesome people. Smart, helpful and overall very community minded. They are brought up properly.

    It's curious I must admit that everywhere that Labour posters are on the internet the discussion always comes round to anti-Semitism.

    At least the ones on here today are honest enough and aren't even saying they are not anti-Semitic.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 15,478
    Also, I don't begrudge them defending their homeland from those who wish to exterminate them or see them exterminated all over the world. They should be allowed to do whatever it takes to make sure they are able to survive in such a hostile environment. I'd back them whatever the weather against the terrorists they are having to fight off who want to exterminate them.
  • Tissue_PriceTissue_Price Posts: 7,810
    edited July 27
    Bravo Alastair, you've managed to select the best option at twice the price I tipped three years ago :D

    I reserve all rights to "the Time Warp manoeuvre"* should she win.

    *A jump to the left, then a step to the right

    http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2015/10/02/next-labour-leader-lets-do-the-time-warp-again/
  • John_MJohn_M Posts: 6,991
    TOPPING said:

    MaxPB said:

    Having had a few pints, I really don't understand the beef Labour have with Jews. They're an awesome people. Smart, helpful and overall very community minded. They are brought up properly.

    It's curious I must admit that everywhere that Labour posters are on the internet the discussion always comes round to anti-Semitism.

    At least the ones on here today are honest enough and aren't even saying they are not anti-Semitic.
    Perhaps it plays well with elements of their base.
  • Acorn_AntiquesAcorn_Antiques Posts: 196
    edited July 27
    MaxPB said:

    Having had a few pints, I really don't understand the beef Labour have with Jews. They're an awesome people. Smart, helpful and overall very community minded. They are brought up properly.

    I think it probably started with explicit opposition to Israel, because it was aligned closely with (as Mr Smithson said in the previous thread) "the hated United States" - as distinct from much of the rest of the Middle East being pro-Soviet - and things simply escalated and spun out of control from there. Nowadays a lot of people on the New Left seem to think both that Jews can do no right and that Muslims can do no wrong: I certainly doubt that the amount of attention given to the lamentable failings of Aung San Suu Kyu would've been half so great if the Rohingya had been Hindus, for example.

    (NB Apologies for bad phrasing: those poor sods who were chased out of Myanmar certainly didn't do any wrong, but you see where I'm coming from. Acts of ethnic cleansing in other parts of the world that involve different minority groups attract little attention.)
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 4,070

    TOPPING said:

    @TheJezziah fpt

    The UN had a vote and thereby partitioned Palestine.

    Both the Jews and the Palestinians had been there for centuries. Each got a State. Sounds fair to me. Why do you want to discriminate against one set of peoples?

    FPT also:
    In 2011, Mahmoud Abbas stated that it was a historic mistake for the Arabs not to have accepted the 1947 UN Partition Plan.

    https://www.haaretz.com/1.5216743
    So, the borders of Israel from 1948-67 are fine then?

  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 10,728
    AUSTRIAN Chancellor Sebastian Kurz has called on Brussels to “find a way” to offer Britain a post-Brexit deal which will keep the UK’s relationship with the Continent as strong as possible.
  • HenryGMansonHenryGManson Posts: 145
    I think the next Labour leadership contest will be an all women affair and I can imagine there would be a bit of gentle pressure applied to male MPs considering throwing in their hat. I can see Emily Thornberry (5/1), Angela Rayner (10/1) and Lisa Nandy (25/1) standing. I think Rayner is the value choice and most likely to be supported by trade unions, but you could do worse than back all three.
  • John_MJohn_M Posts: 6,991
    edited July 27
    IanB2 said:

    AUSTRIAN Chancellor Sebastian Kurz has called on Brussels to “find a way” to offer Britain a post-Brexit deal which will keep the UK’s relationship with the Continent as strong as possible.

    Helpful. We all know how much the Commission loves Austria, perhaps May will get Duda to put a word in for us next.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 32,796
    IanB2 said:

    AUSTRIAN Chancellor Sebastian Kurz has called on Brussels to “find a way” to offer Britain a post-Brexit deal which will keep the UK’s relationship with the Continent as strong as possible.

    They would say that they have already.
  • TheJezziahTheJezziah Posts: 1,445
    edited July 27

    TOPPING said:

    @TheJezziah fpt

    The UN had a vote and thereby partitioned Palestine.

    Both the Jews and the Palestinians had been there for centuries. Each got a State. Sounds fair to me. Why do you want to discriminate against one set of peoples?

    A very small Jewish population had lived there centuries, the vast majority were recent (well recent-ish mainly starting in very late 1800's) immigrants.

    If the UN had a vote and thereby partitioned the UK and gave the Muslims a state by taking land out of England I am sure there would be complaints.

    Would this be because of discrimination?

    So to clarify, the reason it was okay for Arab Muslims to be punished for European crimes is because the UN voted to do it?

    The whole it is okay because people voted for it is a dark road.
    Do you agree with Mahmoud Abbas that it was a mistake for the Arabs NOT to have agreed to the UN Partition Plan of 1947?
    If part of your land is being given away and you try to fight it and end up losing even more of your land then from that point of view you would have to say yes because less land.

    Although I would be reluctant to criticise as I can imagine that I and other British people would fight people coming to take our land even if there was a chance that we would lose more land as a consequence of resisting.
  • Tissue_PriceTissue_Price Posts: 7,810

    I think the next Labour leadership contest will be an all women affair and I can imagine there would be a bit of gentle pressure applied to male MPs considering throwing in their hat. I can see Emily Thornberry (5/1), Angela Rayner (10/1) and Lisa Nandy (25/1) standing. I think Rayner is the value choice and most likely to be supported by trade unions, but you could do worse than back all three.

    Good to see you back on here @HenryGManson, especially on this, one of your specialist subjects. Would Kate Osamor make any appeal at 100/1+?
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 14,543
    Foxy said:

    TOPPING said:

    @TheJezziah fpt

    The UN had a vote and thereby partitioned Palestine.

    Both the Jews and the Palestinians had been there for centuries. Each got a State. Sounds fair to me. Why do you want to discriminate against one set of peoples?

    FPT also:
    In 2011, Mahmoud Abbas stated that it was a historic mistake for the Arabs not to have accepted the 1947 UN Partition Plan.

    https://www.haaretz.com/1.5216743
    So, the borders of Israel from 1948-67 are fine then?

    They would have been had the Arabs accepted them and not started another war in 67.

    Rejecting the 47 partition plan was an historic mistake.
    Rejecting the 67 borders was an historic mistake.
    Rejecting the 00 peace proposal was an historic mistake.

    How many more historic mistakes will we need to go through?
  • CD13CD13 Posts: 4,693
    edited July 27
    Mr Manson.

    "I think the next Labour leadership contest will be an all women affair."

    I agree. The 'time for a woman' call will be unstoppable. Possibly not Kate Hoey, though.
  • The_ApocalypseThe_Apocalypse Posts: 7,476
    edited July 27
    Foxy said:

    My first disappears like hopes of a sane Brexit...

    Thornberry is a good call, but I wouldnt dismiss some of the other sisters, notably Jess Philips and Stella Creasy. Outside the Shadow Cabinet, but ambitious and young. Not cultists, but both with other strengths. Jess is hardly a metropolitan elite, but quite close to HH, and Stella Creasy does EQ better than almost any other Labour first ranker.

