ml1dch

Don't think there will this time. Reform have their blueprint, and the names are even the same. In 1993 Canada's Progressive Conservative Party party went from 156 seats down to just 2, largely because of pressure from the right from Preston Manning's (basically the proto-Farage) Reform Party, who went from 1 seat to 52. With the mainstream Tory party more or less wiped out, Reform then "merged" back with the remains of the PCP to create a new Conservative Party of Canada, with the Reform policies / people but the prestige and infrastructure of the older party. Last time I checked, they were on track to win the next Canadian election. It's not 2019, Reform don't want to help the Tories keep Labour out - they now want the Tories to be wiped out so that they can take their place.

Think all the nails have already been hammered in. There's now no more time to get any additional legislation on it through before the next election.

Risks becoming a bit Streisandy as well. Tories pushing the extending version of the video, saying how everyone should ackchooally watch the extended version where their leader is instructed how to hammer away like a three year old getting a new Early Learning Centre toy isn't *that* much better than the one everyone was laughing at. The overall tableau, in any context, is a net negative for the Tories.

"When's White Friday then eh? EH?!??"

I think that if there is every a promotion opportunity, he's passed a law that says he has to put Claire Coutinho in it.

There are two questions - "can Farage ever become Tory leader?". Sure, for all the reasons you say. He's a terrible shit, and the shits in the Tory party are quite capable of putting that sort of shit in charge of them if the will is there from his side. But the push-back is on the question "can Farage be the next Tory leader?". And the answer to that is definitely not, for all the reasons others have said.

Somewhere between a big shrug of the shoulders and a gif of a tumbleweed. A bit like Chris Waddle's opinions on Yemen or what Des Walker has to say about the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.

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.