Jack the Sipper

Given that you believe a secular, more moderate, and more effective representative of Palestine (the PLO) existed before Hamas, that Israel also recognised this and created this Frankenstein's monster called Hamas with the intention of destroying the PLO, I'm not sure why you would dismiss the idea that another moderate and effective alternative to Hamas could ever come to the fore again in Palestine. Do you think that Israel would just create another Hamas after they've done with this one?

The PLO was ousted from the Gaza Strip by what many leftists and other supporters of the Palestinian cause believe was an Israeli-created Hamas, first in the 2006 elections, then in the Battle of Gaza a year later. Do you believe that Israel helped create or fund other otherwise encourage the rise of Hamas, at the inevitable expense of the more moderate PLO?

I want two front teeth for Christmas, failing that I'd happily see the whole Israeli government on trial for war crimes. But it's not about what I want, it's about what might bring about a solution to the problem of people being bombed out of their homes, right now. That's the hard reality, and if them being saved means an end to Hamas and the hostages being freed, I'd take that in a fucking heart beat. I certainly wouldn't consider it meaningless. I swear, I get the feeling that some who claim to care about the innocents above all else are actually more concerned that Israel don't get a win here. A price too far for them.

I forgot to add that, I do want the slaughter of innocents to stop, which is why I support a ceasefire, and always have done, and which is why I questioned you calling a ceasefire that involves, as you put it 'all hostages released, Hamas destroyed' as 'meaningless'. My support for a ceasefire, and the thousands of lives saved isn't conditional on whether or not 'Israel gets it's own way'. I just want lives saved at this point.

Not necessarily. There's always the possibility that a new representative of the Palestinian people could be secular rather than Islamist, political rather than militant, democratic rather than dictatorial. If, as so many think, Israel created Hamas to further its own ends, doesn't it stand to reason that an organisation that was the complete opposite to what they created would be more effective in representing the Palestinian cause?

Well, the fact that you called a 'sustainable ceasefire' that involves hostages being released and Hamas destroyed 'meaningless'. And they never had a 'ceasefire', but a 'pause in the fighting' If we're going to bandy these terms about and stick inverted commas around them then let's do it right. It was always the case that fighting would resume, unless all the Israeli hostages were released and Hamas surrendered. If you 'just want the slaughter to stop' wouldn't you be in favour of Hamas surrendering? Or is it because that's what Israel wants it's a step too far for you?

Leaving aside your 'etc', why would you be against Hamas being destroyed and hostages being released. What do you think the terms of a ceasefire that could be agreed on by both sides would consist of?

Yeah, a German Shepherd no less. Dog-whistle politics of the worst kind.

Of course, but they are also morons that have a vote and help decide elections. To bury your heads in the sand and they 'that's not how it should be, so I'll carry on as if it isn't' is a hallmark of the left in this country. I'm also pointing out that the argument that it's ok to be 'electable' (even without being elected), and 'doing well' isn't the winning argument some think it is when the other side can point to what they delivered and promised and did better than doing well and were elected. Would it be fair for someone to say that austerity, hostile environments, fucking over the poor etc have all been vindicated as people elected the party that ran on those tickets?

I guess that would make you Melissa Poulton.

That tweet and accompanying graphic represent the worst type of disingenuous politician's spiel, and to defend it, and continue to defend it, and say that it's all true reflects badly on you IMO. The point of that tweet, even by yours and Momentum's terms, is meaningless. Labour lost both elections. I'll say that one more time: Labour under Corbyn lost both elections. And they lost to a party that delivered austerity, promised cuts to public services, privatisation, tax cuts for the wealthy. increased homelessness, foodbanks and poverty. Doing well at elections just isn't enough when the party promising the exact opposite does even better.