    I dont think that Corbyn will be replaced by a Mini-me, leadership changes, in power and out of it are usually used to rethink approach.

    I don’t see Jess Philips succeeding Corbyn at all, she is absolutely hated by his supporters. Thornberry has a chance, his supporters don’t seem to have much issue with her. Angela Rayner is another one who has chance as well because she’s in the same boat. Creasy on the other hand, is another one hated by Corbyn’s supporters - although it seems to a lesser extent than Phillips is.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 12,252
    Foxy said:

    TOPPING said:

    @TheJezziah fpt

    The UN had a vote and thereby partitioned Palestine.

    Both the Jews and the Palestinians had been there for centuries. Each got a State. Sounds fair to me. Why do you want to discriminate against one set of peoples?

    FPT also:
    In 2011, Mahmoud Abbas stated that it was a historic mistake for the Arabs not to have accepted the 1947 UN Partition Plan.

    https://www.haaretz.com/1.5216743
    So, the borders of Israel from 1948-67 are fine then?

    The partition plan and the green line are horses of two very different colours!
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 12,252
    CD13 said:

    Mr Manson.

    "I think the next Labour leadership contest will be an all women affair."

    I agree. The 'time for a woman' call will be unstoppable. Possibly not Kate Hoey, though.

    Kate Howey leading the Labour Party might be funny, but given her age and umm, less than mainstream opinions on many issues would simply be another version of Jez.

    Not that it will happen - but then, stranger things have happened. Incitatus becoming a Senator, for one.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 15,478
    TOPPING said:

    MaxPB said:

    Having had a few pints, I really don't understand the beef Labour have with Jews. They're an awesome people. Smart, helpful and overall very community minded. They are brought up properly.

    It's curious I must admit that everywhere that Labour posters are on the internet the discussion always comes round to anti-Semitism.

    At least the ones on here today are honest enough and aren't even saying they are not anti-Semitic.
    Yes well that is an issue we tend to overlook. It's weird to me, I see Judaism as a culture that doesn't have any negative effects (positive effects, in fact) on British culture and yet Jews are being vilified by the left. On the other side we have another culture which has a huge deleterious effect on the nature of this great nation and yet the left defends them despite FGM, rape gangs and imposition of blasphemy laws. It's odd that they do this given there are only 0.6m Jews and 3m+ of the other group.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 4,070

    Foxy said:

    TOPPING said:

    @TheJezziah fpt

    The UN had a vote and thereby partitioned Palestine.

    Both the Jews and the Palestinians had been there for centuries. Each got a State. Sounds fair to me. Why do you want to discriminate against one set of peoples?

    FPT also:
    In 2011, Mahmoud Abbas stated that it was a historic mistake for the Arabs not to have accepted the 1947 UN Partition Plan.

    https://www.haaretz.com/1.5216743
    So, the borders of Israel from 1948-67 are fine then?

    They would have been had the Arabs accepted them and not started another war in 67.

    Rejecting the 47 partition plan was an historic mistake.
    Rejecting the 67 borders was an historic mistake.
    Rejecting the 00 peace proposal was an historic mistake.

    How many more historic mistakes will we need to go through?
    The 1967 War was initiated by Israel, with a surprise attack on Egypt. As indeed was the 1956 war, with Anglo French conspiracy too.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 15,478
    Foxy said:

    TOPPING said:

    @TheJezziah fpt

    The UN had a vote and thereby partitioned Palestine.

    Both the Jews and the Palestinians had been there for centuries. Each got a State. Sounds fair to me. Why do you want to discriminate against one set of peoples?

    FPT also:
    In 2011, Mahmoud Abbas stated that it was a historic mistake for the Arabs not to have accepted the 1947 UN Partition Plan.

    https://www.haaretz.com/1.5216743
    So, the borders of Israel from 1948-67 are fine then?

    The opponents of the Jewish state have time and again shown that they will not rest until all Jews are exterminated. There is no settlement for them where Israel exists. The Jewish nation is, time after time, under an existential threat from specific groups of people and their useful idiots.

    We cannot and should not leave Israel and the Jewish nation to its own fate. We must defend them, it is our duty to make sure that they aren't left to be exterminated.
  • Acorn_AntiquesAcorn_Antiques Posts: 196

    I think the next Labour leadership contest will be an all women affair and I can imagine there would be a bit of gentle pressure applied to male MPs considering throwing in their hat. I can see Emily Thornberry (5/1), Angela Rayner (10/1) and Lisa Nandy (25/1) standing. I think Rayner is the value choice and most likely to be supported by trade unions, but you could do worse than back all three.

    How about someone like Kate Osamor? Female, black, North London seat, a Corbyn loyalist, and not (insofar as I'm aware) mixed up with some of the more contentious foreign policy baggage.
  • Acorn_AntiquesAcorn_Antiques Posts: 196

    I think the next Labour leadership contest will be an all women affair and I can imagine there would be a bit of gentle pressure applied to male MPs considering throwing in their hat. I can see Emily Thornberry (5/1), Angela Rayner (10/1) and Lisa Nandy (25/1) standing. I think Rayner is the value choice and most likely to be supported by trade unions, but you could do worse than back all three.

    Good to see you back on here @HenryGManson, especially on this, one of your specialist subjects. Would Kate Osamor make any appeal at 100/1+?
    Drat! Beaten to it :-)
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 4,070
    MaxPB said:

    Foxy said:

    TOPPING said:

    @TheJezziah fpt

    The UN had a vote and thereby partitioned Palestine.

    Both the Jews and the Palestinians had been there for centuries. Each got a State. Sounds fair to me. Why do you want to discriminate against one set of peoples?

    FPT also:
    In 2011, Mahmoud Abbas stated that it was a historic mistake for the Arabs not to have accepted the 1947 UN Partition Plan.

    https://www.haaretz.com/1.5216743
    So, the borders of Israel from 1948-67 are fine then?

    The opponents of the Jewish state have time and again shown that they will not rest until all Jews are exterminated. There is no settlement for them where Israel exists. The Jewish nation is, time after time, under an existential threat from specific groups of people and their useful idiots.

    We cannot and should not leave Israel and the Jewish nation to its own fate. We must defend them, it is our duty to make sure that they aren't left to be exterminated.
    I am pro Israel, just not it expanding into the occupied territories.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 19,338
    CD13 said:

    Mr Manson.

    "I think the next Labour leadership contest will be an all women affair."

    I agree. The 'time for a woman' call will be unstoppable. Possibly not Kate Hoey, though.

    John McDonnell might have something to say about that.....
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 14,489
    edited July 27
    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    TOPPING said:

    @TheJezziah fpt

    The UN had a vote and thereby partitioned Palestine.

    Both the Jews and the Palestinians had been there for centuries. Each got a State. Sounds fair to me. Why do you want to discriminate against one set of peoples?

    FPT also:
    In 2011, Mahmoud Abbas stated that it was a historic mistake for the Arabs not to have accepted the 1947 UN Partition Plan.

    https://www.haaretz.com/1.5216743
    So, the borders of Israel from 1948-67 are fine then?

    They would have been had the Arabs accepted them and not started another war in 67.

    Rejecting the 47 partition plan was an historic mistake.
    Rejecting the 67 borders was an historic mistake.
    Rejecting the 00 peace proposal was an historic mistake.

