ml1dch

I've not seen many people posting Israeli propaganda on this thread that you need to balance out.

Downing Street flags department is on fire at the moment.

Oh, yes please.

I think that anyone who has got as far as taking the time to talk to strangers on the internet about potential solutions, that same percentage that you give would be completely on board with your three sides. People who don't want the complete destruction of one side or the other would recognise the bit in bold without too much dissent. But without wanting to be too provocative, I'd go as far to say as the people who say "there should be a ceasefire", they're using it as shorthand for "we want Israel to stop". Which is fine, I'd like that too, but that's not a ceasefire, because Hamas are not going to hold up their end of the ceasefire bargain. So when Israel stop and Hamas carry on, what is the play from there*? Because what happens in reality then is Israel turn round and say "see, we told you that this is what we had to do". Obviously that's rhetorical, as I know that you've already said you don't know, as is the case for anyone.

Personally I can't really understand the calls for a ceasefire without any further discussion about how you go about getting two sides, neither of whom want one and one of whom you have no diplomatic relations with or leverage over to do that thing you're calling for. Otherwise it's as relevant as just calling for world peace. It's a noble objective, but not a solution to what's actually happening. I think the whole thing would be much easier to discuss if there was an assumed "Obviously I would like both sides to stop trying to kill each other" at the top of every comment.

Because "ceasefire" in the terms being discussed is only realistically a request for one side to stop. If both sides were happy to stop trying to kill each other, then there wouldn't be discussion. But given Hamas have explicitly said that they won't er...cease firing, there's not really much point in asking for one is there? There are no diplomatic avenues to pursue that will cause them to stop firing rockets at Israel. So it's not a case of objecting to it, it's a case of understanding that it's not an option that is on the table, outside of making people feel better about themselves by calling for it as a solution.

Not many cash donations, but lots of flights for Labour MPs to go to Israel, including about half the shadow cabinet. He mainly funds the Labour Together think tank, to whom he's given around £360,000 over the last few years. That's what a bit of Googling tells me. No idea whether this information supports or refutes the idea that Labour's perfectly reasonable position is a consquence of its leader being in hoc to the machinations of the state of Israel.

His position sounds fine to me (with apologies for length)

Excited to see how the likes of Henderson and Maguire get on. Very excited.

Some excellent ones in the thread. Craig Gardner's jumped out particularly.

Gaza Public Opinion Polls, 14th November 2023 Makes pretty bleak reading. For example:

Nope. If it were, ditching Braverman was the last thing they would have done. They'd be leaning into her rhetoric rather than trying to distance themselves from it.

Isn't the two problems with this position (a) what happens to the Israeli hostages currently in Palestine, and (b) haven't Hamas explicitly said that they don't want a ceasefire and want to carry on firing rockets at Israel? If a "ceasefire" happens, what is the correct course of action when Hamas don't er....cease firing? edit: there's a possibility that this is for a different thread.

I suspect it's that because it's a lot of people have talked themselves into believing that anyone who didn't like Corbyn is automatically "right wing" and that's why they didn't like Corbyn. And it's then a shock to learn that all these fairly normal, left-wing people who hold normal, left-wing opinions actually are pretty comfortable voting for fairly normal, left-wing positions.

Phillips could have called for the nuclear destruction of Palestine and she would retain Yardley at the next election. I'm sure that it'll make her constituency life easier by going down this route, but risk of losing her seat isn't something that would have needed to enter her calculations.

Probably nobody.

Although to be fair, it's not a million miles away from what more reputable companies are giving. This is post-Braverman / Cameron, so looks like it's a gamble that isn't paying off yet. Which is good.

I agree. Putting aside the topic of last night's amendments (very big thing to put aside, I appreciate) from a Westminster perspective I don't really blame anyone for what they did. Sensible politicking from the SNP, trying to create divisions in their biggest electoral danger. Understandable response from Labour, laying their own (perfectly reasonable) amendment. Sensible politicking from the Tories in not voting for that (even though it's basically their own position) to help create divisions in their biggest electoral danger, as if they'd voted for it and the Labour amendment passed then the SNP one wouldn't even have been moved. No issue with the Labour MPs who wanted to vote for the SNP amendment. No issue with the shadow front-benchers losing their jobs over it.

Jess Phillips is Yardley, Shabana Mahmood is Ladywood. And you're right that ethnoreligious profile of their constituency is a guide to how their MP might have voted - but it's going to be a mixing pot of doing what they think is right, electoral expedience and genuinely trying to represent the opinions of their constituents in parliament. In what proportion of each probably depends on the MP. Incidentally, I'm pretty sure that Jess Phillips could wear an "I Netanyahu" t-shirt between now and the next election and she'd still comfortably hold her seat.

So the next step of the plan - send everyone to Rwanda, those whose asylum applications succeed, stay there. Those that fail, have to return to the UK. There's no way that can fail, right?

Call me cynical, but I think a lot of these resignations are going to end up being pretty performative. Resign, let Starmer walk away with his authority intact, they get to "have done the right thing" for their constituents and then they quietly get their job back in the next reshuffle.

It's not. It's Matt Goodwin's PeoplePolling and should be completely ignored, even when it's saying something that people want.

"If there's something that you want to do but it's illegal then you should just do it anyway" is a rich vein running through Toryism. Whether it's deportations, public money or sexual consent.

Although, I believe the judgement also cited the UN Refugee Convention - so even if they *were* to somehow succeed with all of the above, the plan still wouldn't be lawful.