Sad to say, Angry, but you're not really helping explain why Momentum would use terms like 'electable', 'voters responded', 'Theresa May humiliated' and, erm, 'Labour won' to describe Labour losing two elections on the spin. They claim Corbyn's Labour were electable, even though they were never elected. They compare Corbyn's Labour favourably to Blair's Labour of 2001, even though the latter won whilst the former lost. They claim that voters responded to anti-austerity proposals, which means they responded even more favourably to Cameron's austerity measures, May's hostile environment and opposition to Corbyn ever being PM. and Boris fucking Johnson - all of whom were elected. They say that May was 'humiliated', even though she actually got her party more seats than Oh, Jeremy Corbyn won his. If they're not claiming that's winning, they're doing a great job of showing what winning's like. That's like the political version of that Taff's Tavern board. Or maybe they're using the Chomsky definition of 'winning': https://pa.media/blogs/fact-check/the-conservative-party-won-the-2017-general-election/

This is what winning looks like to a cultist: losing two elections in the space of two years, and giving the country another seven years of Tory government. Utterly fucking deluded.

Yeah, I figured it might be something like that after I posted.

Anyone know what an 'ocean going dud' is? Just seen Starmer called one in the Heil, and a quick check on Twatter shows it's been used before, mostly by those on the right, but with no context.

Having read the article, and the fact it was in the Torygraph, it's pretty obvious what he was trying to do, which was to draw a distinction between a Tory leader who was strong, successful on her own terms and who got on with things, and the current Tory leader, who, by contrast, is weak, hesitant, and in hoc to the different wings of his party. A fair point to make in itself - it's not as if we don't say similar shit on here about Tories who "at least had convictions", "at least showed compassion" etc, even sometimes in contrast to Labour leaders. I've even seen people here talking up the likes up Rory Stewart, Ken Clarke and Crispin Blunt to make points about other politicians they don't like. But it was never going to be received that way. It was always going to be portrayed as a Thatcher love-in by his opponents, even though they know the point he was making. And Starmer should have known that. It was also never likely to win over any Thatcher-loving Tories who read the Torygraph anyway, so I don't really see what he was gaining from it, aside from trolling the left. A misstep here, then, although I'm still supporting Labour and hoping they win big next year because I want the Tories out and dead and buried.

"That money was just resting in my account"

Best result for me, this, especially the thumping. Since the points deduction it's been about how they've messed with the wrong club, how it will galvanise the players, the fans, the club. Watch out mid-table here we come! The first test, at home, and they play like shit with, I would guess, the usual booing from the fans. And to top it off, the obligatory fume at the penalty. Man U aren't troubling us or even the top 4 this season, so let the Bitters suffer.

The Who?

I had a drink with him in Camden about 15 years ago. It's not every day I end up feeling pity for a millionaire that's shagged Kate Moss, but he attracts parasites like shit attracts flies.

After a lifetime of not really giving a fuck I've built a little portfolio over the past couple of years once inflation started getting out of hand. Most of it's in index funds like Vanguards Vusa that tracks the S&P 500, with small amounts in individual stocks and Bitcoin/Ethereum. I'm in it for the long term, but if I cashed in now I'd be around 20% up all told, which is a good return, especally considering the markets. My advice, if you want it, would be to do plenty of research, stick to funds rather than companies at first, and diversify.

I realise you're not speaking for KevinD, but when you say 'those responsible' for a terrorist attack in London I hope you're talking about the terrorists, and it's them saying 'what have we done?' when they realise they they've killed innocent people, perhaps including those marching for Palestine, in a misguided attempt to show their anger at the decisions of a political elite. What the fuck is retaliatory about someone killing Joe Average going about his business because Rishi Sunak didn't call for a ceasefire or whatever else they might want to pin on him or his peers and predecessors? I just can't be doing with this blame-shifting, mitigating, even justifying terrorist cunts deliberately killing and blowing innocent people up. They're to blame for that, no cunt else.

Sounds like the members forum here, minus the 'non-disabled' bit.

Who's 'we' exactly?