    How many more historic mistakes will we need to go through?
    The 1967 War was initiated by Israel, with a surprise attack on Egypt. As indeed was the 1956 war, with Anglo French conspiracy too.
    Re-writing history as well?

    Google Casus Belli.
  • Tissue_PriceTissue_Price Posts: 7,810

    I think the next Labour leadership contest will be an all women affair and I can imagine there would be a bit of gentle pressure applied to male MPs considering throwing in their hat. I can see Emily Thornberry (5/1), Angela Rayner (10/1) and Lisa Nandy (25/1) standing. I think Rayner is the value choice and most likely to be supported by trade unions, but you could do worse than back all three.

    Good to see you back on here @HenryGManson, especially on this, one of your specialist subjects. Would Kate Osamor make any appeal at 100/1+?
    Drat! Beaten to it :-)
    Cat Smith, too. I can't say I've been overwhelmed by her media appearances, but as someone who worked for Corbyn prior to entering Parliament, should she really be 300/1?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 12,252
    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    TOPPING said:

    @TheJezziah fpt

    The UN had a vote and thereby partitioned Palestine.

    Both the Jews and the Palestinians had been there for centuries. Each got a State. Sounds fair to me. Why do you want to discriminate against one set of peoples?

    FPT also:
    In 2011, Mahmoud Abbas stated that it was a historic mistake for the Arabs not to have accepted the 1947 UN Partition Plan.

    https://www.haaretz.com/1.5216743
    So, the borders of Israel from 1948-67 are fine then?

    They would have been had the Arabs accepted them and not started another war in 67.

    Rejecting the 47 partition plan was an historic mistake.
    Rejecting the 67 borders was an historic mistake.
    Rejecting the 00 peace proposal was an historic mistake.

    How many more historic mistakes will we need to go through?
    The 1967 War was initiated by Israel, with a surprise attack on Egypt. As indeed was the 1956 war, with Anglo French conspiracy too.
    That's a somewhat simplistic characterisation. Given Egypt had closed the Straits of Tiran, massed troops in the Sinai and Nasser had said he wanted the Israelis to attack, I think it is fair to say Egypt bears at least some of the responsibility. Certainly they bear the responsibility for bringing in Jordan and Syria with such disastrous consequences.

    The minor detail they were caught by surprise when the Israelis did exactly what they had threatened to do and bombed seven shades of excrement out of them merely goes to show that Nasser and his generals actually were as thick as five posts and not the great national figures and military leaders they believed themselves to be.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 4,070

    Foxy said:

    My first disappears like hopes of a sane Brexit...

    Thornberry is a good call, but I wouldnt dismiss some of the other sisters, notably Jess Philips and Stella Creasy. Outside the Shadow Cabinet, but ambitious and young. Not cultists, but both with other strengths. Jess is hardly a metropolitan elite, but quite close to HH, and Stella Creasy does EQ better than almost any other Labour first ranker.

    I dont think that Corbyn will be replaced by a Mini-me, leadership changes, in power and out of it are usually used to rethink approach.

    I don’t see Jess Philips succeeding Corbyn at all, she is absolutely hated by his supporters. Thornberry has a chance, his supporters don’t seem to have much issue with her. Angela Rayner is another one who has chance as well because she’s in the same boat. Creasy on the other hand, is another one hated by Corbyn’s supporters - although it seems to a lesser extent than Phillips is.
    Yes, but It very much depends whether the next contest occurs in a context of endorsing Corbynism or rejecting it, as per @AlastairMeeks scenarios.

    Henry has his finger on the pulse. I have Angela Rayner covered too. She will get union support. I like her, but then I have always liked the feisty ones.

  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 4,070
    ydoethur said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    TOPPING said:

    @TheJezziah fpt

    The UN had a vote and thereby partitioned Palestine.

    Both the Jews and the Palestinians had been there for centuries. Each got a State. Sounds fair to me. Why do you want to discriminate against one set of peoples?

    FPT also:
    In 2011, Mahmoud Abbas stated that it was a historic mistake for the Arabs not to have accepted the 1947 UN Partition Plan.

    https://www.haaretz.com/1.5216743
    So, the borders of Israel from 1948-67 are fine then?

    They would have been had the Arabs accepted them and not started another war in 67.

    Rejecting the 47 partition plan was an historic mistake.
    Rejecting the 67 borders was an historic mistake.
    Rejecting the 00 peace proposal was an historic mistake.

    How many more historic mistakes will we need to go through?
    The 1967 War was initiated by Israel, with a surprise attack on Egypt. As indeed was the 1956 war, with Anglo French conspiracy too.
    That's a somewhat simplistic characterisation. Given Egypt had closed the Straits of Tiran, massed troops in the Sinai and Nasser had said he wanted the Israelis to attack, I think it is fair to say Egypt bears at least some of the responsibility. Certainly they bear the responsibility for bringing in Jordan and Syria with such disastrous consequences.

    The minor detail they were caught by surprise when the Israelis did exactly what they had threatened to do and bombed seven shades of excrement out of them merely goes to show that Nasser and his generals actually were as thick as five posts and not the great national figures and military leaders they believed themselves to be.
    Sure, tensions had been building, but the fact is that the 1956 and 1967 wars were started by the Israelis.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 14,543
    Foxy said:

    ydoethur said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    TOPPING said:

    @TheJezziah fpt

    The UN had a vote and thereby partitioned Palestine.

    Both the Jews and the Palestinians had been there for centuries. Each got a State. Sounds fair to me. Why do you want to discriminate against one set of peoples?

    FPT also:
    In 2011, Mahmoud Abbas stated that it was a historic mistake for the Arabs not to have accepted the 1947 UN Partition Plan.

    https://www.haaretz.com/1.5216743
    So, the borders of Israel from 1948-67 are fine then?

    They would have been had the Arabs accepted them and not started another war in 67.

    Rejecting the 47 partition plan was an historic mistake.
    Rejecting the 67 borders was an historic mistake.
    Rejecting the 00 peace proposal was an historic mistake.

    How many more historic mistakes will we need to go through?
    The 1967 War was initiated by Israel, with a surprise attack on Egypt. As indeed was the 1956 war, with Anglo French conspiracy too.
    That's a somewhat simplistic characterisation. Given Egypt had closed the Straits of Tiran, massed troops in the Sinai and Nasser had said he wanted the Israelis to attack, I think it is fair to say Egypt bears at least some of the responsibility. Certainly they bear the responsibility for bringing in Jordan and Syria with such disastrous consequences.

    The minor detail they were caught by surprise when the Israelis did exactly what they had threatened to do and bombed seven shades of excrement out of them merely goes to show that Nasser and his generals actually were as thick as five posts and not the great national figures and military leaders they believed themselves to be.
    Sure, tensions had been building, but the fact is that the 1956 and 1967 wars were started by the Israelis.
    Not really. Blockading a nation as Egypt had done both times by shutting the Straits of Tiran has throughout history been a casus belli

    The 56 war was ended with a ceasefire agreeing that the conflict would end and the Straits would be kept open under UN supervision. Egypt terminated the ceasefire, kicked out the UN supervisors and then were "surprised" that the conflict ended with the ceasefire happened. Seriously?
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 25,234
    FPT - Peter Kozminsky's The Promise was superb. It was so powerful and well made it led me to revisit a few of my assumptions on the Israel/Palestine issue, and read up on it too.

    A Line in the Sand by James Barr is also very good.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 12,252
    edited July 27
    Foxy said:

    ydoethur said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    TOPPING said:

    @TheJezziah fpt

    The UN had a vote and thereby partitioned Palestine.

    Both the Jews and the Palestinians had been there for centuries. Each got a State. Sounds fair to me. Why do you want to discriminate against one set of peoples?

    FPT also:
    In 2011, Mahmoud Abbas stated that it was a historic mistake for the Arabs not to have accepted the 1947 UN Partition Plan.

    https://www.haaretz.com/1.5216743
    So, the borders of Israel from 1948-67 are fine then?

    They would have been had the Arabs accepted them and not started another war in 67.

    Rejecting the 47 partition plan was an historic mistake.
    Rejecting the 67 borders was an historic mistake.
    Rejecting the 00 peace proposal was an historic mistake.

    How many more historic mistakes will we need to go through?
    The 1967 War was initiated by Israel, with a surprise attack on Egypt. As indeed was the 1956 war, with Anglo French conspiracy too.
    That's a somewhat simplistic characterisation. Given Egypt had closed the Straits of Tiran, massed troops in the Sinai and Nasser had said he wanted the Israelis to attack, I think it is fair to say Egypt bears at least some of the responsibility. Certainly they bear the responsibility for bringing in Jordan and Syria with such disastrous consequences.

    The minor detail they were caught by surprise when the Israelis did exactly what they had threatened to do and bombed seven shades of excrement out of them merely goes to show that Nasser and his generals actually were as thick as five posts and not the great national figures and military leaders they believed themselves to be.
    Sure, tensions had been building, but the fact is that the 1956 and 1967 wars were started by the Israelis.
    If you mean, 'they fired the first shots,' yes.

    If you mean, 'they deliberately engineered the Wars,' (which would be my definition) then no. They weren't responsible for duff Soviet intelligence, the withdrawal under duress of UN peacekeepers or Nasser's publicly stated desire to start a war to wipe Israel off the map.

    And in 1956 of course they were simply adroitly exploiting a war between Britain/France and Egypt. They did not 'start' that one except, again, they invaded to provide the Anglo-French pretext for war.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 25,234

    First like Jeremy in 2015 and 2016 :)

    FPT - good plan. Don't forget the preserved railways, particularly the Bodmin and Wenford.
  • SeanTSeanT Posts: 20,954

    I think the next Labour leadership contest will be an all women affair and I can imagine there would be a bit of gentle pressure applied to male MPs considering throwing in their hat. I can see Emily Thornberry (5/1), Angela Rayner (10/1) and Lisa Nandy (25/1) standing. I think Rayner is the value choice and most likely to be supported by trade unions, but you could do worse than back all three.

    How about someone like Kate Osamor? Female, black, North London seat, a Corbyn loyalist, and not (insofar as I'm aware) mixed up with some of the more contentious foreign policy baggage.
    She is quite unbelievably stupid, judging by her Twitter stream. She can't spell, she's deeply ignorant, she's mulishly stubborn even when her errors are pointed out, she cries racism whenever she can, she is an imbecile.

    So, yeah, perfect. I imagine they will choose her.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 25,234
    IanB2 said:

    Third.

    Regarding the chat in previous thread, the 'Long Road Home' by Shephard is well worth a read. We tend to think of WWII as ending with the celebration and relief of VE and VJ Day, followed by grind of 1950s austerity. Yet for millions in central and Eastern Europe, both already displaced and about-to-be so, the miseries continued for years after 1945.

    About 45 years, to be precise.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 25,234
    IanB2 said:

    I assume that suggesting Rebecca L-B as a credible successor was added through humorous intent.

    Thornberry is a possibility, although I would think she would struggle in an election.

    If he is replaced in office, credibly it can only be from someone already in the top team. Therefore it depends on who his key appointments are likely to be.

    A scenario not examined in the lead is if Labour finds itself only able to form a government by dealing with the SNP and/or the LibDems.

    Thornberry is someone who'd be a real turn off to non-metropolitan English marginals.

    Everything about her screams London urban left-wing snob.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 10,728
    SeanT said:

    I think the next Labour leadership contest will be an all women affair and I can imagine there would be a bit of gentle pressure applied to male MPs considering throwing in their hat. I can see Emily Thornberry (5/1), Angela Rayner (10/1) and Lisa Nandy (25/1) standing. I think Rayner is the value choice and most likely to be supported by trade unions, but you could do worse than back all three.

    How about someone like Kate Osamor? Female, black, North London seat, a Corbyn loyalist, and not (insofar as I'm aware) mixed up with some of the more contentious foreign policy baggage.
    She is quite unbelievably stupid, judging by her Twitter stream. She can't spell, she's deeply ignorant, she's mulishly stubborn even when her errors are pointed out, she cries racism whenever she can, she is an imbecile.

    So, yeah, perfect. I imagine they will choose her.
    Would like be putting you in charge of the Tories.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 25,234
    MaxPB said:

    Having had a few pints, I really don't understand the beef Labour have with Jews. They're an awesome people. Smart, helpful and overall very community minded. They are brought up properly.

    I think they view them as being the linchpins of capitalism, and so must be destroyed just as much as imperialists and the corporations.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 4,070
    ydoethur said:

    Foxy said:

    ydoethur said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    TOPPING said:

    @TheJezziah fpt

    The UN had a vote and thereby partitioned Palestine.

    Both the Jews and the Palestinians had been there for centuries. Each got a State. Sounds fair to me. Why do you want to discriminate against one set of peoples?

    FPT also:
    In 2011, Mahmoud Abbas stated that it was a historic mistake for the Arabs not to have accepted the 1947 UN Partition Plan.

    https://www.haaretz.com/1.5216743
    So, the borders of Israel from 1948-67 are fine then?

    They would have been had the Arabs accepted them and not started another war in 67.

    Rejecting the 47 partition plan was an historic mistake.
    Rejecting the 67 borders was an historic mistake.
    Rejecting the 00 peace proposal was an historic mistake.

    How many more historic mistakes will we need to go through?
    The 1967 War was initiated by Israel, with a surprise attack on Egypt. As indeed was the 1956 war, with Anglo French conspiracy too.
    That's a somewhat simplistic characterisation. Given Egypt had closed the Straits of Tiran, massed troops in the Sinai and Nasser had said he wanted the Israelis to attack, I think it is fair to say Egypt bears at least some of the responsibility. Certainly they bear the responsibility for bringing in Jordan and Syria with such disastrous consequences.

    The minor detail they were caught by surprise when the Israelis did exactly what they had threatened to do and bombed seven shades of excrement out of them merely goes to show that Nasser and his generals actually were as thick as five posts and not the great national figures and military leaders they believed themselves to be.
    Sure, tensions had been building, but the fact is that the 1956 and 1967 wars were started by the Israelis.
    If you mean, 'they fired the first shots,' yes.

    If you mean, 'they deliberately engineered the Wars,' (which would be my definition) then no. They weren't responsible for duff Soviet intelligence, the withdrawal under duress of UN peacekeepers or Nasser's publicly stated desire to start a war to wipe Israel off the map.
    So, yes, Israel did start the war, after increasing tensions, including Israeli air operations against Egypt and Jordan.

    Justifiable pre-emption possibly, but whether Nasser was just sabre rattling as so many times before, we cannot know.

  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 12,252
    SeanT said:

    I think the next Labour leadership contest will be an all women affair and I can imagine there would be a bit of gentle pressure applied to male MPs considering throwing in their hat. I can see Emily Thornberry (5/1), Angela Rayner (10/1) and Lisa Nandy (25/1) standing. I think Rayner is the value choice and most likely to be supported by trade unions, but you could do worse than back all three.

    How about someone like Kate Osamor? Female, black, North London seat, a Corbyn loyalist, and not (insofar as I'm aware) mixed up with some of the more contentious foreign policy baggage.
    She is quite unbelievably stupid, judging by her Twitter stream. She can't spell, she's deeply ignorant, she's mulishly stubborn even when her errors are pointed out, she cries racism whenever she can, she is an imbecile.

    So, yeah, perfect. I imagine they will choose her.
    Having googled her, I came across this rather amusing incident:

    https://www.totalpolitics.com/articles/diary/kate-osamor-shoots-messenger-after-interview-causes-controversy

    It reminds me of the American author Richard Carrier, who sued somebody for libel after a claim that he had seduced a delegate at a conference - only to have to withdraw that charge when she pointed out she was quoting, word for word, his own blogpost on the subject!
  • SeanTSeanT Posts: 20,954

    IanB2 said:

    I assume that suggesting Rebecca L-B as a credible successor was added through humorous intent.

    Thornberry is a possibility, although I would think she would struggle in an election.

    If he is replaced in office, credibly it can only be from someone already in the top team. Therefore it depends on who his key appointments are likely to be.

    A scenario not examined in the lead is if Labour finds itself only able to form a government by dealing with the SNP and/or the LibDems.

    Thornberry is someone who'd be a real turn off to non-metropolitan English marginals.

    Everything about her screams London urban left-wing snob.
    I demur. She comes across as reasonable, even tho I detest her views. Is it the accent, the (possibly fake) human warmth? Dunno. But she passes the have-a-prosecco-with-her test.

    I recommended her as next Labour leader several years ago. I stand by it.

    I reckon Corbyn will PROBABLY lose, by a slender margin, the next election, even if the Tories fuck up Brexit (which now looks inevitable). She's the best candidate to beat a TMay replacement, by a mile.
  • Acorn_AntiquesAcorn_Antiques Posts: 196
    SeanT said:

    I think the next Labour leadership contest will be an all women affair and I can imagine there would be a bit of gentle pressure applied to male MPs considering throwing in their hat. I can see Emily Thornberry (5/1), Angela Rayner (10/1) and Lisa Nandy (25/1) standing. I think Rayner is the value choice and most likely to be supported by trade unions, but you could do worse than back all three.

    How about someone like Kate Osamor? Female, black, North London seat, a Corbyn loyalist, and not (insofar as I'm aware) mixed up with some of the more contentious foreign policy baggage.
    She is quite unbelievably stupid, judging by her Twitter stream. She can't spell, she's deeply ignorant, she's mulishly stubborn even when her errors are pointed out, she cries racism whenever she can, she is an imbecile.

    So, yeah, perfect. I imagine they will choose her.
    (Resists temptation to take cheap shot at Diane Abbott)

    I typically refrain from actually gambling real money on anything, save for the annual flutter on the National. But perhaps I shall follow my instincts in this case and wager a few pence?
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 25,234
    John_M said:

    IanB2 said:

    AUSTRIAN Chancellor Sebastian Kurz has called on Brussels to “find a way” to offer Britain a post-Brexit deal which will keep the UK’s relationship with the Continent as strong as possible.

    Helpful. We all know how much the Commission loves Austria, perhaps May will get Duda to put a word in for us next.
    The Commission will yield (a bit) if a QMV of the EU27 moves against it.

    I sense Merkel either can't or won't move, but there are others in the CSU and her Government who disagree.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 25,234

    Foxy said:

    TOPPING said:

    @TheJezziah fpt

    The UN had a vote and thereby partitioned Palestine.

    Both the Jews and the Palestinians had been there for centuries. Each got a State. Sounds fair to me. Why do you want to discriminate against one set of peoples?

    FPT also:
    In 2011, Mahmoud Abbas stated that it was a historic mistake for the Arabs not to have accepted the 1947 UN Partition Plan.

    https://www.haaretz.com/1.5216743
    So, the borders of Israel from 1948-67 are fine then?

    They would have been had the Arabs accepted them and not started another war in 67.

    Rejecting the 47 partition plan was an historic mistake.
    Rejecting the 67 borders was an historic mistake.
    Rejecting the 00 peace proposal was an historic mistake.

    How many more historic mistakes will we need to go through?
    They might never end. There were partition/division plans in the 1930s and early 1940s too, when it was still a British mandate.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 14,489
    edited July 27
    Foxy said:

    ydoethur said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    TOPPING said:

    @TheJezziah fpt

    The UN had a vote and thereby partitioned Palestine.

    Both the Jews and the Palestinians had been there for centuries. Each got a State. Sounds fair to me. Why do you want to discriminate against one set of peoples?

    FPT also:
    In 2011, Mahmoud Abbas stated that it was a historic mistake for the Arabs not to have accepted the 1947 UN Partition Plan.

    https://www.haaretz.com/1.5216743
    So, the borders of Israel from 1948-67 are fine then?

    They would have been had the Arabs accepted them and not started another war in 67.

    Rejecting the 47 partition plan was an historic mistake.
    Rejecting the 67 borders was an historic mistake.
    Rejecting the 00 peace proposal was an historic mistake.

    How many more historic mistakes will we need to go through?
    The 1967 War was initiated by Israel, with a surprise attack on Egypt. As indeed was the 1956 war, with Anglo French conspiracy too.
    That's a somewhat simplistic characterisation. Given Egypt had closed the Straits of Tiran, massed troops in the Sinai and Nasser had said he wanted the Israelis to attack, I think it is fair to say Egypt bears at least some of the responsibility. Certainly they bear the responsibility for bringing in Jordan and Syria with such disastrous consequences.

    The minor detail they were caught by surprise when the Israelis did exactly what they had threatened to do and bombed seven shades of excrement out of them merely goes to show that Nasser and his generals actually were as thick as five posts and not the great national figures and military leaders they believed themselves to be.
    Sure, tensions had been building, but the fact is that the 1956 and 1967 wars were started by the Israelis.
    c-a-s-u-s b-e-l-l-i
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 12,252
    edited July 27
    Foxy said:

    So, yes, Israel did start the war, after increasing tensions, including Israeli air operations against Egypt and Jordan.

    Justifiable pre-emption possibly, but whether Nasser was just sabre rattling as so many times before, we cannot know.

    OK, last word.

    No, I do not accept your definition of 'starting' he War, certainly not in 1967. Nasser had broken a ceasefire, committed acts of war and declared his intention to destroy Israel. The fact he wasn't actually throwing things at them was irrelevant.

    If you run up to somebody who (a) is a champion boxer (b) is wearing brass knuckles and (c) you never liked, and shout loudly, 'I'm here with all my mates, we've cut off your escape route and we're going to tear you to pieces with our bare hands...'

    Don't be surprised if you find before the last word is out there's a mysterious gap in your memory before you wake up in intensive care.

    Saying afterwards 'we didn't mean it, why did you beat us all up?' isn't a great defence, and good luck trying to persuade the judge that he started it.

    That's what Nasser was trying to do. He got thumped. The Palestinians have suffered ever since.
  • SeanTSeanT Posts: 20,954
    IanB2 said:

    SeanT said:

    I think the next Labour leadership contest will be an all women affair and I can imagine there would be a bit of gentle pressure applied to male MPs considering throwing in their hat. I can see Emily Thornberry (5/1), Angela Rayner (10/1) and Lisa Nandy (25/1) standing. I think Rayner is the value choice and most likely to be supported by trade unions, but you could do worse than back all three.

    How about someone like Kate Osamor? Female, black, North London seat, a Corbyn loyalist, and not (insofar as I'm aware) mixed up with some of the more contentious foreign policy baggage.
    She is quite unbelievably stupid, judging by her Twitter stream. She can't spell, she's deeply ignorant, she's mulishly stubborn even when her errors are pointed out, she cries racism whenever she can, she is an imbecile.

    So, yeah, perfect. I imagine they will choose her.
    Would like be putting you in charge of the Tories.
    Quite so. I entirely agree. I am an impulsive, bipolar alcoholic with a tendency to get punchy when challenged. I am much cleverer than her, but equally unsuited to political office. I might just do OK as a wartime Goebbels type character, but otherwise Nah

    Takes one to know one, etc.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 15,478
    Foxy said:

    So, yes, Israel did start the war, after increasing tensions, including Israeli air operations against Egypt and Jordan.

    Justifiable pre-emption possibly, but whether Nasser was just sabre rattling as so many times before, we cannot know.

    Do you not understand the concept of a casus belli? Is your pacifist mindset too stupid to realise that Israel had justification for war? It still does, given the fact that it's neighbours (and seemingly the English left) wish the extermination of all Jews.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 21,542
    John_M said:

    IanB2 said:

    AUSTRIAN Chancellor Sebastian Kurz has called on Brussels to “find a way” to offer Britain a post-Brexit deal which will keep the UK’s relationship with the Continent as strong as possible.

    Helpful. We all know how much the Commission loves Austria, perhaps May will get Duda to put a word in for us next.
    I love the way people interpret such comments as being supportive of the British position. The Commission has already "found a way" to keep the UK relationship close - it consists of humiliating the Brexiteers.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 12,252
    SeanT said:

    IanB2 said:

    I assume that suggesting Rebecca L-B as a credible successor was added through humorous intent.

    Thornberry is a possibility, although I would think she would struggle in an election.

    If he is replaced in office, credibly it can only be from someone already in the top team. Therefore it depends on who his key appointments are likely to be.

    A scenario not examined in the lead is if Labour finds itself only able to form a government by dealing with the SNP and/or the LibDems.

    Thornberry is someone who'd be a real turn off to non-metropolitan English marginals.

    Everything about her screams London urban left-wing snob.
    I demur. She comes across as reasonable, even tho I detest her views. Is it the accent, the (possibly fake) human warmth? Dunno. But she passes the have-a-prosecco-with-her test.

    I recommended her as next Labour leader several years ago. I stand by it.

    I reckon Corbyn will PROBABLY lose, by a slender margin, the next election, even if the Tories fuck up Brexit (which now looks inevitable). She's the best candidate to beat a TMay replacement, by a mile.
    I wonder if she will repeat that silly claim she made that she was a Colonel in the British Army?
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 4,070

    Foxy said:

    TOPPING said:

    @TheJezziah fpt

    The UN had a vote and thereby partitioned Palestine.

    Both the Jews and the Palestinians had been there for centuries. Each got a State. Sounds fair to me. Why do you want to discriminate against one set of peoples?

    FPT also:
    In 2011, Mahmoud Abbas stated that it was a historic mistake for the Arabs not to have accepted the 1947 UN Partition Plan.

    https://www.haaretz.com/1.5216743
    So, the borders of Israel from 1948-67 are fine then?

    They would have been had the Arabs accepted them and not started another war in 67.

    Rejecting the 47 partition plan was an historic mistake.
    Rejecting the 67 borders was an historic mistake.
    Rejecting the 00 peace proposal was an historic mistake.

    How many more historic mistakes will we need to go through?
    They might never end. There were partition/division plans in the 1930s and early 1940s too, when it was still a British mandate.
    Having made the Balfour declaration, we reneged on it and stopped Jewish refugees from Nazism emigrating in the 1930s. We managed to piss off both sides in the same conflict, which is why Britain should not get involved on either side. Our "help" in the Middle East has never been very helpful or welcome.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 10,728
    Breaking: some good news at last - Jean-Claude Juncker seeks deal on free movement of pets

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jul/27/jean-claude-juncker-seeks-deal-on-free-movement-of-pets
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 10,728
    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    TOPPING said:

    @TheJezziah fpt

    The UN had a vote and thereby partitioned Palestine.

    Both the Jews and the Palestinians had been there for centuries. Each got a State. Sounds fair to me. Why do you want to discriminate against one set of peoples?

    FPT also:
    In 2011, Mahmoud Abbas stated that it was a historic mistake for the Arabs not to have accepted the 1947 UN Partition Plan.

    https://www.haaretz.com/1.5216743
    So, the borders of Israel from 1948-67 are fine then?

    They would have been had the Arabs accepted them and not started another war in 67.

    Rejecting the 47 partition plan was an historic mistake.
    Rejecting the 67 borders was an historic mistake.
    Rejecting the 00 peace proposal was an historic mistake.

    How many more historic mistakes will we need to go through?
    They might never end. There were partition/division plans in the 1930s and early 1940s too, when it was still a British mandate.
    Having made the Balfour declaration, we reneged on it and stopped Jewish refugees from Nazism emigrating in the 1930s. We managed to piss off both sides in the same conflict, which is why Britain should not get involved on either side. Our "help" in the Middle East has never been very helpful or welcome.
    Sending them Blair to help would have been the final straw.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 12,252
    SeanT said:

    IanB2 said:

    SeanT said:

    I think the next Labour leadership contest will be an all women affair and I can imagine there would be a bit of gentle pressure applied to male MPs considering throwing in their hat. I can see Emily Thornberry (5/1), Angela Rayner (10/1) and Lisa Nandy (25/1) standing. I think Rayner is the value choice and most likely to be supported by trade unions, but you could do worse than back all three.

    How about someone like Kate Osamor? Female, black, North London seat, a Corbyn loyalist, and not (insofar as I'm aware) mixed up with some of the more contentious foreign policy baggage.
    She is quite unbelievably stupid, judging by her Twitter stream. She can't spell, she's deeply ignorant, she's mulishly stubborn even when her errors are pointed out, she cries racism whenever she can, she is an imbecile.

    So, yeah, perfect. I imagine they will choose her.
    Would like be putting you in charge of the Tories.
    Quite so. I entirely agree. I am an impulsive, bipolar alcoholic with a tendency to get punchy when challenged. I am much cleverer than her, but equally unsuited to political office. I might just do OK as a wartime Goebbels type character, but otherwise Nah

    Takes one to know one, etc.
    On the other hand, you can attract young Corbynistas before scr...no, that pun would be tasteless.
  • SeanTSeanT Posts: 20,954
    ydoethur said:

    SeanT said:

    I think the next Labour leadership contest will be an all women affair and I can imagine there would be a bit of gentle pressure applied to male MPs considering throwing in their hat. I can see Emily Thornberry (5/1), Angela Rayner (10/1) and Lisa Nandy (25/1) standing. I think Rayner is the value choice and most likely to be supported by trade unions, but you could do worse than back all three.

    How about someone like Kate Osamor? Female, black, North London seat, a Corbyn loyalist, and not (insofar as I'm aware) mixed up with some of the more contentious foreign policy baggage.
    She is quite unbelievably stupid, judging by her Twitter stream. She can't spell, she's deeply ignorant, she's mulishly stubborn even when her errors are pointed out, she cries racism whenever she can, she is an imbecile.

    So, yeah, perfect. I imagine they will choose her.
    Having googled her, I came across this rather amusing incident:

    https://www.totalpolitics.com/articles/diary/kate-osamor-shoots-messenger-after-interview-causes-controversy

    It reminds me of the American author Richard Carrier, who sued somebody for libel after a claim that he had seduced a delegate at a conference - only to have to withdraw that charge when she pointed out she was quoting, word for word, his own blogpost on the subject!
    I seriously think she is the stupidest MP I have encountered online. And I have encountered, on this site, STEWART JACKSON MP

    So that's quite something.
  • AnneJGPAnneJGP Posts: 2,276
    Interesting thread header, Alastair, thank you.

    If Labour & Mr Corbyn do lose the next election, surely it is practically guaranteed that the next Labour leader will become PM?

    Won't that add to the incentive for the ambitious? Will anyone be willing to stand aside for others?

    Good evening, everyone.
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 10,326

    IanB2 said:

    I assume that suggesting Rebecca L-B as a credible successor was added through humorous intent.

    Thornberry is a possibility, although I would think she would struggle in an election.

    If he is replaced in office, credibly it can only be from someone already in the top team. Therefore it depends on who his key appointments are likely to be.

    A scenario not examined in the lead is if Labour finds itself only able to form a government by dealing with the SNP and/or the LibDems.

    Thornberry is someone who'd be a real turn off to non-metropolitan English marginals.

    Everything about her screams London urban left-wing snob.
    I don’t see Thornberry winning Swindon or Nuneaton. Or getting overwhelming support in Wales. She definitely doesn’t get Scottish seats back in any decent number. So I don’t see her winning a majority.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 12,252
    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    TOPPING said:

    @TheJezziah fpt

    The UN had a vote and thereby partitioned Palestine.

    Both the Jews and the Palestinians had been there for centuries. Each got a State. Sounds fair to me. Why do you want to discriminate against one set of peoples?

    FPT also:
    In 2011, Mahmoud Abbas stated that it was a historic mistake for the Arabs not to have accepted the 1947 UN Partition Plan.

    https://www.haaretz.com/1.5216743
    So, the borders of Israel from 1948-67 are fine then?

    They would have been had the Arabs accepted them and not started another war in 67.

    Rejecting the 47 partition plan was an historic mistake.
    Rejecting the 67 borders was an historic mistake.
    Rejecting the 00 peace proposal was an historic mistake.

    How many more historic mistakes will we need to go through?
    They might never end. There were partition/division plans in the 1930s and early 1940s too, when it was still a British mandate.
    Having made the Balfour declaration, we reneged on it and stopped Jewish refugees from Nazism emigrating in the 1930s. We managed to piss off both sides in the same conflict, which is why Britain should not get involved on either side. Our "help" in the Middle East has never been very helpful or welcome.
    John Buchan wrote in 1921 that our policy in the Middle East had been partially successful. Having been bitterly divided and at each others' throats, they had found a common cause - hostility to the British.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 4,070
    MaxPB said:

    Foxy said:

    So, yes, Israel did start the war, after increasing tensions, including Israeli air operations against Egypt and Jordan.

    Justifiable pre-emption possibly, but whether Nasser was just sabre rattling as so many times before, we cannot know.

    Do you not understand the concept of a casus belli? Is your pacifist mindset too stupid to realise that Israel had justification for war? It still does, given the fact that it's neighbours (and seemingly the English left) wish the extermination of all Jews.
    By all means argue that it was a justifiable pre emptive war, but it is simply fact that Israel had meticulously planned its attacks and fired the first shots.

    The ongoing issue is its behaviour in the occupied territories since, including annexation of territory in East Jerusalem and settlements, while denying the Palestinians rights to that land. While pre 1948 Palestine had both Jewish and Arab populations, the territories occupied post 1967 were indisputably arab populated.

  • Andy_CookeAndy_Cooke Posts: 959
    After the link to Cummings' blog posted on the last thread, I found this interesting (from before the referendum); he was looking at the validity of a second referendum (one on the deal itself) should Leave win:

    "Further, as a matter of democratic accountability, given the enormous importance of so many issues that would be decided in an Article 50 renegotiation – a far, far bigger deal than a normal election – it seems right to give people a vote on it."

    Implicit in the rest of the post is that Remain should be an option - he discusses whether having a Leave in the first referendum not be an irrevocable choice to exit due to this referendum on the deal might make it easier to win the first referendum by making it less of a leap in the dark.

  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 15,478
    Foxy said:

    MaxPB said:

    Foxy said:

    So, yes, Israel did start the war, after increasing tensions, including Israeli air operations against Egypt and Jordan.

    Justifiable pre-emption possibly, but whether Nasser was just sabre rattling as so many times before, we cannot know.

    Do you not understand the concept of a casus belli? Is your pacifist mindset too stupid to realise that Israel had justification for war? It still does, given the fact that it's neighbours (and seemingly the English left) wish the extermination of all Jews.
    By all means argue that it was a justifiable pre emptive war, but it is simply fact that Israel had meticulously planned its attacks and fired the first shots.

    The ongoing issue is its behaviour in the occupied territories since, including annexation of territory in East Jerusalem and settlements, while denying the Palestinians rights to that land. While pre 1948 Palestine had both Jewish and Arab populations, the territories occupied post 1967 were indisputably arab populated.

    It's a casus belli. Look up what that means.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 12,252
    SeanT said:

    ydoethur said:

    SeanT said:

    I think the next Labour leadership contest will be an all women affair and I can imagine there would be a bit of gentle pressure applied to male MPs considering throwing in their hat. I can see Emily Thornberry (5/1), Angela Rayner (10/1) and Lisa Nandy (25/1) standing. I think Rayner is the value choice and most likely to be supported by trade unions, but you could do worse than back all three.

    How about someone like Kate Osamor? Female, black, North London seat, a Corbyn loyalist, and not (insofar as I'm aware) mixed up with some of the more contentious foreign policy baggage.
    She is quite unbelievably stupid, judging by her Twitter stream. She can't spell, she's deeply ignorant, she's mulishly stubborn even when her errors are pointed out, she cries racism whenever she can, she is an imbecile.

    So, yeah, perfect. I imagine they will choose her.
    Having googled her, I came across this rather amusing incident:

    https://www.totalpolitics.com/articles/diary/kate-osamor-shoots-messenger-after-interview-causes-controversy

    It reminds me of the American author Richard Carrier, who sued somebody for libel after a claim that he had seduced a delegate at a conference - only to have to withdraw that charge when she pointed out she was quoting, word for word, his own blogpost on the subject!
    I seriously think she is the stupidest MP I have encountered online. And I have encountered, on this site, STEWART JACKSON MP

    So that's quite something.
    I don't seem to remember him. Did he have another name or was he around before 2007?
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 14,543
    Foxy said:

    So, yes, Israel did start the war, after increasing tensions, including Israeli air operations against Egypt and Jordan.

    Justifiable pre-emption possibly, but whether Nasser was just sabre rattling as so many times before, we cannot know.

    No they didn't. If you want to go on technicalities then Egypt started the war, in 1948. Egypt and Israel were in a permanent state of war until the peace treaty in the 70s,

    There was a ceasefire in place following the 56 conflict but Egypt ended the ceasefire.

    Ending a ceasefire with someone you're at war with is pretty much initiating a conflict isn't it?

    Nasser couldn't have been just sabre rattling he'd already acted. He'd scrapped the ceasefire, kicked out the UN and shut down the Straits.
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 10,326

    John_M said:

    IanB2 said:

    AUSTRIAN Chancellor Sebastian Kurz has called on Brussels to “find a way” to offer Britain a post-Brexit deal which will keep the UK’s relationship with the Continent as strong as possible.

    Helpful. We all know how much the Commission loves Austria, perhaps May will get Duda to put a word in for us next.
    I love the way people interpret such comments as being supportive of the British position. The Commission has already "found a way" to keep the UK relationship close - it consists of humiliating the Brexiteers.
    William, have you ever been a member of the Tory party?
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 25,234
    Good article. Nice to get back to the betting.

    I'd rate Rebecca Long-Bailey as a serious threat to the Conservatives at the next election.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 19,338
    Foxy said:


    By all means argue that it was a justifiable pre emptive war, but it is simply fact that Israel had meticulously planned its attacks and fired the first shots.

    You can hardly fault a country for meticulous military planning, when it has been threatened with being wiped off the face of the Earth....
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 21,542
    Mortimer said:

    John_M said:

    IanB2 said:

    AUSTRIAN Chancellor Sebastian Kurz has called on Brussels to “find a way” to offer Britain a post-Brexit deal which will keep the UK’s relationship with the Continent as strong as possible.

    Helpful. We all know how much the Commission loves Austria, perhaps May will get Duda to put a word in for us next.
    I love the way people interpret such comments as being supportive of the British position. The Commission has already "found a way" to keep the UK relationship close - it consists of humiliating the Brexiteers.
    William, have you ever been a member of the Tory party?
    I've never been a member of any party.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 21,542

    I'd rate Rebecca Long-Bailey as a serious threat to the Conservatives at the next election.

    Presumably this is reverse psychology?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 12,252
    Mortimer said:

    John_M said:

    IanB2 said:

    AUSTRIAN Chancellor Sebastian Kurz has called on Brussels to “find a way” to offer Britain a post-Brexit deal which will keep the UK’s relationship with the Continent as strong as possible.

    Helpful. We all know how much the Commission loves Austria, perhaps May will get Duda to put a word in for us next.
    I love the way people interpret such comments as being supportive of the British position. The Commission has already "found a way" to keep the UK relationship close - it consists of humiliating the Brexiteers.
    William, have you ever been a member of the Tory party?
    It's more I think that he doesn't get sarcasm or irony.
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 10,326

    Mortimer said:

    John_M said:

    IanB2 said:

    AUSTRIAN Chancellor Sebastian Kurz has called on Brussels to “find a way” to offer Britain a post-Brexit deal which will keep the UK’s relationship with the Continent as strong as possible.

    Helpful. We all know how much the Commission loves Austria, perhaps May will get Duda to put a word in for us next.
    I love the way people interpret such comments as being supportive of the British position. The Commission has already "found a way" to keep the UK relationship close - it consists of humiliating the Brexiteers.
    William, have you ever been a member of the Tory party?
    I've never been a member of any party.
    Not even the EPP? :)
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 21,542
    edited July 27
    ydoethur said:

    Mortimer said:

    John_M said:

    IanB2 said:

    AUSTRIAN Chancellor Sebastian Kurz has called on Brussels to “find a way” to offer Britain a post-Brexit deal which will keep the UK’s relationship with the Continent as strong as possible.

    Helpful. We all know how much the Commission loves Austria, perhaps May will get Duda to put a word in for us next.
    I love the way people interpret such comments as being supportive of the British position. The Commission has already "found a way" to keep the UK relationship close - it consists of humiliating the Brexiteers.
    William, have you ever been a member of the Tory party?
    It's more I think that he doesn't get sarcasm or irony.
    I don't get it? It's my sarcasm that you consistently fail to interpret. I probably responded to the wrong post so my comment shouldn't be read as a direct response to John.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 25,234
    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    TOPPING said:

    @TheJezziah fpt

    The UN had a vote and thereby partitioned Palestine.

    Both the Jews and the Palestinians had been there for centuries. Each got a State. Sounds fair to me. Why do you want to discriminate against one set of peoples?

    FPT also:
    In 2011, Mahmoud Abbas stated that it was a historic mistake for the Arabs not to have accepted the 1947 UN Partition Plan.

    https://www.haaretz.com/1.5216743
    So, the borders of Israel from 1948-67 are fine then?

    They would have been had the Arabs accepted them and not started another war in 67.

    Rejecting the 47 partition plan was an historic mistake.
    Rejecting the 67 borders was an historic mistake.
    Rejecting the 00 peace proposal was an historic mistake.

    How many more historic mistakes will we need to go through?
    They might never end. There were partition/division plans in the 1930s and early 1940s too, when it was still a British mandate.
    Having made the Balfour declaration, we reneged on it and stopped Jewish refugees from Nazism emigrating in the 1930s. We managed to piss off both sides in the same conflict, which is why Britain should not get involved on either side. Our "help" in the Middle East has never been very helpful or welcome.
    Well, Britain's actions were decisive in establishing the state of Israel. Without the Balfour declaration, and the period under the Mandate when all that immigration safely took place under Britain's protection, it would never have happened.

    But, Britain got zero gratitude for it from either side.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 10,728

    Good article. Nice to get back to the betting.

    I'd rate Rebecca Long-Bailey as a serious threat to the Conservatives at the next election.

    Have you heard of Betfair Exchange?
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 4,070

    Foxy said:


    By all means argue that it was a justifiable pre emptive war, but it is simply fact that Israel had meticulously planned its attacks and fired the first shots.

    You can hardly fault a country for meticulous military planning, when it has been threatened with being wiped off the face of the Earth....
    Of course, and I do not think the Israeli pre emptive strike unreasonable, but they did initiate the fighting.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 12,252

    ydoethur said:

    Mortimer said:

    John_M said:

    IanB2 said:

    AUSTRIAN Chancellor Sebastian Kurz has called on Brussels to “find a way” to offer Britain a post-Brexit deal which will keep the UK’s relationship with the Continent as strong as possible.

    Helpful. We all know how much the Commission loves Austria, perhaps May will get Duda to put a word in for us next.
    I love the way people interpret such comments as being supportive of the British position. The Commission has already "found a way" to keep the UK relationship close - it consists of humiliating the Brexiteers.
    William, have you ever been a member of the Tory party?
    It's more I think that he doesn't get sarcasm or irony.
    I don't get it? It's my sarcasm that you consistently fail to interpret.
    Of course it is, William. :smile:
This discussion has been closed.